CLIMATE CHANGE: WE ARE AT RISK
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
INTERIM REPORT
CHAPTER 5:
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER
“…water is, in fact, a rural resource.”
Dr.
Mohammed Dore, Brock University[1]
“…the
climate anomaly of greatest concern is drought.”
Dr.
Dave Sauchyn, University of Regina[2]
Climate
affects all aspects of the hydrological cycle. Consequently, changes in the
climate are likely to affect water supplies and demands, as well as ecosystems
that specifically depend upon regular supplies of water. The Committee heard
evidence of how climate change might affect ecosystems and water supplies,
potential impacts on water demands, the effect on our agriculture, forests and
rural communities, and some adaptation strategies.
A.
Effects of Climate Change on Water Resources
Climate
change may affect the quantity, quality, timing, location, and reliability of
water supplies. Warmer temperatures will alter the magnitude and the timing of
precipitation. Furthermore, warm air holds more moisture and increases
evaporation of surface moisture. With more moisture in the atmosphere,
precipitation tends to be more intense, increasing the potential for extreme
events such as floods. As Dr. Sauchyn, Coordinator,
C-CIARN Prairies, stated:
“We
expect storms to occur with increasing frequency so that a rainstorm … of a
certain size will occur more often.”[3]
But
of all the aspects of climate change that have been studied, such as
temperature, precipitation is the least understood, and predictions on how
precipitation regimes will change are the most uncertain. Dr. Sauchyn
continued:
“The forecast of precipitation [indicates] anything from a small
decrease in precipitation to quite a large increase. Most of the scientific
information points to actually increased rainfall and snowfall in the Prairie
provinces…[yet] as a result of the higher temperatures, there will be a much
greater loss of water by evaporation, and also plants will transpire more
water. As a result of the increased water loss, the major impacts of climate
change on the Prairie provinces are loss of soil moisture and surface water.
Even though the good news is a longer growing season, the major limitation, as
a result of climate change, will be the loss of water. The loss by
evaporation, in particular, will much exceed the increased precipitation that
is forecast.”[4]
Dr.
Rhonda McDougal of Ducks Unlimited gave a regional perspective of the effects
on agriculture in the Prairie pothole region, where most of Canada’s crop
activity is situated:
“On
the Prairies, a high percentage of farm families and rural communities rely on
surface water sources for their drinking water, for livestock and all their
other water needs. This is a real concern across the Prairies, which are in a
water-limited situation every year, particularly in the last few years.”[5]
Most
troublesome for farmers and the forest industry is that,
“the
water cycle will be more variable, so there will be wet years. In fact, we
expect there will be years that are wetter than normal but, at the same time,
there will be years that are much drier than normal…”[6]
In
Canada, snow and ice are the principal source of runoff that supplies our
surface bodies of water, such as lake, rivers, and streams. Changes in snow
accumulation in Canada’s mountain ranges may not necessarily be gradual;
indeed, there may be a “radical change” due to warmer winters.
For the Prairies, the implications will be especially profound.
Much of the water in Saskatchewan and Alberta
is derived from glacier and snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains.
This snowmelt is the basis for irrigation in southern Alberta and
western Saskatchewan, and all of the cities in these two provinces derive
their water either directly or indirectly from the Rocky Mountains. Yet,
scientists expect most of the glaciers in the Rocky Mountains to disappear
this century.
Similar
changes are occurring in some other parts of the globe.
For instance, Mount Kilimanjaro, which has not been ice-free for 11,000 years,
will be ice-free within the next 20 or 30 years.
On the other
hand, Mr. Peter Johnson, Science Advisor for C-CIARN North, mentioned
that the warming that has been taking place in the North Atlantic and over the
Nordic countries has increased the amount of snow, which in turn has increased
the massive glaciers in Scandinavia. In
this case, the connection is being observed between warmer temperatures,
increasing open water evaporation, and more snow.
Dr. Sauchyn stated that the “dominant impact of climate change on the Prairie provinces [will be] the expansion of the land that is currently dry and supports grasses, and a shrinking of the land that is currently relatively wet and supports trees…[one] can easily appreciate the implications of this for both agriculture and forestry.” This loss in surface water will affect wetland ecosystems – habitats and wildlife:
“As we see these wetlands drying up and disappearing on the Prairies, we will also see a loss of rare plant species. We will see a loss of habitat and of some of the shelter belts and willow rings around these systems. Therefore, we will lose habitat for species at risk, for species that use these places as watering holes and as protection from predators at various times in their life cycles.” (Ducks Unlimited)[7]
Ms. Cheryl Bradley, from the Federation of Alberta Naturalists, mentioned that the modelling of river flows for the South Saskatchewan River Basin Water Management Plan process has determined that if instream flow needs are to be met for water quality, fish, riparian habitats and channel maintenance, limits for water allocation have been reached or exceeded in the Bow River, Oldman River, South Saskatchewan River and their tributaries. Mr. Petrus Rykes, Vice-President, Land and Environment Portfolio of the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, conceded that even his area of west Chilcotin, which is surrounded by significant glaciers, the water table is drying up. Thus, if the snowpacks are not replenished, there could be water-related conflicts in the future.
B.
Water Stresses on Agriculture,
Forestry, and Rural Communities
“Land
without water is a tough sell.”
Mr. Petrus
Rykes, Vice-President, Land and Environment
Portfolio
of the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia[8]
Although
changes in precipitation patterns are still uncertain, they will force
Canadians to operate very differently in terms of their use of water.
Given the demands for water by agriculture, the forest industry, and
households in rural and urban areas, the evidence indicates that water-use
conflicts will increase.
Picture 3: Above: St-Lawrence River 1999 – extreme level lower by 1 meter. Below: 1994 – average for the last 30 years. If 1999 was the average, which extremes are added?
Source:
Alain Bourque, brief
submitted to the Standing Senate Committee
on Agriculture and Forestry, Ottawa, December 12, 2002.
Across
Canada from the Atlantic to the west coast, agriculture, forests, and rural
communities are experiencing water stress.
For example, in
Atlantic Canada, Mr. Jean-Louis Daigle, of the Eastern Canada Soil and Water
Conservation Centre, mentioned that a consultant group had undertaken an
initial examination of water availability in consultation with the agriculture
industry. The study concluded
that there might not be a net shortage of water on an annual basis in the four
provinces. It did, however,
identify key issues including the availability of water in critical periods
for agriculture, potential concerns over the allocation of water resources,
and water quality for irrigation and the livestock.
The
northern part of British Columbia is experiencing more rain and less snow. While this phenomenon has caused spring flooding, river
levels later in the year are at record lows.
This has affected numerous farmers, but in different ways.
The Committee was told that one Prince George farmer used to water
every second week; but in the last year, she needed to water only once during
the whole year. A farmer in British Columbia’s Bulkley Valley, however,
reported that although there was a lot of rain last summer, he still had to
irrigate the soil because the soil did not maintain its moisture level.
Furthermore,
Ducks Unlimited mentioned that, as agricultural activity migrates north with
climate change, agriculture will occur in areas of higher wetland density.
There are even higher densities of wetlands in the boreal forest fringe
regions of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. There will be greater impacts
in those areas with competing uses for those water resources.
Many
sectors of the economy depend upon forests.
Ecotourism groups, for example, are vulnerable to increased risks due
to climate change. In 2000, in British Columbia alone, there were over 1,100
adventure tourism-related establishments using over 27,000 streams and lakes. Ms. Carol Patterson, President, Kalahari Management, gave
examples of increased difficulties faced by ecotourism operators. For
instance, in the case of activities that are dependent on water runoff, such
as whitewater kayaking and whitewater rafting, some operators are finding
insufficient water to maintain their business.
For example, where they used to be able to run rivers for three months,
they now may be able to run them for only one month.
Rural
communities that are dependent upon agriculture and/or forestry will face the
same water stresses.
If Canada’s agriculture and forest sectors are unable to cope with
changes in water resources and quality, rural communities will continue to
suffer not just in terms of a diminished economic base, but also in terms of
quality of life as water becomes scarcer or its quality is compromised.
While
some areas of Canada are likely to experience water shortages as the climate
warms up, others may experience the reverse.
Witnesses from various parts of the country emphasized that bigger
storms can be expected due to climate change, and that rainfall may come in
more intense bursts; this could result in increased soil erosion, and
consequently affect surface water quality and the quantity of wastewater to be
treated. In
Atlantic Canada, erosion and flooding are serious
concerns, as is the loss of coastal wetlands, which play a vital role in the
overall energy and biodiversity requirements of ocean ecosystems. Moreover,
greater instability in weather events increases the concern regarding
potential saltwater intrusion into freshwater ecosystems and drinking water
sources.
