Adaptive Governance of Disaster

Agriculture is a fundamental sector providing food, economic output and employment, and a way of life for billions of people. It faces many challenges as a result of climate change, such as changing seasonal patterns, increasing climate variability and more extreme weather events. Extreme weather events and in particular, drought and flood (d&f) are increasing in frequency and intensity (IPCC 2012a, 2014; Parry et al. 2007). The adaptive capacity of agricultural producers to these extreme events needs to be increased in order to reduce their vulnerability to the impacts of drought (through reduced crop and resulting sales revenue) and flood (through damaged crops and equipment). The aim of this research is to increase understanding of policy instruments and goverrnance practices that will increase the adaptive capacity of rural agricultural producers to d&f by strengthening their human, social, economic, technological, and natural capitals.

This chapter explores and unites literature surrounding adaptive governance. First, the particularities of governance, in particular adaptive governance, are evaluated (see Sect. 2.2). Building on why adaptive governance best addresses - the problem of d&f in relation to agricultural producers (see Sects. 1.​3.​2 and 2.2), this chapter examines: How has adaptive governance evolved (see Sect. 2.3.2)? How do the adaptive governance, adaptive management, adaptive co-management and anticipatory governance literatures relate (see Sect. 2.3.3)? What are the key gaps in the literature of adaptive governance in relation to climate change and extreme events (see Sect. 2.3.4) and how can these gaps be filled (see Sect. 2.4)? This chapter takes an ideal-typical approach to defining the above terms; in fact authors of each term (adaptive management, adaptive co-management and anticipatory governance) often stretch these to take new elements into account, thus creating confusion about the breadth of each of these terms.

This chapter sets out the methodology; it operationalizes the theoretical framework and explains how the research was conducted. This research is qualitative, deductive, emerging comparative case study research, shaped by my experience in climate change adaptation research and participation in several research projects involving Latin American and Canadian researchers (see Sect. 1.​6). The methodology is a combination of the multi-level institutional method adapted from Young et al. (2005), together with four additions (see Sect. 3.2).

This chapter explores the dominant institutions at the international level involved in agricultural producer livelihoods and response to climate change, d&f (see Sect. 4.4) and analyzes how they are structured and framed (Sect. 4.5). First, it examines the institutions’ instruments related to climate change, adaptation, d&f, the relevant international drivers (Sects. 4.2 and 4.3), as well as social learning (see Sect. 4.6). Finally, the implications of these international organizations, instruments, and learnings are identified for redesigning instruments for agricultural producers at the case study level (see Sect. 4.7). Because of the focus on the agricultural producer of this book, a full assessment of adaptive governance of d&f at the international level is beyond the book’s scope.

This chapter evaluates Saskatchewan’s adaptive governance framework surrounding d&f. It explores how Saskatchewan’s institutional policy framework (organizations and instruments) surrounding d&f impacts capitals (human, social, economic, technological, and natural) of agricultural producers given local and national drivers. Following the methodology of Chap. 3, it first describes the study area (see Sect. 5.2) and then examines the drivers impacting Saskatchewan producers (see Sect. 5.3); the pertinent organizations (see Sect. 5.4); and the relevant policy instruments (see Sect. 5.5). This allows for an examination of how policy problems are structured, risk and uncertainty are accounted for, and the nature of the environmental governance approach within the institutions of d&f governance (see Sect. 5.6). Next, an assessment is made of how effective the instruments are and the nature of learning (see Sect. 5.7), the impacts of the instruments on livelihood capitals of agricultural producers (see Sect. 5.9); and how the institutional policy framework can be characterized in relation to the dimensions of adaptive governance and hence be redesigned (see Sect. 5.10).

This chapter explores the impact of Alberta’s institutional policy framework on agricultural producers and is structured similarly to Chap. 5. The effectiveness of the main instruments responding to d&f are evaluated and analysed in relation to effectiveness, policy framing, impact on livelihood capitals, and dimensions of the ACW, in the context of drivers.

This chapter explores the institutional policy framework of Coquimbo, Chile of climate change, d&f and its impacts on agricultural producer capitals, given local, international, and national drivers. The chapter is structured like all case study chapters.

This chapter explores how the capitals of agricultural producers in Mendoza, Argentina are impacted by the institutional policy framework surrounding d&f. The chapter is structured like other case study chapters exploring and evaluating adaptive governance.

The adaptation of agricultural producers to climate change has been studied extensively. However, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the types of instruments that effectively respond to d&f, the impacts different instruments have on agricultural producers and their livelihoods, and how these instruments are framed in formal policy (see Sect. 1.​3.​3). This chapter compares the case studies of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Coquimbo, and Mendoza to provide insights to these questions and ascertain how policy instruments operate within differing contexts (institutional governance structures, political and socio-economic drivers, etc.).

Agricultural producers are essential for feeding the world’s growing population. They generate employment, income, and savings; contribute to health and prosperity, cultural identity, farm tourism, and household food security, and represent a significant sector in DCs (WWAP 2015). The impacts of climate change are anticipated to worsen in the future and may lead to increasing extreme events of d&f. This, in turn, will increase the vulnerability of rural agricultural producers. The cost and destruction associated with d&f draws attention to the need to plan for and respond to d&f. The institutional governance system wherein this occurs (the water, emergency, climate change and adaptation system) is an important component of adaptive capacity (Termeer et al. 2013) impacting the agricultural producers and their communities.