Understanding social resilience to climate variability in primary enterprises and industries

Abstract

Resource-dependent industries are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and their ability to adapt will be as critical to society as to the natural systems upon which they rely. More than ever, resource-users will need to anticipate, and prepare for, climate-related changes, and institutions will need to be particularly supportive, if resource industries and the extended social systems dependent on them are to be sustained. I examine the capacity of cattle-graziers in Australia to cope and adapt to climate variability as a precursor for understanding their vulnerability to climate change by assessing: (i) their perception of risk, (ii) their capacity to plan, learn and reorganise, (iii) their proximity to the thresholds of coping, and (iv) their level of interest in adapting to change. Graziers perceived themselves to be resilient to climate variability in their perceptions of climate risk, reorganising capacity, coping, and interest in adapting. Their dependency on the grazing resource and use of seasonal climate forecasts were significant influences, suggesting that resilience could be enhanced. Facilitated collaborative learning amongst graziers and other stakeholders may assist to develop strategic skills, increasing climate awareness, developing financial security and adopt climate tools such as seasonal climate forecasts. Enhanced strategies for coping with climate variability will provide a way for encouraging gradual, incremental adjustments for climate adaptation.

Introduction

The resilience and adaptive capacity of resource-dependent industries has never been more important to assess, influence and monitor. Climate predictions suggest that the scale and rate of change driven by increases in concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is unprecedented in human history, and will significantly – and in many cases dramatically – alter the accessibility and quality of natural resources (Dessai et al., 2007, Liverman, 2008, IPCC, 2007). Primary enterprises and industries, which include the sectors of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and mining, are highly vulnerable to climate change because of their dependency on climate-sensitive natural resources for their prosperity and sustainability (Zamani et al., 2006). Specifically, primary enterprises are expected to contend with more frequent climate crises (such as drought and flood), environmental degradation (such as eroding soils and limited production during drought periods), cultural change (such as implementing new practices or using climate technology) and inevitable climate-related regulatory change. These stressors occur against an existing backdrop of conventional drivers including economic, biophysical, institutional, cultural and political pressures. Thus, the capacity of resource-dependent enterprises to cope and adapt with the compounding influence of climate change is largely uncertain (Stokes and Howden, 2009, Dessai et al., 2007). More than ever, resource-users will need to anticipate, and prepare for, each climate-related challenge, and institutions will need to be particularly supportive, if resource industries and the extended social systems dependent on them are to be sustained.

A strategy for industries, communities and policy-makers to adequately support the capacity of resource-users to cope and adapt to climate change, is through maintaining the properties that confer resilience (Gunderson et al., 2002, Gunderson, 1999, Kates et al., 2000, Walker et al., 2002). This ‘resilience-based’ approach is useful for guiding and supporting more inclusive and effective approaches to the management of ecosystems and the dependent societies (Ludwig et al., 1997, Berkes and Folke, 1998, Levin et al., 1998). Whilst other approaches are available such as those used in the sustainability sciences (Hodge, 1997, Brunckhorst, 2002), the resilience-based approach offers a systematic thinking for understanding the adaptation process. In sum, the basis of resilience theory is that social and ecological (socio-ecological) systems are intrinsically coupled and constantly face change; the outcomes of which are inherently unpredictable.

This thinking is different to other approaches such as Social Impact Assessment research; recognising and describing vulnerability is a core goal (Becker and Vanclay, 2003, Fenton et al., 2003). Resilience theory has challenged how we view and manage our natural systems and places great emphasis on avoiding stability and on recognising the complexity and dynamic nature of socio-ecological adaptive systems (Gallopín, 2006, Colding et al., 2004, Walker et al., 2004, Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon, 2008). Where ‘sustainable yields’ or quotas have been set, natural resources and dependent social systems have collapsed or are close to it (Milich, 1999, Jackson et al., 2001, Ayensu et al., 1999, MacKenzie, 2003). In the same way that resources cannot be harvested according to set limits and must be managed fluidly through monitoring, feedbacks, learning and adaptation (Berkes and Folke, 1998, Ludwig et al., 1997), resource-users cannot be made to change their behaviour and become ‘climate-adaptable’. Like developing resilience in systems, resource-users must be politically, culturally and financially supported and given the opportunity to be flexible, plan, experiment and learn if they are to effectively adapt to climate change and climate-driven policy initiatives (Armitage et al., 2008, Olsson et al., 2004a).

The resilience-based approach is particularly apt for managing the impacts of climate change since climate predictions are inherently uncertain (Dessai et al., 2007, Mander et al., 2007). Managing for climate resilience is a means by which communities and resource managers can design strategies that allow both social and ecological systems to cope with climate uncertainty and adapt (Adger, 2006, Dessai and Hulme, 2007, Smith, 1997). Through the maintenance of properties that can confer resilience, the sustainability of natural resources and the social systems dependent upon them is not only possible but essential for the prosperous development of society (Lane and Rickson, 1997, Gunderson, 2004, Kates et al., 2000, Levin et al., 1998). Through ‘managing for climate resilience’, resource-dependent industries will move towards possessing the necessary ‘pre-conditions’ for successfully incorporating, and adapting to, climate change events and processes.