If these patterns continue, multiple users will be competing for the same resource, and there is a real danger that water quality will be compromised. An adequate supply of good-quality water is essential for livestock, irrigation, human consumption, and industrial use.
C.
Adaptation Strategies For Water Resources
Several
witnesses mentioned that the main effect of climate change is likely to be on
Canada’s water resources, and that it could compromise Canada’s ability to
meet the needs of Canadians. While few
adaptation strategies were actually suggested to the Committee,
the members understand that the operational
principles for adaptation will be different for agriculture, forestry, and
rural communities due
to the diverse level of resources and needs in these sectors. There are also regional,
provincial, and north‑south dissimilarities since the effects of climate
change will vary across the country.
Strategies
for adapting to climate change are perhaps most developed in the agriculture
industry, where farmers have learned to adapt to changes in weather for many
years. Witnesses mentioned
practices that are already being used, such as conservation tillage and green
cover crops to take marginal lands out of production, they could provide few
examples of methods to help farmers manage this source of risk. Similarly, no
concrete examples of adaptation to water stresses were provided for the forest
industry, other than the mention of hybrid trees. Yet the Committee was told
that these hybrids need intense management, such as heavy irrigation – which
would make them of questionable value in an era of increased water conflicts.
Several
witnesses did mention that with respect to water resources, adaptation
measures will probably concern mostly engineering and infrastructure, for
example, the development of large-scale irrigation systems and dams.
Some witnesses cautioned, however, that any plans for new
infrastructure must take long-term considerations into account.
As mentioned by Dr. Dore, a professor at Brock University, the IPCC has
advocated a “no regrets policy” – a policy that will generate net social
benefits whether or not there is human-induced climate change.
Working on technology to improve water use efficiency may be more practical in
terms of adaptation measures.
Rural
communities have limited resources to allocate to long-term planning
concerning the changing weather. Dr.
Dore mentioned that increasing precipitation in Eastern Canada will mainly
affect wastewater treatment. Existing
wastewater treatment capacity may not be adequate to handle high precipitation
due to storm water runoff. Furthermore,
high wastewater flows during high precipitation times and spring runoff will
result in the combined sewers being bypassed and untreated wastewater ending
up in lakes and rivers, polluting the precious resource.
Water systems will have to be updated to ensure a safe and adequate
water supply. Therefore, certain
areas will require transitional funding and adjustments to programs to ensure
that their economic base and quality of life are maintained.
Finally,
witnesses suggested that to maintain health of our rivers while also
accommodating human population growth and economic diversification, measures
are required to encourage water conservation and allow reallocation of water
to uses deemed of higher value. In
June 2002, the Alberta government authorized the use of water allocation
transfers and water conservation holdbacks.
Farmers have already taken such an approach; in 2001, sugar beet
growers in Alberta were allocated a specific amount of water per allotment and
used it on sugar beets, because they are a high-value crop, rather than on
cereals. If water use conflicts
increase in the future, decision-makers will have to determine what uses are
appropriate and inappropriate, and where our water is best allocated.
Summary
The
main effect of climate change is likely to be on Canada’s water resources.
While predictions of how precipitation
regimes will change are very uncertain, we can expect more variability
in precipitation with years that are wetter than normal, years that will be
much drier than normal and an increased frequency of storms
and droughts. Adaptation measures will mainly concern engineering and
infrastructure – irrigation, water treatment plants, etc. – but also
technology to improve water use efficiency.
Those measures will vary locally and will depend on the users –
agriculture, forestry, tourism, etc. Given the demands for water by
agriculture, the forest industry, and households in rural and urban areas, the
evidence indicates that water-use conflicts will increase. If water-use
conflicts increase, decision-makers will have to determine what uses are
appropriate and inappropriate, and where the available water is best
allocated.
CHAPTER
6:
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON RURAL COMMUNITIES
Most of
the research on the effects of climate change has focused on environmental
problems, such as the impacts on forest growth, crops, and water.
It should be made clear, however, that the vulnerabilities in the
agri‑food and forestry sectors go beyond environmental threats.
The biophysical effects of climate change will have financial and
economic repercussions. If the
financial viability of farming operations, forestry operations, sawmills and
other natural resource-based industries is threatened, so is the viability of
rural communities that rely on them.
Much
emphasis has been placed on the need for these communities to diversify their
economies so that they are less vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
But it is important to note that tourism, hunting, fishing, winter
sports, and Aboriginal culture are also affected by the changing weather
patterns (Box 11). Thus, climate
change is not just an abstract environmental problem, but also an economic
issue that will affect the livelihood of many Canadians.
For
example, Dr. Barry Smit mentioned that the 2001 drought was estimated by
Canadian Wheat Board economists to have cost approximately $5 billion.
The 2002 drought, which affected many parts of Canada, was even more
costly. Mr. Bart Guyon,
Vice-President of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties,
reported that the 2002 drought cost Canadian National alone more than $100
million in lost commodities.
The
impact of climate variations is even stronger when communities are unprepared.
Speaking from his own experience, Mr. Guyon described how in 2002 he had to
drill four water wells and two dugouts on his ranch as a result of the
drought. On a ranching operation,
lack of water and pasture does not give much time to react, leading to
draconian measures. While the
Committee acknowledges
that
we cannot say that a particular drought is caused by climate change,
scientific evidence does clearly indicate that we can expect changes in the
frequency of extreme weather events. The
recent droughts illustrate how serious such events could be for our unprepared
communities.
Rural
municipalities in Saskatchewan derive a significant amount of tax revenue from
agricultural land. In some cases,
there is no other industry and 100% of the municipal assessment consists of
agricultural properties. Therefore,
anything that affects the ability of the land to produce cash crops also
affects the ability of taxpayers to pay their municipal taxes.
Not only could rural municipalities lose revenue as a result of climate
change, but also they could be faced with increased expenditures.
Mr. Neal Hardy, President of Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities, gave as an example the increased number of forest fires as a
result of the 2002 drought. Several
rural municipalities experienced significant firefighting costs: the rural
municipality of Loon Lake alone spent $920,000 – twice its tax revenue.
Dr. Dore, a Professor at Brock University, also advised that
municipalities have responsibilities with respect to water. With changing
precipitation patterns, they will need the financial resources to upgrade
their infrastructure, including water storage, wastewater processing, and
sewage treatment.
The
three organizations representing rural municipalities who appeared before the
Committee during its tour of Western Canada agreed that many stresses already
affect the livelihoods of those who live in rural communities, including low
commodity prices and the economic effects of trade conflicts such as the
softwood lumber dispute. Sometimes
severe weather patterns make things even more difficult; the successive
droughts in the Prairies are a perfect example.
Ms. Sue Clark, of the North Central Municipal Association, however,
told the Committee that rural residents do not necessarily link these weather
events to climate change. Furthermore,
small rural communities do not necessarily consider climate change as a key
concern because of the multitude of other pressing issues they must face with
limited resources.
Over
the past several decades, rural communities in Canada, in particular
agricultural communities, have been changing dramatically in population and
composition, due to migration and structural changes in agriculture.
Agriculture does not attract young people because of the risks, the
capital investment, and the difficulty in making a living. In some areas,
other industries, such as the oil industry in Alberta, help to offset losses
in the agriculture industry. To
illustrate this evolution, Mr. Guyon mentioned that in his community in
Alberta, 85 to 90% of farmers have a second job.
In 2000, for example, off-farm income represented 56% of the total farm
income. This type of diversification is likely to accelerate as residents in
rural areas look for ways to protect themselves from economic risks that may
be aggravated by climate change. Therefore,
it is obvious that climate change will bring risks which, combined with the
other stresses on the rural sector in many parts of Canada, may speed up some
of the changes that are going on in rural Canada.
In
addition to the changes that have occurred in the social fabric of rural
communities during the past several decades, climate change will also bring
its share of social consequences. For
example, Dr. Brian Stocks, from the Canadian Forestry Service, mentioned that
a forest company might decide not to operate in an area because the odds are
too low of growing trees to 80 years without their being prematurely destroyed
by fire, insects or some other event. The
company will then decide to log trees in another region or country; but the
community that depends on this industry is not so mobile.
If the Palliser triangle becomes too dry for agriculture, what do you
do with the entire grain infrastructure there? Hypothetical
situations such as these pose hard questions for rural Canada and its natural
resource‑based economy. There
are no easy answers, but these communities must nonetheless begin to consider
preparations in raising their awareness on the potential effects of climate
change in their region, and incorporating these potential effects in their
long-term planning.
