1. Dr James D. Ford, Dr Lea Berrang-Ford, Alexandra Lesnikowski Climate Change Adaptation Research Group Dept. Of Geography McGill University, Montreal www.jamesford.ca james.ford@mcgill.cajames.ford@mcgill.ca, lea.berrangford@mcgill.ca,lea.berrangford@mcgill.ca alexandra.lesnikowski@mail.mcgill.ca Are we adapting to climate change?

2. Context 1. The rise of adaptation ▪ Failure of mitigation ▪ Locked into some climate change (likely >2C) ▪ Climate already changing ▪ Multiple benefits today 2. Are we adapting? ▪ Policy implications ▪ Does anyone know if adaptation is taking place and where? ▪ Does anyone know if mitigation is taking place and where?

3. The famous “Keeling Curve”

5. Context 3. How do we track adaptation? ▪ Mitigation is relatively easy to monitor ▪ Adaptation is more challenging 4. Emerging imperative: indicators and milestone for adaptation ▪ What are appropriate indicators of adaptation? ▪ Is there evidence that we are adapting? ▪ What would adaptation ‘look like’?

6. How is adaptation tracked currently? 1. IPCC reports / National assessments ▪ Qualitative ▪ Criticisms of methods: Not systematic, transparent ▪ Time-consuming & not timely (5-6 years) 2. Expert knowledge

7. Adaptation tracking: a call for new approaches 1. Systematic 2. (semi) Quantitative 3. Rapid 4. Focused on adaptation action 5. Emerging examples ▪ Tompkins et al. (2010) – adaptation in the UK (grey & peer-reviewed lit) ▪ Arnell (2010) – review of Climatic Change ▪ Biesbroek et al (2010) - adaptation in the EU

8. Why do we need this type of review? 1. Systematic, rapid, transparent (selection + analysis) 2. Compliments IPCC process 3. Guided by a focused question: Are we adapting? 4. Provide a snapshot of trends using a simple proxy A need for increased (methodological) scrutiny of global adaptation.

9. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature Ford et al 2011; Ford et al 2011

10. “climat*” AND “adapt*” In Web of Knowledge 2006-2009 Systematic document retrieval InclusionExclusion Phase 1: Keyword search EnglishNon-English 1 January 2006-1 July 2009Pre-2006 or after 1 July 2009 Indexed in the ISI WOKNot available via ISI WOK Reviews & ArticlesOther Phase 2: Title & abstract review HumanNatural (e.g. plants, animals) Adaptive responseMitigation, Vulnerability only Practical focusConceptual / Theoretical focus PresentPrehistoric or future Adaptation activities or actionsPredictive models & vulnerability assessments or intentions to act 87 documents met inclusion criteria

11. Aimed at quantitative analysis What is the stimulus? Who or what is adapting? What is the nature of the adaptation? Systematic document analysis

12. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation Reporting on adaptation actions is limited but increasing

13. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation Adaptations are most likely to be stimulated by climatic variability

14. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation Adaptations are often mainstreamed Debates over mainstreaming (e.g. Dovers (2009), Adger and Barnett (2009))

15. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation The global distribution of adaptation reports is inequitable

16. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation Adaptation profiles differ between high and low income countries LowHigh Reactive adaptationsProactive adaptations Short-term motivations (e.g. market conditions) Stimulated by long-term climate change Individual or community levelNational and regional level Weak government or stakeholder involvement Stronger government involvement Natural resource sectors (e.g. agriculture, fisheries) Non-resource sectors (e.g. infrastructure, transportation) Avoiding, coping, spreading risk Monitoring, building partnerships, institutional guidelines Middle income countries are varied, but generally have a similar profile to low income countries

17. Are we adapting to climate change? A global systematic review of climate change adaptation The global distribution of adaptation reports is inequitable

18. Discussion 1. Adaptation action is limited (research has not translated into action). 2. Extreme climate stimuli may facilitate adaptation response. 3. There is an adaptation deficit in middle-income countries (despite a similar profile to low income countries) 4. Negligible action to take advantage of adaptive opportunities 5. Negligible consideration of unique vulnerabilities of women, elderly, children, and non-Arctic Indigenous populations.