Adaptive capacity, a term from anthropology, is a crucial component of resilient systems that describes the necessary ‘pre-conditions’ for adapting to change (Gallopín, 2006, Grothmann and Patt, 2005, Janssen and Ostrom, 2006, Adger et al., 2005, Pielke, 1998). It refers to the ability of individuals or communities to adapt to adversity and stressful life-events by ‘reorganising’ through networks or institutions that learn, store knowledge and experience and are creative, flexible and novel in their approach to problem solving (Vayda and McCay, 1975, McCay, 1981, Sonn and Fisher, 1998). It is enhanced by learning, the flexibility to experiment and adopt novel solutions, and the ability to respond generally to a broad range of challenges (Levin et al., 1998, Gunderson, 2000). In sum, it refers to the capacity of individuals, communities, industries or nations to proactively or reactively cope and adapt to adverse life-events such as climate change (Nelson et al., 2007a). Social scientists have accordingly developed tools to assess adaptive capacity and the implications for social resilience across a range of spatial and temporal scales (Adger et al., 2005, Marshall, 2008, Berkes and Jolly, 2001, Abel and Langston, 2001). However, while there have been important advances in operationalising the concepts of resilience and adaptive capacity for resource-dependent industries, there remain few examples where these properties have been evaluated as a basis for adaptation planning (Liu et al., 2008, Smit and Wandel, 2006, Vogel, 2006).

I use the cattle-grazing industry in Australia to illustrate how a resilience-approach can provide vital information about the adaptive capacity of resource-users. Grazing lands, or rangelands, are a variably productive and mostly socially remote landscape representing some 33% of the world's terrestrial landscapes (Stafford Smith et al., 2007). Graziers, like other resource-users, must contend with variability in the climate each season and an already harsh environment (Hobbs et al., 2008). Climate variability is a challenging phenomenon that requires graziers to make appropriate management decisions in the face of uncertainty (McKeon et al., 1990, Clewett et al., 1991, Smithers and Smit, 1997). Success depends not only on maximising productivity during any one season, but also on minimising impact on the future ability of the land to produce (McKeon et al., 2004). If stocking rates are too high at the onset of drought, for example, soil sustainability will be diminished and the productivity of future years will be impacted (Watson, 2003, Watson, 2004). Graziers that can anticipate or effectively react to climate extremes are more likely to adapt to new climate conditions. An aim of this study is to evaluate the adaptive capacity of cattle-graziers in the Australian rangelands.

Adaptive capacity is a quality or process that can be influenced (Acosta-Michlik et al., 2008, Enfors and Gordon, 2008, Ostrom, 2008). Seasonal climate forecasts are an example of a supportive technology that can, with variable accuracy, provide probabilistic information about future climate for a period of three to twelve months (Ash et al., 2007, Jones et al., 2000, Tompkins and Adger, 2005). Climate technology may be able to assist graziers to minimise losses in drought years and take advantage of favourable seasons (Hayman et al., 2007, Salinger et al., 2005, Hansen, 2002, Eto, 2003, Moss, 2007). Knowing when to alter stocking rates, when to supplement feeding, when to agist, when to burn, when to manage weeds and when to alter water supplies, for example, should differentiate between those graziers likely to be successful and those that are not. In this study I look at how the use of seasonal climate forecasts can influence (or is correlated with) social resilience to climate variability (Patt and Gwata, 2002). Graziers that are likely to adopt seasonal climate forecasts are hypothesised to be resilient to climate variability and/or conversely, graziers that are more resilient are more likely to use potentially beneficial technology such as seasonal climate forecasts.

Adaptive capacity can also be influenced by the nature and strength of the relationship that people have with the environment that they depend upon for income and everyday living (Force et al., 1993, Bailey and Pomeroy, 1996, Krannich and Zollinger, 1997). Resource-dependent communities such as cattle-grazing communities are more likely to be vulnerable to climate change since climate change is likely to significantly affect the grazing resource and the people dependent on it. However, resource dependency is a complex relationship since it has social, economic and environmental components (Jones, 2002). Graziers with higher dependency on the resource, on all dimensions, are hypothesised to be less resilient to climate variability (Eakin and Bojórquez-Tapia, 2008).

In sum, the aims of this study were to examine the capacity of cattle-graziers to cope and adapt to climate variability as a precursor for understanding their vulnerability to climate change and to test whether their capacity is influenced by the use of seasonal climate forecasts and/or their level of dependency on the grazing resource.