Some
possible solutions for rural communities would be first to communicate to
their residents that climate change is occurring and that they will need to
contend with it, just as they do with other economic risks. They will need to
identify their priorities based on their local biophysical conditions and
industry – whether it be agriculture, forestry, or some other natural
resource. Their priority may be to ensure adequate waste water treatment or
collection of water; priorities will vary across the country. Rural
communities will have to obtain the necessary financing for their adaptation
strategies, whether it is from their tax base, regional sources, provincial,
or federal governments. They will have to implement strategies that are
effective for their local conditions. Lastly, they will have to develop the
necessary human capacity – the skills – to undertake these actions.
Many
researchers have suggested that climate change is essentially a social
phenomenon. It will create winners and losers, mostly due to the direct and
indirect impacts on agriculture, forestry, and other sectors of the rural
economy. These impacts will vary
across regions, time horizons, and individuals.
The advantage of planning for adaptation is that it can be implemented
in an equitable and cost-effective way so to maximize the number of winners
and minimize the number of those who may lose.
Researchers involved in adaptation made it clear to the Committee that
rural communities also need reinforcement; Dr. Mehta told the Committee that
links exist between adaptive capacity and social cohesion. For example, if
water use conflicts increase, some users may be denied the opportunity to use
some adaptation options such as irrigation, and social cohesion will be
threatened; A strong social fabric is crucial in order to make real
improvements in adaptive capacity at the individual level.
Summary
Because
rural Canada relies largely on natural resource-based industries, it will be
more vulnerable to climate change. Over the past several decades, rural
communities in Canada have been changing dramatically, due to migration and
structural transformations in resource-based industries. The livelihoods of rural Canadians are already stressed by low commodity
prices and by trade conflicts such as the softwood lumber dispute and climate
change will bring additional challenges, which may aggravate the current
situation. Climate change will have significant financial and economic
repercussions on natural resource-based industries, and physical
infrastructure will also be challenged by increased weather-related damage. In
order to cope with these changes, rural communities will have to start
considering climate change effects in their planning.
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLE
This
report would be incomplete without mentioning the potential effects of climate
change on Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The
Committee met with elected representatives from the Metis Nation of Alberta
and the Kainai Nation (also known as The Blood Tribe).
Representatives from C-CIARN North also provided insights into the
situation of the Inuit. Those
three groups reported that Aboriginal people are seeing increasing evidence of
climate change. The C-CIARN North
representatives recalled that experience‑based ecological knowledge is
now broadly recognized as legitimate and accurate, and that it is particularly
important in areas where scientific data collection is limited.
Local observations can complement scientific information, offering a
more regional, holistic, and longer-term perspective on some of the changes
taking place. Dr. Rafique Islam,
Sector Advisor of the Metis Nation of Alberta Association, reported that the
knowledge and life experience of the Metis elders are closely correlated with
recent scientific findings on the trend of climate change.
According to the elders, climate change is palpable, and the change may
worsen the environmental damage to traditionally used and occupied land that
has already been caused by energy, forestry, and mining exploitation.
The
IPCC has concluded that indigenous peoples of the North are more sensitive to
climate change than non‑indigenous peoples, because their homelands and
hunting habitats will be directly affected.
Changes in sea ice, the seasonality of snow and habitat, and diversity
of fish and wildlife could threaten long‑standing traditions and ways of
life. In some areas of the North, indigenous peoples are already altering
their hunting patterns to accommodate changes to the ice regime and
distribution of harvested species.
Mr.
Andy Blackwater, of the Kainai Nation, also said that the tribe’s elders
have referred to the change in the climate, and how weather patterns are
affected. Traditionally, they have different ways of predicting the weather
over the next few days. In the Kainai culture, there is a month referred to as
"the moon of the geese"; but now ducks and geese appear at other
times of the year. March storms
also used to be very predictable, and a lot of people would prepare
accordingly; but increasingly they are not coming on time. Another concern is
in the area of traditional medicine: there is the risk of a real shortage in
the supply of roots and other vegetation used for traditional remedies.
Aboriginal people are very conscious of, and very concerned by,
changing weather patterns and other factors that affect their environment.
The issue goes right to the heart of these people because in disrupting
traditional knowledge, changing weather patterns affect the cornerstone of
their culture: the knowledge that has been historically looked to for
directions and guidance in life.
Although
there is some (limited) potential for developing agriculture in the North
under current climate change scenarios, the northern food supply will be more
affected by the impacts of climate change on subsistence activities such as
hunting and fishing. In other
parts of the country, however, Aboriginal peoples have developed agriculture
as a way to make a living. These
peoples include Metis farmers and ranchers, and First Nations such as the
Kainai Nation. The Kainai Nation
reserve has 330,586 acres of land classified for agricultural use, 21,373 of
which are irrigated. Like other
farmers, they will face the effects of climate change on their farm
operations, as they felt the effects of the 2001 and 2002 droughts.
Adequate
access to government programs, including farm support, training, and research
programs, has been discussed and represents a major issue for Aboriginal
peoples. C‑CIARN North representatives mentioned that interest in
building partnerships among scientists, First Nations, and northern
communities has increased in the past couple of decades.
Most of the documented local and traditional knowledge has been
collected in regions where scientific research has been focused.
One
further step, however, would be to improve access to programs that would help
Aboriginal peoples to adapt to climate change.
As Aboriginal peoples achieve rights to the management of resources and
landownership, their organizations are seeking a more meaningful role in
research, outreach action, and international negotiations on the climate
change issue.
Summary
Aboriginal
people have been true witnesses of climate change: the knowledge and life
experience of the elders have produced observations that are closely linked
with recent scientific findings on the trend of climate change. For the past
decade partnerships among scientists, and aboriginal people have increased,
notably in regions where scientific research has been focused, but access to
programs that would help them adapt to climate change is still very limited.
As Aboriginal people achieve rights to the management of resources and land
ownership, their organizations are seeking a more meaningful role in the
actions to tackle climate change.
WHAT
DO WE NEED TO DO TO ADAPT?
Researchers
who appeared before the Committee presented much valuable information about
the potential effects of climate change on Canadian agriculture, forests, and
rural communities. They also told
the Committee that those effects would start to become clearly evident some
time in the 2030‑2060 period. Circumpolar
countries, including Canada, and the tropics are the two regions that will be
affected first and most dramatically.
As
mentioned by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), however, our
understanding of the implications remains at a broad level.
We do not yet have a clear vision of what specific areas of our
agriculture, forests, and rural communities will look like as a result of
climate change. We are a long
way, for example, from being able to advise farmers or forestry companies on
suitable crops or trees for future climatic conditions.
Given this situation, a key question for public policy makers is: at
what point should public funds and other resources be allocated to assist
communities and to implement adaptation strategies for our agriculture and
forestry sectors?
The
Committee endorses the idea that planned adaptation is preferable to simply
allowing communities to find their own ways of getting by.
A recommended approach would be to enhance research on the impacts of
climate change, explore practical options for adaptation, and implement a
number of “no regret” policies and measures – i.e., policies and
measures that would improve our resilience to climate change, but that would
also generate net social benefits regardless of whether climate change occurs.
Examples include better risk management tools in agriculture,
conservation of protected areas (north-south corridors), and enhanced
wastewater treatment capacity.
Efforts
to develop adaptation strategies require collaboration among all stakeholders,
different levels of government, industries, and researchers.
The national adaptation framework that resulted from the federal and
provincial ministers of Environment and Energy meeting in May 2002 is a good
starting point for collaborative initiatives.
This chapter presents and discusses three areas for proactive action on
climate change: research, communication, and government programs.
“We
have some of the best climate researchers in the world in Canada[…] there is
no question that we have the leading scientists in the world here in
Canada.”
Dr.
Steve Lonergan, University of Victoria[10]
“Given
our incredible uncertainties, we have a huge need for incisive knowledge, and
I would suggest that the way we get it is through research capacity building.
We have a desperate need for that new knowledge.
It needs to be future oriented.”
Dr.
Peter N. Duinker, Manager, Atlantic Region,[11]
Canadian
Climate Change Impact and Adaptation Research Network
From
the beginning of this study, it became clear that research on impacts and
adaptation in relation to climate change is still in its infancy.
The Committee was impressed, however, by the quality of the research
undertaken in our country. Internationally,
Canada is recognized as a leader in climate change adaptation, and Canadian
researchers have contributed significantly to international initiatives on
this topic. Dr. Barry Smit, for
example, was the senior author of the Adaptation section of the IPCC Third Assessment
Report.
Canada is at the cutting edge of this issue, and it should stay that
way since our country, which already feels some effects, will be one of the
countries that is most affected by climate change.
