Menu:

 

Want to have your say? Click comments and 'leave a reply'...

Adaptation can be defined as ‘the ability to respond and adjust to actual or potential impacts and changes in climate whether it is to moderate their harm or to take advantage of their positives’. There are many ways in which communities and nations can take action to adapt to changes in the climate – from the technological (e.g. flood-proofing houses) to the behavioural (e.g. reducing water use). Negotiations around adaptation to climate change also have to account the rising levels of 'distress migration' where people are pushed into leaving their homes due to the environmental pressures as a result of changes in climate.  

Despite our best efforts to prevent changes in our climate, in the medium term at least, climatic variations are irreversible. Our past industrial activity and the inability of atmospheric systems to simply ‘reset’, assures this. We will all have to adapt, both to longer term processes (such as rising sea levels and decertification) and also to the increasing prevalence of catastrophic whether phenomena such as cyclones.
 
Evidence indicates that those least able to adapt to changes in climate will be those who are most vulnerable. Vulnerability can come from shocks (for example war, natural disasters) and trends (e.g. environmental degradation, worsening political or trade systems). Much of the discussion on adapting to climate change has thus focused on making the vulnerable ‘less vulnerable’.

Organisations focusing on adaptation have largely been broadly split into four categories:  Disaster Reduction, Climate Change Action, Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation. As these categories naturally overlap efforts are being made to work collaboratively. Thinking has therefore moved on considerably from viewing adaptation strategies as decrees handed down by governments through laws, and instead it is communities who are seen as the driving force behind change. The phenomenon of climate change is a global concern but the solutions need not be globally focused, but rather from the individual, family and village level upwards.

The poor are not just vulnerable because they have less money, but also because their livelihoods rely heavily on the state of the environment around them. They lack the assets needed to escape the effects of degraded ecological systems; these include lack of education, lack of transferable skills (that would need should they migrate away from their homes), as well as lack of funds. 

Poor nutrition and sanitation also exposes the poor to water-borne diseases and illnesses that increase in humid tropical environments.
 
However it is also recognised that it is the poor who, because they have the most need to adapt, have the most motivation. Whether it is mangrove rehabilitation in Vietnam or reintroducing locally extinct species, locally driven adaptation projects have multiple advantages: they are cheaper, rooted in the local resources and knowledge networks of communities, and directly aid in improving livelihoods.


What do you think? Leave a reply and let us know...

Want to learn more?
"Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries", United Nations Framework Convention to Climate Change

"Biodiversity-climate interactions: adaptation, mitigation and human livelihoods", Report of International Meeting, The Royal Society, June 2007

"Adapting to Climate Change in Developing Countries", Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Postnote, No. 269, October 2006

"Water for life:Lessons for climate change adaptation from better management of rivers for people and nature", WWF

"The London climate change adaptation strategy: Summary draft report", Mayor of London, August 2008

A number of reports on key issues related to Adaptation can be found at the ELDIS website.
 


Comments

Laila

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:58:37

Rising sea levels mean that whole islands will disappear...

http://tcktcktck.org/story/human-impact/water-lapping-at-their-feet

Can our statement encourage Copenhagen negotiators to help people living in these places find new homes when their islands sink below sea level?

 

Tasnim

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:09:57

I remember when I was in primary school my teacher was telling me about rising sea levels---why are we still talking about this now? why has very little been done to combat this? It's very sad.

Copenhagen negotiators need to encourage the governments of all countries to adequately prepare and equip people living in these areas with the skills they need to prepare the infrastructure to deal with climate change and to give them an alternative--through education for a better living.

 

Sarah Naghi

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:37:29

Adaptation, adjacent to mitigation efforts is a vital part to addressing the challenges associated with climate change. Unfortunately, even if leaders all sign up to an ambitious global deal and execute successful mitigation strategies; we are still rapt into some scale of climate change due to past and present greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless of current emissions reduction, the delayed response has already contributed to decades of rising global temperature where in the next 50-100 years temperatures could rise to 2°C. Hence why all world leaders need to accept climate change is happening and be prepared!