19. Is adaptation to the health effects of climate change taking place? 1. Systematic assessment of adaptation actions in high income nations 2. Further development of ‘are we adapting’ methodology Lesnikowski et al 2011

20. Goals 1. How advanced are national responses? What range of health vulnerabilities are being addressed? What types of action are being initiated? 2. Are the needs of all populations considered? Are vulnerable groups being integrated into adaptation planning and implementation? 3. Who is leading the way and who is lagging behind?

21. Methods 1.Policy analysis of National Communications of 38 Annex-1 nations to the UNFCCC (NC 5’s : 2009-10) 2.Identification of adaptations Any reference of initiatives resulting to health vulnerabilities of CC N=1,912 3.Development of a Policy codebook Level of actions Statements of recognition Groundwork: impact / vulnerability assessments, adaptation research, stakeholder involvement, conceptual tools, policy recommendations Adaptation action: legislation, infrastructure, outreach, surveillance, financial support, medical interventions Health vulnerabilities: extreme weather, food and water safety, air quality, vector- borne disease, etc.

22. Result 1: Adaptation is primarily at the groundwork stage

23. Result 2: Major health vulnerabilities not addressed by all nations

24. Health Vulnerability: Extreme Heat

25. Health Vulnerability: Floods

26. Health Vulnerability: Disease

27. Result 3: Limited health rationale in adaptations 1.Majority of adaptations relevant for health but not framed as ‘health adaptations’ 2.Only 15% explicitly presented as health adaptations 3.Consistent with health adaptation deficit (e.g. Costello et al 2009) 4.Mainstreaming dominates

28. Result 4: Reporting on groups is inconsistent across populations 1.Limited evidence that vulnerable populations being targeted

29. People With Chronic and Pre-existing Conditions: How Often Are Their Needs Considered? Adaptation Areas Addressed

30. People with Disabilities: How Often Are Their Needs Considered? Adaptation Areas Addressed

31. Indigenous Groups: How Often Are Their Needs Considered? Adaptation Areas Addressed

32. Discussion 1. Adaptation action is limited (research has not translated into action) 2. Impact and vulnerability assessments dominate 3. Hypothesize a role for extreme events, country size 4. The link between CC impacts and human health in not being explicitly made

33. Adaptation in Canadian Health Policy A systematic review of Civil Society Organization (CSO) participation in health adaptation initiatives in Canada Poutiainen et al. (In submission) Methods 1.Systematic identification of CSOs engaged in health adaptation activities in Canada 2.Quantitative systematic review of adaptation actions (mandate, jurisdiction, stimulus, response) 3.Qualitative interviews with 17 leading CSO engaged in health adaptation initiatives in Canada Key results 1.CSO Participation is highly diverse. CC recognition high among senior admin in leading organizations 2.Adaptation actions are largely occurring outside of the health sector 3.Responses predominantly reflect awareness & research activities 4.Partnerships across sectors and stakeholders are widely considered as the most important future opportunity for CSOs 5.National and international policies are critical in defining the financial and policy environment 190 Organizations Database of 1196 initiatives

34. Summary: Are we adapting to climate change? 1.3 research projects: systematic tracking methodology developed 2.Baseline of current action: Adaptation is emerging as a priority, but we remain predominantly in the groundwork stages. Adaptations are generally mainstreamed (will this be enough?) There is limited focus on vulnerable populations, despite evidence of differential vulnerability. 3.Critical time for adaptation 4.Need for continued assessment of progress

35. Limitations and considerations 1. Data quality is a primary concern  What kind of data do you use?  Need to consider accessibility, consistency 2. Adaptation as a concept is constantly evolving  What does adaptation look like?  How do you define and categorize adaptation? 3. How strictly do you define what you include and exclude in a systematic analysis? 4. A reasonable proxy of adaptation trends

36. Where do we go from here? 1. Expanded global analysis ▪ High, middle, and low-income countries ▪ Total of 105 countries from all continents ▪ Full range of vulnerabilities identified in IPCC AR4 ▪ Cross-sector analysis 2. NC6  Measuring progress on adaptation 3. What makes countries more likely to adapt?  Comparing “factors” of adaptation using data gathered from NC5  Do countries with similar adaptation profiles share particular characteristics?  A C Lesnikowski et al (In preparation)

37.  Thank-you  Questions? Alexandra Lesnikowski alexandra.lesnikowski@mail.mcgill.ca www.jamesford.ca