Climate
change has the potential to exert enormous influence – positively or
negatively – on the future of our rural communities and on important sectors
of Canada’s economy. Improving our understanding of it is essential to our
ability to prepare and adapt. Climate
change research had, and still has, its share of funding, through the Climate
Change Action Fund and other funding agencies; but most of these funds address
the mitigation aspect of climate change.
NRCan is devoting approximately $48 million to its climate change
impacts and adaptation program for the period 1998-2006.
Of that amount, about $8 million has been spent on research to date.
Nevertheless, long before the negotiation and adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol, NRCan’s Canadian Forest Service was already undertaking research
on the potential impact of climate change on Canada’s forests and on
adaptation to changes that had been observed by the late 1980s.
The department now estimates that core funding for research has more
than doubled over the last five years, notably through the Climate Change
Action Fund and the C-CIARN program.
Nonetheless,
many witnesses advocated giving more attention to impact and adaptation
issues. There were also calls for
a better balance between funding for mitigation and funding for adaptation,
although no one suggested that a specific share of climate change funds be
targeted to adaptation. Moreover,
there are other constraints. For example, deans of forestry faculties across
the country are reporting that, even more than a lack of research funding, a
lack of facilities and, in particular, of well-qualified graduate students to
do the research has become a limiting factor.
Witnesses
suggested that if we want Canadian agriculture and forestry industries, and
rural communities to adapt to climate change and undertake research that
explores adaptation strategies, we must target our funding dollars to that
specific area. As Dr. Brklacich
put it, in the area of climate change, adaptation would otherwise “continue
to languish as the very weak third partner.”
It seemed obvious to many that without targeted funding, researchers
will continue to do research on topics for which there is already an
institutional capacity. If the
objective is to have a better understanding of adaptation, we must provide an
incentive to researchers to focus on this issue.
1.
The Need for Integrated Research
Witnesses
agreed that it
is extremely difficult to obtain funding for integrated approaches. Dr. Steve
Lonergan, from the University of Victoria, suggested that while Canada has
some of the best climate researchers in the world, their impact is being
diffused because not enough concerted effort has been made to get them
together through funded partnerships in integrated research.
2. Areas of Research
During
their discussions with the Committee, researchers and industry groups proposed
a number of areas where additional knowledge is essential.
This section briefly presents the four topics that received the most
attention from the witnesses: refinement of national and regional models,
examination of water resources, more detailed studies of the effects of
climate change on agriculture and forestry, and developing better
understanding of what farmers and forest managers think about climate change.
The
first area concerns the development of models.
Witnesses stated that current models have a broad resolution.
This is because thus far only global models have been developed – and
these global models are being used to study local effects.
For example, they do not take features such as the Great Lakes and the
Rocky Mountains into account. Trying
to downscale the output to look at the effects of climate change in a small
area, however, increases the level of uncertainty.
But with a North American model, for instance, there will have greater
accuracy about what we can expect for Saskatchewan. Therefore, there is a
clear need for climate data sets at a spatial scale that is useful for
agriculture and forestry. Dr.
Nigel Roulet, from McGill University, also pointed out the need to reduce the
uncertainties that are embedded in the models.
He suggested that social scientists work with climate modelling and
carbon modelling researchers to try to assess socio-economic impacts, and to
include adaptation options in the models.
Water
is the second topic of interest for research.
Changes in precipitation patterns will modify the water supply; changes
in land-use, and longer growing seasons, will affect water demand.
The combination of these factors will increase water management
difficulties, a prospect that highlights the need for more integrated research
on water availability and management. Furthermore,
as conflicts over water use are likely to become more common, Dr. Byrne (who
is involved in the Water Institute for Semi-Arid Ecosystems) suggested that
integrated research on water should be funded independently to allow
researchers to focus on the subject without concern about offending interest
groups.
The
CFA and other witnesses recommended that AAFC undertake a comprehensive study
of the effects of climate change on Canadian agriculture.
This research will give farmers a better understanding of what to grow,
what practices will be suitable, and what insects, pests or weeds are more
likely to affect their crops. To
date such studies have been done piecemeal, covering only a few regions and a
few crops. A systematic
assessment would create a better understanding of the effects and adaptation
options available to Canadians.
A
similar study on forests should also be undertaken.
The Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) pointed out that the
industry cannot do much without a more detailed understanding of the likely
impact on forests. The FPAC
suggested developing a good monitoring system to track what is happening in
our forest systems. Studies would
focus on the technical aspects of adaptation, and it is mostly the
responsibility of governments and research organizations such as universities
to provide that information.
According
to Dr. Christopher Bryant, of the Université de Montréal, it is impossible
to understand adaptation fully if we study only the biophysical impacts of
climate change and the technical aspects of adaptation; these, however, are
the areas where Canada invests the most research funds.
While our current research capacity is oriented towards assessing how
crops are sensitive to different climatic changes, this is only a small part
of understanding how producers can deal with climate risks.
Currently, the knowledge base on adaptation is lacking simply because
there has been little effort to understand what individual farmers and rural
communities know, and what adaptation options are available to them.
Dr. Smit listed a number of topics that need to be examined, such as
the current vulnerabilities in the agri‑food sector, the effectiveness
of existing risk management strategies, and the incorporation of
climate-related risks in management practices. Studying such topics would require a different research
approach: researchers would have
to learn from the experience of producers – including woodlot owners –
rather than only modelling adaptation options in the research labs.
In
addition to highlighting the four areas indicated above, the Committee wishes
to stress that research on climate change should not be emphasized over
research addressing other aspects of agriculture and forestry.
In fact, much of the latter research – such as development of crop
and tree varieties, soil and water conservation practices including
micro-irrigation and fertility research, and intensive forest management
practices – produces information that is applicable to adapting to climate
change, even though it is not specifically being done for that purpose.
3.
Fostering Research
While
a consensus exists for more targeted funding for integrated research,
witnesses proposed many different ways of reaching that end.
The following paragraphs present the four options that witnesses
suggested for fostering Canadian research on impacts and adaptation: enhancing
government research capacity, facilitating partnerships, targeting research at
universities, and creating a national climate change research centre.
The
federal government must show leadership in fostering research. Canada can
count on a wide variety of scientific, technical and policy expertise, both in
governments and universities, in engaging what are probably the most
challenging environmental, social and economic problems that it has ever faced
– those arising from climate change and accelerated global warming.
In that context, NRCan plays a decisive role in assuming the lead
domestically on climate change and adaptation.
NRCan can count on many world-class scientists for providing relevant
information and knowledge on the multiple facets of the issue.
Its expertise covers earth sciences, energy, forests, minerals and
metals. As key participants in
climate change research, the Canadian Forest Service and other sectors of
NRCan, along with all members of the Canadian forest community, provide tools
that will help to find ways to take advantage of climate change, when
possible, and to reduce its effects, when necessary.
The
forestry industry strongly believes that undertaking basic science on the
impact of climate change on Canadian forests is the responsibility of
government, while applying that science and exploring how forestry techniques
should change is more the responsibility of industry.
Although the Committee agrees to some extent with this statement, it
believes nevertheless that both the forest industry, and the government, must
be active partners in research on ecosystem changes, considering their
involvement into the long-term planning of forestry operations.
Certainly,
some fundamental research remains to be done on the issue of climate change;
and since long-term research requires long-term commitment, some witnesses
recommended that the scientific capacity of our governments be enhanced. Federal and provincial government research capacity could be
improved through an increase in human resources and funding for ongoing
activities (A-base funding) dedicated to climate change impacts and adaptation
in agriculture and forestry.
Another
strategy would be to facilitate partnerships between research organizations,
and to strengthen the capacity of universities to assist industries and rural
communities through research into adaptation.
National granting councils and special government funds such as the
Climate Change Action Fund should be encouraged to increase their funding for
integrated research on vulnerabilities and climate adaptation in the
agriculture and forest sectors.
The
Water Institute for Semi-arid Ecosystems (WISE) in Lethbridge is an example of
partnership between federal, provincial, academic, and private sector
organizations, including the University of Lethbridge, AAFC, Alberta
Environment, and the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association.
WISE brings researchers together on strategic and interdisciplinary
research. The Semi-arid Systems
Research Collaborative is a research network comprising researchers from
various disciplines located in seven universities and the major provincial and
federal government research centres in the four western provinces.
It creates a virtual centre that links expertise from various research
bodies. Strategic investment in
such partnerships was also suggested for climate change; a Network of Centres
of Excellence on climate change, for example, would foster partnership and
integrated research.
Dr.
Peter Duinker, a professor at Dalhousie University and manager of C-CIARN
Atlantic, suggested the creation of funded chairs, a special position that
would carry a low teaching load and a high research obligation, to entice our
best researchers into the field of climate adaptation.