My heart goes out to the developing world, which has not shared the developed world’s wealth and large contribution to CO2 emissions, but is more likely to suffer from the burden of global warming. Societies are already highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change hence why it is imperative that organisations responsible for providing the critical services upon which society relies are prepared for the changing climate. As Tasnim highlighted countries need to develop a stronger infrastructure and I agree. All countries need to be better equipped throughout all sectors of the economy that provide services we depend on including food (agriculture/fisheries), health (including hospital buildings), transport, Shelter (residential homes), water, communications (telecoms), energy, education (including school buildings), businesses and the natural environment.

Developed countries are at an advantage with governmental support, technical and academic expertise, and financial opportunities; to create a comprehensive risk assessment and take necessary actions to prepare for the uncertainty of climate change. I urge negotiators at Copenhagen to put pressure on the developed countries to provide guidance to the developing world on creating their own extensive risk assessment and help raise funds for national and local initiatives. The developing world are suffering enough, let’s do what can to help them!

 

Naveed Ashraf

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:25:44

Whilst not trying to downplay the importance of our contributing to The Copenhagen Summit I do feel a sense of perspective is needed. It may sound obvious but climate change is not the sole problem we face, rather it is a symptom of the ecological damage we have caused. We cannot put climate change into a distinct box, unconnected to such seemingly local problems as food overproduction, food waste, loss of species, loss of habitat, overpopulation of species, and thoughtlessly designed buildings. Indeed the connections are as important as the problems; to quote a character from 'The Wire', "All the pieces matter".

If we keep drumming away about 'The Environment' and 'The Climate', without providing a thorough context for what we are talking about we will fail to engage with people because the problems are always somewhere 'out there' - to be solved in Kyoto, Copenhagen, The White House. Let us say despite having done that, China continues to build massive hydro electric dams causing untold ecological damage; Brazil continues to allow ranchers to turn fast swathes of the Amazon into cattle fodder for our hamburgers; and yet through some kind of carbon trading trickery their emissions targets are met: won't that be a hollow victory?

I know these issues are being discussed, but climate change cannot become the sole headline act - the true headline is far more complex and less elegant than single-issue problems allow for, but then why should it be simple? Why should we be allowed the luxury of thinking that the problem is not complicated and vast in in it's proportions. Whilst the agenda is led by politicians and Media commentators, simplification will inevitably occur. Scientists working in the field, people who understand the ebb and flow of our ecosystems must be at the forefront. Some may argue it is better to do a little, and in some ways that is true. But thorough scientific research from the likes of Professor David Mackay have shown that everybody doing a little won't necessary achieve a lot - it may make us feel good to think that switching off our mobile phone charger at night is contributing something, but in real energy terms, it means nothing. While these facts may make the problem seem insurmountable, we must grasp the Herculean effort it may take to engage with climate change.

How are you reading this comment right now? Does the Internet operate in a cloud or is it powered by huge servers? It me seem crass to use this example but surely we need to understand the processes by which our global economy functions. Your family may drive a Prius. Think of the thousands of processes through which that Prius was created, from the raw materials through to your local showroom. Think of all the energy taken up in all those processes. I'm not saying don't drive a Prius I'm saying understand what it really means in the structure of this debate. We may have to create a civilisation that is completely unrecognisable or make sacrifices far wide ranging than we imagined.

The second dose of reality we need is to understand the environment around us, we rightfully call on the protection of ecological hotspots, yet fail to understand how our own local ecology is important. Most of us living in cities have little idea of how our land functions to provide us with food and materials, how one species is inextricably linked to another. Let us take something seemingly mundane: right now every season a certain amount of deer are culled. Why? Partly because the deer lack natural predators (the wolf, the bear, the lynx) that we removed hundreds of years ago (less than the blink of an eye in ecological terms). It doesn't take much to consider then that species reintroduction may be a critical factor in rebalancing our environment. That prospect of course may face considerable opposition from local farmers but what if we as a nation grew more of our own food, would we need so many farms? Could we decide that the land could be put to such an alternative use? I'm not saying my scenarios are definitive. What I am absolutely saying is that we must make the connections and that must be based on sound knowledge and a real appreciation for how our earth works and what it can do for us. We must strive as, our Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) strove for true insight. I repeat the famous prayer:
O Allah! let us see the truth for what it is and give us the oppurtunity to follow it. Ameen.

 



Leave a Reply