Furthermore, he suggested the establishment of graduate student
research awards to increase the existing capacity among professors across
Canada to engage in impacts and adaptation research.
According to Dr. Duinker, establishing a funded research chair and four
or five student research awards in each of the six C‑CIARN regions would
cost only $1.8 million per year – a minimum of $200,000 for each funded
chair and $20,000 to $25,000 for each student award.
This initiative would create an important network and foster
much-needed research activity on impacts and adaptation.
Other
witnesses suggested that the synergies of having significant numbers of people
in one locale are also very positive. Speaking
from his own experience, Dr. James Byrne, from the University of Lethbridge,
mentioned that despite having colleagues in the same city for several years
who have much in common on climate change, they do not get a chance ever to
work together because they are too busy with other responsibilities.
Dr. Ned Djilali agreed that
current funding does not address the key notion of critical mass, and that
dispersion of resources is less effective since it entails much higher
expenses. Dr. Weaver also stated that many scientific
advances happen because
connections are made spontaneously when researchers
have the opportunity to be in the same place at the same time. He suggested the creation of a central facility, a national
institute with researchers from various disciplines working on climate change
in an integrated manner. The
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, the main U.K. research
centre on climate change, was praised many times for the quality of its
research. When asked about the
reasons for this success, officials from the Centre suggested two factors:
the centralization of numerous specialists in different fields in the
same location, and stable funding from the government.
They compared their situation to that of other countries, where there
is often more than one centre and where the expertise is often external to the
centre and has to be brought in from other institutions.
While
there are different approaches, the Committee thinks they can and do
complement each other. A
centralized agency could conduct research on models and the biophysical
effects in collaboration with AAFC and the Canadian Forest Service, or
research institutions such as WISE. This
approach could bring a national focus to climate change and generate knowledge
from country-wide studies on agriculture, forests and water resources.
On the other hand, adaptation strategies are specific to locations and
to settings. Therefore, research
on adaptation could be conducted primarily by regional research networks or
research chairs, etc. The
Committee wishes also to emphasize that sustained funding is imperative to
generate effective and relevant long-term knowledge.
Summary
Increasing research efforts in impacts and adaptation will improve our understanding of the biophysical and economic effects, the vulnerabilities of agriculture, forestry and rural communities, and successful adaptation options and strategies, particularly at the local level. Although increasing the funding for research is part of the solution, it will not be enough; solutions to foster research could rather focus on building the research capacity.
“I
want to emphasize […] that adaptation is not just a question of getting the
science right; it is also a question of engaging the stakeholders.
It is a question of awareness and understanding.
It is a question of political will, and I do not mean just at the
federal and provincial level, but also at the municipal level.”
Dr.
David Pearson, Chair, Canadian Climate Change Impact and
Adapt
Research Network Ontario[12]
According
to a study published by AAFC in March 2003, one-third of agricultural
producers believe that climate change is nothing to be concerned about. A slightly smaller proportion (30%) believes climate change
will have a positive effect, while 26% believe the overall impact will be
negative. Mr. Jean-Louis Daigle,
of the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre, noted that the
situation has evolved over recent years and that more farmers than previously
are now ready to hear about adaptation. Given
the importance of other immediate issues such as commodity prices, contracts,
and safety net programs, it is understandable that the long-term effects of
climate change are not currently a priority for farmers. Many of them, however, are already integrating different
strategies into their farm practices, often due to the last two or three years
of devastating droughts or rains.
The
forest industry acted on climate change very early on.
The industry’s current GHG emissions are 26% below the 1990 level,
while production has increased by 20%. On
the other hand, although it recognizes the importance of the potential impact
of climate change on the industry and forest-based communities, the industry
has taken a “wait and see” approach, arguing that no-one knows exactly
what will happen. Dr. Dan Smith,
a professor at the University of Victoria’s Tree-Ring Laboratory, mentioned
that on northern Vancouver Island the forest industry is planning for crop
rotation cycles of 500 years; however, it is not taking into account the
climate changes that are likely to occur, and is assuming that the same
conditions will apply.
Because
scientific information is complex by nature, communicating it has been a
common concern at all the public hearings.
How do we pass the information on to farmers, the forest industry, and
rural communities to enable them to take appropriate adaptation measures?
Since the long-term effects of climate change are not currently a
priority, the question of timing, and the type of message to deliver at a
specific time, will be important in any communication strategy.
1.
A Clear Message at the Right Time
Since
there are still uncertainties regarding the precise effects of climate change
on a scale that is relevant for farmers and forest operators, the key message
is that climate change is real and impacts are likely to happen.
It is very confusing, if you are not a climatologist, to hear one day
that climate change is a real thing, and to be told differently another day.
The first step should be to convey a consistent message balancing the
benefits and risks that are likely to result from climate change.
For example, the objective of this Committee study is to raise
awareness that climate change has the potential to affect rural Canada
significantly. The Committee does not want to sensationalize the issue and
needlessly scare the public; nevertheless, we would be remiss if we were to
ignore the clear message from witnesses that Canada is soon likely to face
much greater changes than it has experienced in the last hundred years.
It is valid to be concerned about the future.
As
the research community refines our understanding, the message will evolve to
provide more meaningful information for business decisions in rural Canada. Taking the agricultural sector as an example, Dr. Mendelsohn
from Yale University suggested that revised long-term climate forecasts be
issued on a decadal basis. That
is, every decade researchers would try to provide a clearer picture of what
Canada’s climate will look like over a given period, and relate this
knowledge to farming opportunities and risks.
This could be done by continually updating both our knowledge and the
information that is communicated. For
instance, since it is difficult today to adequately predict what the
agricultural sector should do in 2050, it might be more relevant to make such
predictions in 2030 or 2040. Furthermore,
farmers are already used to dealing with uncertainty.
They cannot be sure of conditions in next year’s growing season, let
alone in several decades; nor can they confidently predict prices, trading
policies or demand. Nonetheless,
they have to make their decisions and investments in light of those unknown
variables. Climate uncertainty is
part of the other risks that they must manage.
2.
A National Communication Strategy
Although
it was mentioned that scientists from the University of Guelph and the
University of Saskatchewan have been effective in sharing their results with
the agriculture industry, researchers recognized that the public communication
phase generally comes last after research and teaching.
In contrast to land grant universities in the United States,
universities in Canada do not have extension faculty members.
Dr.
Burton linked the farming community’s lack of awareness of the effects of
climate change to the limited extension capacity within the provinces. The capacity for extension services to deliver information to
farms and producers has been severely curtailed over the last 20 to 30 years.
The Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre, for example, has
only four people attempting to cover Eastern Canada in terms of
communicating with producer organizations.
In the forest industry, the Canadian Association of Woodlot Owners
noted that with the elimination of the federal-provincial forestry agreements
in the mid-1990s, most provinces cut back or cancelled their forest extension
staff. While some have restored the programs, others did so only
partially while still others did not at all.
Some
witnesses suggested the following strategies to ensure effective communication
between the research community and stakeholders:
·
the
establishment of specific extension groups that will help keep the researchers
involved;
·
more
discussion forums for producers and forest operators about climate change
challenges; and
·
additional
resources for education and awareness programs.
While
extension services address industry needs, reaching out to rural communities
is another aspect that must be examined.
Like many witnesses, the Committee thinks that with climate change,
“the buck stops in communities.” Those
who will live with the effects of climate change and must deal with it, such
as municipal councillors, the farming community, and the forest industry, are
often not engaged in discussions with researchers.
Furthermore, many of the research projects that are undertaken do not
have an immediate relevance for the stakeholders.
In
addition to the conventional view that the information must flow from
researchers to the industries and communities, the Committee recognizes that
it is equally important that the research community learn from producers, the
rural population, and aboriginal people. The research community will thus be
able to incorporate better knowledge on matters such as how farmers currently
deal with risks, and how local communities make water management decisions.
This two-way flow of information and knowledge will ensure that research into
adaptation is better rooted in local contexts.
The
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research Network has, as one of its
goals, the objective of bringing researchers together with decision-makers
from industry, communities, and non-government organizations. In November
2002, C-CIARN Ontario held a large workshop that focussed on communities.
The workshop dealt with impacts and adaptation potential for four
areas: ecosystem health, human health, water resources, and infrastructure.
One hundred people attended; about one-quarter of those were municipal
employees, while others were representatives of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and researchers from universities and government.
C-CIARN Forest held a workshop in Prince George, B.C., in March 2003,
at which small communities were represented along with environmental groups,
the forest industry, First Nations, consultants, provincial and territorial
governments, research organizations, and the Canadian Forest Service.
As
C-CIARN is a relatively new entity, these examples are just a beginning; but
they are the kind of discussions that need to be encouraged between
researchers and stakeholders. Mr. Peter Johnson, of C-CIARN North, also
suggested that we need to find different and more effective ways of developing
our relationships and talking with rural communities, particularly in the
North, where one must be a part of the community for some time in order to
understand it.
The decline in extension services, and the challenge of going into rural communities strongly suggest the need for a national communication and public outreach strategy that will focus on rural communities and their economy, including agriculture and forestry. This strategy will be a key step in assisting rural communities, farmers, and forest operators to plan for adaptation to climate change.
The
Committee thinks that a single, monolithic communication plan may not be
adequate to reach rural communities. Rather,
Dr. Bryant recommended a process by which people work in communities, interact
with farmers, woodlot owners and municipal employees, and bring them together
in small groups. This could be
done by revitalizing extension services, and using the various networks within
the farming community at the provincial and local levels.
Regionally based groups, including producer organizations, the “clubs agro-environnementaux” in Quebec, soil conservation groups (such as the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre), the PFRA, and others, all have networks. If the key people in these networks believe in the importance and relevance of certain ideas or information, it is then relatively easy for them to communicate with a large and broad-based proportion of the rural population. It is also important to have more than one point of entry into a given region, because some organizations may focus more on some sectors than others at certain times, or farmers may be members of organizations that do not always share their concerns. As Dr. Bryant put it, there is an enormous wealth of resources on the ground that we could use to communicate more effectively with the farming community. A good understanding and use of the various networks within a given region will enable a fairly rapid diffusion of information within the agricultural community.
As
for the message, it will be important to provide some guidance to the various
organizations. This may mean
emphasizing not only the importance of climatic change, but also the
importance of getting farmers and other decision makers to undertake strategic
planning processes that build on dealing with uncertainty and change.
In
addition to the mechanisms to reach out rural communities, rural Canadians
must also be able to find their information themselves. The use of the Internet in rural communities is more and more
popular but telecommunications infrastructures are not always adequate (party
lines, access to Internet by phone line only, etc.). The access to broadband technology is therefore essential to
each community. The Committee wishes to reiterate the following recommendation
it made to the Government of Canada in 2002:
The
government partners with private companies to ensure that 100 per cent of
Canadians have access to high-speed Internet services by following a plan like
Supernet in Alberta and connecting all public institutions. [13]
Summary
Because
of the complexity of this issue, communication will be the key to enable rural
Canada to adapt to climate change. Planning for adaptation is preferable to
only reacting to the effects, therefore a communication strategy will bring
the message to rural Canada that climate change is real, and that it is time
to start thinking about our vulnerabilities and ways to increase our
resilience. The communication strategy should include the revitalization
of extension services and use existing networks within rural communities to
ensure that current information is effectively distributed. The access to broadband technology is also essential to rural
communities to enable rural Canadians to actively search the information by
themselves.
C.
Government Policies and Programs
“One
of the problems about adapting is that we realize that there may be nothing we
can do about adapting right now, other than just being aware of the likelihood
of this happening.”
Mr.
Brian Stocks, Senior Research Scientist,
Forest
Fire and Global Change, Natural Resources Canada[14]
Government programs and policies such as farm income programs, tax credits, and insurance regulations significantly influence agricultural and forestry practices, and how these sectors react to specific stresses or situations. It is, therefore, an area that needs to be examined closely. A general goal of government policies should be to encourage the adoption of opportunities to adapt to climate change, or at the very least to avoid preventing the adoption of such opportunities.
1. Specific Programs to
Encourage Adaptation
Economists who appeared before by the Committee
recommended that the government create a framework to allow farmers and forest
operators to respond to signals. In
the agriculture industry, this would entail allowing farmers to make
adjustments as they see fit and, as they see the climate changing, allowing
them to make the necessary changes in their operations.
In the forest industry, it would mean ensuring that concession
agreements are not written so rigidly that, if conditions change in the
future, the licensees could not operate differently from their present
practices. Other witnesses
suggested that in order to adapt proactively to climate change, the
agriculture and forest industry require longer-term incentives that would
counter the short-term ones provided by competitive markets.
This would also help to make those industries more aware of the
benefits of planned adaptation.
The
Committee was told that NRCan and Environment Canada are primarily responsible
for identifying measures and programs in support of the goals and objectives
of climate change management. Currently,
however, NRCan believes that implementing incentives or regulations based on
our present level of understanding would be premature.
According to the department, NRCan has not yet completed the research
necessary to enable it to make specific policies to assist the natural
resource-based sector in adapting to climate change, such as incentives,
long-term tax measures, or promotion of investment in adaptation-related
innovation. As research results
begin to indicate where adaptive actions can make a difference, the government
will look at actions that may be needed, such as incentive-based regulations
to help the forest and agriculture sectors adapt.
For these two sectors, the federal government will need to work closely
with provincial governments in developing any such actions.
2. Incorporating Climate Change into Existing Programs and Policies
Government
programs such as crop insurance already influence adaptation undertaken by
producers. Current policies may,
in fact, either hinder or encourage adaptation efforts.
For example, insurance promotes certain behaviours.
During the Committee’s last trip to Western Canada, members were told
that farmers in some areas base their cropping decision on the return they can
expect from crop insurance. On
the other hand, crop insurance has been a popular option to mitigate some
problems associated with climate variability.
Dr. Barry Smit suggested that a high priority be given to considering
climate change risks in existing programs.
Such actions would fall under the category of “no regret” policies,
i.e., measures that provide benefits regardless of whether climate change
occurs.
With
respect to farm safety net programs, Dr. Cecil Nagy, from the University of
Saskatchewan, said it is currently difficult to say whether these programs
will be able to respond to climate change problems over the long term. A
number of questions need to be answered, including:
·
Will safety
net programs encourage farmers to take advantage of the adaptation options
that are available?
·
Will safety
net programs limit or support farmers in using available adaptation options?
·
In terms of
funding over the long term, are the current programs designed to meet the
challenge that climate change will present?
·
Can these
programs be adapted as necessary to new conditions?
To
illustrate this point, Dr. Nagy used the example of new crops.
If a crop is no longer viable for a given region, it is important to
determine whether farmers will be allowed to switch crops without losing the
benefits of their current farming programs.
In designing crop insurance, one should then consider a mechanism to
identify new crops as being suitable for a region and to add them into the
crop insurance coverage.
AAFC’s
current development of the Agriculture Policy Framework (APF) provides an
excellent opportunity to incorporate climate change adaptation into Canadian
agricultural policy. Through production insurance, the new Net Income
Stabilization Account (NISA) programs, and tax deferral designations,[15]
the APF provides business risk management options. The renewal portion of the APF will address the issue of
training, and assistance in dealing with changes. As details of the APF at the time of this study are still
unknown, witnesses could not tell the Committee the degree to which the
Framework provides for climate change adaptation.
With
respect to the forest sector, Dr. John Innes, from the University of British
Columbia, mentioned that provincial regulations currently hinder some
adaptation responses to climate change. Regulations
on seed transfer in British Columbia, for example, require that seed from
within a certain area be planted at a particular point.
If seed is planted near Prince George, it must originate from near
Prince George and not from much further south.
Dr. Innes mentioned that the regulations have been relaxed a little in
recognition of the climate change issue, but they need to be relaxed further.
British
Columbia is currently in the process of reviewing and introducing new forest
legislation. Some witnesses
questioned the provinces’ ability to introduce changes enabling adaptation
to future climate conditions, simply because the people who are designing
these policies may not be aware of many of the climate change issues.
C‑CIARN Forest suggested that Canada’s provinces and
territories be encouraged to develop forest management legislation and
policies that are consistent with the reality of climate change, and to create
a framework and culture through which climate change adaptation is possible
and encouraged.
In
addition to the legal framework that underlies sustainable forest management
practices, markets are having a growing effect on forest practices through
demands for forest certification. C-CIARN
Forest suggested that certification standards for environmentally friendly
products from forests be required to incorporate adaptation to climate change
in order to remain relevant, and be flexible enough to accommodate adaptive
strategies proposed to deal with the reality of climate change.
Therefore, national forest certification bodies should be encouraged to
include climate change adaptation as one of the objectives around which
standards are developed.
There
are many other areas for “no regret” policies that the Committee wishes to
underline:
·
While the
Meteorological Service of Canada is currently undertaking a reorganization of
its activities, it should consider adequate coverage of the Canadian landmass
with climate and weather stations. Monitoring
climate and ensuring adequate weather forecasting systems will be our first
line of defence to mitigate the possible effects of climate change.
·
Municipalities
will have to bear a lot of the adaptation efforts, yet they may not have the
capacity to do it. It will be
important to ensure that municipalities do have the capacity to increase the
resilience of their infrastructures in areas likely to be affected by climate
change, such as wastewater treatment.
·
Climate
change could also be taken into consideration in the creation and management
of protected areas. The Sierra Club of Canada suggested the creation of
north/south corridors along which species can migrate to new habitat.
While
addressing climate change, these measures would also serve other purposes. Creating a mechanism to permit the rapid inclusion of new
crops in crop insurance programs would not only address the effect of climate
change, but would also accommodate the case of a new crop being developed
through research – independent of new climatic conditions. The creation of protected north/south corridors would also
allow Canada to meet its objective of completing a representative network of
protected areas. A systematic look at
policies through a climate change “lens” will make our industries,
ecosystems, and communities less vulnerable to climatic changes, while also
helping them to adapt to other stresses.
Summary
Public
policies and programs must not prevent industries and communities from
pursuing available adaptation options. Climate
change considerations must be incorporated into government policies and
programs where appropriate. Public
policies such as farm income safety nets, tree plantation programs, and
policies concerning water and protected areas, to name just a few, will have
to be designed to cope with climate change risks.
A systematic review of existing and new programs could be implemented
to assess whether climate change risks are being considered.
CONCLUSION – LESSONS LEARNED
“Climate change is ultimately a social issue, not a scientific one, and it
is a major public policy issue. We have created the problem, or at least we
have increased the rate of climate change, and we must deal with the
impacts.”
Dr.
Dave Sauchyn, Coordinator, C-CIARN Prairies.[16]
Climate
change will affect all Canadians to some extent, and it will significantly
affect rural Canada, both positively and negatively.
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the global warming trend
observed in the last century is caused primarily by human industrial activity,
namely, the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2.
This warming trend is likely to continue at a rate unprecedented in
human history; it will have consequences at a regional level on temperature,
precipitation patterns, winds, and the frequency of extreme weather events.
The
Kyoto Protocol is currently the only public policy tool available at the
international level to help deal with climate change.
As climate change is a global problem, there is a need for
international coordination; but by itself the Kyoto Protocol will not curb,
let alone reverse, the warming trend. Stabilizing
the concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere at a level that will
avoid dangerous consequences for humanity entails measures far beyond those
called for under the Protocol. Significant
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would require our energy systems to
shift from fossil fuel to low-carbon-content fuel such as hydrogen – the decarbonization
of the energy system. At the same
time, the mitigation of this warming trend must go hand in hand with
adaptation to the effects of climate change.
While the energy system goes through the decarbonization process, and
our climate responds to decreasing levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, we will have to adapt to new climatic conditions.
Because
the warming effect will
be amplified at high latitudes, circumpolar countries such as Canada
will be particularly vulnerable. In
fact, some effects are already being felt in the northern part of the country.
It is therefore important that Canada develop its own expertise, as it
will not be able to take advantage of the experiences of other non-circumpolar
countries such as the continental United States.
Those countries, rather, may look to Canada for guidance in adapting,
as they will likely feel the effects later.
Although
longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures have the potential to increase
the productivity of Canadian agriculture and forestry, those benefits could be
offset or exceeded by effects such as reduced availability of water, new
pests, and increased weather variability.
Regions will feel a variety of effects; some areas will see net gains,
others will lose. Moreover, the
impact of climate change on the rest of the world will also have implications
for Canada’s agriculture and forest sectors.
Many prices are determined by world markets, meaning that the economic
effect on these two sectors in Canada will depend also on how Canadian
productivity may change relative to the rest of the world.
In the end, it is how Canadian farmers, forest operators, rural
communities and Canadians living in urban areas adapt and react that will
determine the real impact of climate change.
Farmers
are already innovative and adapt to various stresses such as variations in
weather, trade policies, and commodity prices.
Farmers in Western Canada are adopting or expanding certain practices,
such as not tilling their soil, in order to protect their topsoil during
droughts, keep moisture in the soil, and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases
being released into the atmosphere. The
expected increase in weather variability, however, may be of even greater
concern for farmers than changes in average conditions, because it is more
difficult to adapt to changes in variability.
Events such as the drought in 2001, which affected all provinces, have
made farmers, the forest industry, and rural communities realize that they are
vulnerable, and that they must begin to adapt to new climate scenarios.
An
important area of vulnerability will be our water resource.
Changing climatic conditions will affect the water supply through
different precipitation regimes. While
some adaptation options might alleviate potential shortages, other options,
such as irrigation, will directly affect the demand.
Water affects all industries in rural Canada – agriculture, forestry,
fisheries, tourism – and these industries will have to compete for the
resource with urban areas. More
than any other aspect of the issue, finding solutions to potential
water-related conflicts arising from climate change will have to involve all
levels and sectors of society.
It is still too early to clearly identify effective
adaptation measures that should be taken.
Those measures will have to fit local conditions, but our knowledge of
climate change is not yet refined enough to predict its local effects.
Nevertheless, there is room for government action in the following
areas:
·
Research:
Increasing research efforts in impacts and adaptation will improve our
understanding of the biophysical and economic effects, the vulnerabilities of
agriculture, forestry and rural communities, and successful adaptation options
and strategies.
·
Communication:
A national communication strategy will bring the message to rural Canada that
climate change is real, and that it is time to start thinking about our
vulnerabilities and ways to increase our resilience. The communication strategy should include the revitalization
of extension services and use existing networks within rural communities to
ensure that current information is effectively distributed.
·
Government
Policies: It is important that public policies and programs do not prevent
industries and communities from pursuing available adaptation options.
Climate change considerations must be incorporated into government
policies and programs where appropriate.
Public policies such as farm income safety nets, tree plantation
programs, and policies concerning water and protected areas, to name just a
few, will have to be designed to cope with climate change risks.
A systematic review of existing and new programs could be implemented
to assess whether climate change risks are being considered.
“No
regret” public policies in these areas can provide net benefits regardless
of climate change, because they would address vulnerabilities associated not
only with climate change but also with many other stressors that our
industries and communities already face.
More focussed research, communication and far-sighted government
policies can together create a framework that will enable farmers, forest
operators and rural communities to mitigate the risks and realize the
opportunities associated with climate change.
APPENDIX A
DATE
|
WITNESSES
|
|
November
21, 2002 |
From
Environment Canada: |
|
November
26, 2002 |
From
Environment Canada: -
Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications From
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: -
Alrick Huebener, Manager, Policy Development, Environment Bureau From
Transport Canada: -
Robert Lyman, Director General, Environmental Affairs From
Industry Canada: -
John Jaworski, Senior Industry Development Officer, Life Sciences
Branch From
Natural Resources Canada: -
Neil MacLeod, Director General, Energy Efficiency -
Paul Egginton, Executive Director, Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptation Directorate |
|
November
28, 2002 |
From
Natural Resources Canada: -
Gordon E. Miller, Director General, Science Branch, Canadian Forest
Service -
Paul Egginton, Executive Director, Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptation Directorate -
Donald S. Lemmen, Research Manager, Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptation Directorate, Earth Sciences Sector -
Darcie Booth, Director, Canadian Forest Service, Economics and
Statistical Services |
|
December
3, 2002 |
From
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: -
Gordon Dorrell, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Research Branch -
Wayne Lindwall, National Program Leader for Environment -
Michele Brenning, Director, Environment Bureau -
Phil Adkins, Acting Manager, Prairie Agroclimate Unit, Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Administration |
|
December 5, 2002 |
From the Canadian Climate Change Impact and Adaptation Research Network: -
Aynslie Ogden, Manager, Northern Region -
Peter Johnson, Science Advisor, Northern Region -
David Pearson, Chair, Ontario Region -
Gérard Courtin, Professor Emeritus, Laurentian University |
|
December
12, 2002 |
From
the Canadian Climate Change Impact and Adaptation -
Alain Bourque, Coordinator, Quebec Region -
Peter N. Duinker, Manager, Atlantic Region |
|
February
4, 2003 |
From
the Canadian Climate Impact and Adaptation Research -
Dave Sauchyn, Coordinator, Prairies Region -
Stewart Cohen, Scientific Advisor, British Columbia Region |
|
February
6, 2003 |
From
the Sierra Club of Canada: -
Elizabeth May, Executive Director -
Martin von Mirbach, Director, Forests and Biodiversity |
|
February
11, 2003 |
From
the Forest Products Association of Canada: -
Avrim Lazar, President -
Jean Pierre Martel, Vice President, Sustainability From
the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners: -
Peter deMarsh, President |
|
February
13, 2003 |
From
the National Farmers Union: -
Cory Ollikka, Past President -
Janet Duncan From
the Canadian Federation of Agriculture: -
Geri Kamenz, Chair, Environment and Science Committee and
Vice-President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture -
Nicole Howe, Policy Analyst |
|
February 18, 2003 |
From
the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric -
Gordon McBean, Chair -
Dawn Conway, Executive Director From
McGill University: -
Nigel Roulet, Professor, Department of Geography |
|
February 20, 2003 |
From
the Agricultural Institute of Canada: -
Ed Tyrchniewicz, President -
Tom Beach, Acting Executive Director From
Ducks Unlimited Canada: -
Rhonda McDougal, Associate Scientist, Carbon Research -
J. Barry Turner, Director of Government Relations |
|
February 24, 2003 |
From
the Ecotourism Society of Saskatchewan: -
Joe Hnatiuk, President From
the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities: -
Neal Hardy, President -
Arita McPherson, Director of Agriculture Policy From
the University of Saskatchewan: -
Michael Mehta, Professor From
the Saskatchewan Research Council and Prairie Adaptation Research
Collaborative: -
Mark Johnston, Senior Research Scientist From
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: -
Phil Adkins, Acting Manager, Prairie Agroclimate Unit, Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Administration -
Bill Harron, Project Leader, National Land and Water Information
Service -
Gerry Steraniko, Manager, Operational Planning Division From
the Saskatchewan Environment Society: -
Ann Coxworth, Volunteer Program Coordinator From
Nature Saskatchewan: -
Silvia Lac, Volunteer -
Wayne Pepper, Representative, Saskatchewan Stakeholders Advisory
Committee on Climate Change From
the University of Saskatchewan: -
Andre Hucq, Professor -
Roger D.H. Cohen, Professor -
Cecil Nagy, Professor From
the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association: -
Mark Allan, Business Manager From
the Government of Saskatchewan: -
The Honourable Eric Cline, Q.C., Minister of Industry and Resources -
Gordon Nystuen, Deputy Minister, Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and
Rural Revitalization -
Bob Ruggles, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Division,
Saskatchewan Environment -
Jim Marshall, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resources and Economic
Policy, Saskatchewan Industry and Resources From
the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan: -
Terry Hilderbrandt, President -
Cecilia Olver, Vice-President -
John Clair, President, Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association |
|
February
25, 2003 |
From
Natural Resources Canada: -
Kelvin Hirsch, Forest Research Officer, Northern Forestry Centre,
Canadian Forest Service -
Brian Amiro, Research Scientist, Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian
Forest Service -
David Price, Research Scientist, Integrative Climate Change Impacts
Modelling, Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service -
Tim Williamson, Sustainable Development Economist, Northern
Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service From
Kalahari Management Inc. -
Carol Patterson, President From
Wild Rose Agricultural Producers: -
Keith Degenhardt, Director From
the Alberta Research Council: -
Daniel Archambault, Research Scientist From
the University of Alberta: -
Robert Grant, Associate Professor, Department of Renewable
Resources From
the Canadian Climate Change Impact and Adaptation -
Greg McKinnon, Forest Sector Coordinator -
Kelvin Hirsch, Forest Sector Scientific Director From
the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties: -
Bart Guyon, Vice-President From
BioGem: -
Grant Meikle, Vice-President -
Larry Giesbrecht, President From
the Métis Nation of Alberta: -
Rafique Islam, Sector Advisor -
Trevor Gladue, Provincial Vice-President -
George Quintal, Regional President -
Myles Arfinson, Economic Development Officer |
|
February
26, 2003 |
From
the University of Lethbridge: -
James Byrne, Professor From
the Federation of Alberta Naturalists: -
Cheryl Bradley, Member From
the Canadian Sugar Beet Producers’ Association: -
Gary Tokariuk, Vice-President From
the Kainai Nation: -
Chris Shade, Chief -
Andy Blackwater, Elder -
Eugene Creighton, Legal Council -
Elliot Fox, Chair of Lands -
Rob First Rider, Director of Management of Lands From
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre: -
Peter Burnett, Acting Director -
Henry Janzen, Soil Scientist -
Sean McGinn, Research Scientist |
|
February
28, 2003 |
From
Natural Resources Canada: -
Paul Addison, Director General, Pacific Forestry Centre, Canadian
Forest Service -
Gary Hogan, Director of Forest Biology, Pacific Forestry Centre,
Canadian Forest Service -
Caroline Preston, Senior Research Scientist, Pacific Forestry
Centre, Canadian Forest Service -
Ross Benton, Research Office, Forest Climatology, Pacific Forestry
Centre, Canadian Forest Service From
the British Columbia Agriculture Council: -
Steve Thomson, Executive Director -
Allan Patton, Director From
the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia: -
Petrus Rykes, Vice-President, Land and Environment Portfolio From
the University of British Columbia: -
John Innes, Professor, Department of Forest Resources Management -
Zoe Harkin, Graduate Student From
the University of Victoria Tree-Ring Laboratory: -
Dan Smith, Professor From
the North Central Municipal Association: -
Sue Clark, Executive Coordinator From
the University of Victoria: -
Andrew Weaver, Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences -
Steve Lonergan, Professor, Department of Geography -
Ned Djilali, Director, Institute for Integrated Energy Systems
(IESVic) -
G. Cornelis van Kooten, Professor, Department of Economics From
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: -
Denise Neilsen, Research Scientist, Pacific Agri-Food Research
Centre -
C.A. Scott Smith, Head, Land Resource Unit, Pacific Agri-Food
Research Centre |
March
20, 2003 |
From
Carleton University: -
Michael Brklacich, Professor, Department of Geography and
Environmental Studies From
the University of Guelph: -
Barry Smit, Professor, Department of Geography |
March
25, 2003 |
From
Yale University: -
Robert Mendelsohn, Professor From
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: -
John Reilly, Associate Director of Research |
|
March
27, 2003 |
From
Brock University: -
Mohammed H.I. Dore, Professor of Economics |
|
April
1, 2003 |
From
the University of Toronto: -
Jay R. Malcolm, Associate Professor |
|
April
3, 2003 |
From
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: -
Gilles Bélanger, Research Scientist, Crop Physiology and Agronomy -
Samuel Gameda, Research Scientist, Soil, Water, Air and production
Systems -
Andy Bootsma, Honorary Research Associate |
|
April
29, 2003 |
By
videoconference From
l’Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue: -
Yves Bergeron, Industry Chair UQAT/UQAM in Sustainable Forest
Management From
the University of Wyoming: -
Siân Mooney, Assistant Professor |
|
May
1, 2003 |
From
the University of Washington: -
John Perez-Garcia, Associate Professor, Center for International
Trade in Forest Products, College of Forest Resources From
the Nova Scotia Agricultural College: -
David Burton, Climate Change Research Chair From
the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre: -
Jean-Louis Daigle, Executive Director |
|
May
6, 2003 |
From
Natural Resources Canada: -
Roger Cox, Biologist, Canadian Forest Service (Forest Health) -
Brian Stocks, Senior Research Scientist, Forest Fire & Global
Change From
the University of Montreal: -
Christopher Bryant, Chair, IGU Commission on the Sustainable
Development of Rural Systems |
|
May 8, 2003 |
By
videoconference From
the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research: -
Peter Cox, Head of Climate Chemistry and Ecosystems, Met Office -
Richard Betts, Senior Ecosystem Scientist, Met Office |
APPENDIX B
Other written submissions received:
From
Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.
-
Shawn Wasel, Vice-President of Business and Fibre Security
From Simon Fraser
University:
-
Ben Bradshaw, Professor of Geography
[1]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 14, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, March 27, 2003.
[2]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 6, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, February 4, 2003.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 8, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, February 20, 2003.
[6]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 6, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, February 4, 2003.
[7]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 8, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, February 20, 2003.
[8]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 12, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Vancouver, February 28, 2003, morning session.
[9]
Statistics Canada defines rural areas as "sparsely populated lands
lying outside urban areas" or in other words those areas with a
population concentration of less than 1,000 and a population density of up
to 400 per square kilometre.
[10]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 12, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Vancouver, February 28, 2003, afternoon session.
[11]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 5, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, December 12, 2002.
[12]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 4, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, December 5, 2002.
[13]
Canadian
Farmers At Risk,
Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. June
2002. 1st Session, 37th Parliament. Available at
/en/Content/SEN/Committee/371/agri/rep/rep10jun02-e.htm.
[14]
Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 16, 2nd Session,
37th Parliament, Ottawa, May 6, 2003.
[15]
Tax deferral is a measure that can be applied to allow farmers who sell part
of their breeding herd due to drought conditions to defer tax on a portion
of the sale proceeds to the following year.
[16]
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 6, 2nd
Session, 37th Parliament, Ottawa, February 4, 2003.