B.1 Assessing the current situation
B.1.2 Considering the dimensions of analysis of the current situation
Having a good understanding of the current situation relating to an objective can help to identifying the next steps of adaptation planning. Below we describe briefly some key ways that the above parameters or
dimensions can be included in planning. We provide more detail about what the overall current issue assessment implies for analysing potential futures in C.5 Analysing possible futures, and, in D.2.1 Developing pathways of adaptation options for NRM, for using a variety of tools and methods, and identifying potential options for pathways.
How do stakeholder numbers, values, responsibilities affect the current situation?
In general, greater stakeholder numbers will exacerbate the problems associated with values divergence -- agreement on objectives and options to achieve them becomes harder as there are more people involved (Ostrom, 1990). Where there are many stakeholders it may be best to set boundaries around problems so that groups of stakeholders are small enough to be able to engage in meaningful dialogue, arrive at common understanding, and even achieve consensus, make decisions and follow through with action. For example, it can be more effective to develop plans to manage estuaries one at a time, focussing first on the estuaries with greater value coherence to build action plans that are implementable and that others can learn from and adapt to their situation. Attempting to develop a
‘cookie-cutter’ approach to managing estuaries across a state or region is likely to fail (Ostrom, 2007). If
stakeholders have coherent values (as opposed to divergent ones) it will tend to be easier for them to identify and agree on priorities or objectives.
However, they may not be able to identify innovative approaches easily if their networks are closed and ways of thinking are relatively homogenous or conservative (Dowd et al., 2014).
The power and influence of stakeholders also matters.
For example, sea-change and tree-change trends have increased not only the diversity of stakeholders within Australian rural communities (Holmes, 2008). A small
number of wealthy, highly educated and
well-connected retirees with strong landscape and lifestyle values can have a disproportionate influence on politics as can a few well-connected farmers.
As the demographics of rural and regional communities changes through sea / tree-change trends, transparent and equitable processes of engagement and
representation (i.e. who is selected to represent what groups) becomes more important (Bryson, 2004). Good processes can enable dialogue among groups through acknowledging both common ground and differences.
Where there are substantial differences among stakeholder groups, good processes should mediate these differences to define areas where agreement is apparent / possible as well as those where it is currently unachievable.
How does systems uncertainty affect the current situation?
Research often focuses on filling ‘knowledge gaps’ or reducing uncertainty, and certainly there are many gaps in what we know about NRM issues. Some of this uncertainty can be addressed well through research, and some cannot. The distinction between reducible uncertainty and indeterminacy or deep uncertainty (things we simply cannot know because of the complexity of causal interactions) is an important one (Dovers and Handmer, 1992) especially for adaptation to climate change. For example, we may have
projections of temperature change with a high degree of confidence, but little idea what increasing average temperature will do to a particular ecosystem. In such a situation it may be very difficult, very expensive or simply impossible to establish in advance what
gradually increasing average temperature may do to an ecosystem.
The complexity of specific ecological systems means we can rarely identify when thresholds or tipping points are likely to occur or what will cause them. The larger, more open or complex a system the more likely it is that we will be unable to effectively predict system dynamics and change and that these systems will need to be managed as complex adaptive systems through learning and adjusting rather than predicting and acting (Gunderson, 2003). However, some aspects of these
systems may be more easily understood and foreseen that others. These can become key management foci.
For example, in alpine ash forests the dominant canopy species (Eucalyptus delegatensis) is an obligate seeder, and there are clear threats to these forests from increasing fire frequency associated with climate (Bowman et al., 2014). Such an understanding of sensitivity and exposure of systems at the level of keystone species provides for specific and targeted management interventions, in this case added management of fire in the 20-year period between intense fires and when recruitment can recommence through seeding.
For relatively predictable change risk management can sometimes be used to identify appropriate adaptation options. Risk management can focus on reducing the likelihood o or the negative consequences of events. It requires that sources of risk are identified, assessed and mitigated through targeted action. As assessment of options in risk management is targeted to avoid a specific problem, care needs to be taken not to create a new set of problems. For example, hard engineering solutions to protect houses from storm surges have led to loss of public amenity when a seawall results in beach erosion.
Unlike risk management which tends to aim to find an optimal solution in a predict-then-act mode of decision-making, managing deep uncertainty can usefully focus on assessing a range of policy options (Weaver et al.
2013). Howden et al. (2013, pg. 61-62) suggest that the following types of actions and decisions that are useful in managing such deep uncertainty:
Avoiding irreversible decisions and deferring decision-making - interim –decisions are made while seeking new information or creating preferred options (An example is building a low cost
temporary groyne as an experimental intervention to manage beach erosion.)
Reframing the problem: see framing discussion in Section 1 of this report. (An example could be including newer perspectives such as considering novel mechanisms by which a downstream town or city could pay for the ecological services of the upstream floodplain in buffering the town from flooding.)
Developing no regret or low regret options – and applying different timescales to evaluate regret. (An example could be building a by-pass and/or
pedestrian footbridge to reduce overall traffic pressure on the bridge, regardless of flood risk.)
Introducing redundancy and enabling more than one mechanism to achieve the desired result (and accept some loss of short term efficiency) (For example, using different incentives and regulations to target the same biodiversity outcomes.)
Creating contingency arrangements, which might be similar to redundancies but tend to be less formal; relying for example on generic forms of adaptive capacity. (Ensure there are good networks and relationships between emergency
management, frontline services and NRM
organisations and that each knows what the others can and should do at different stages of emergency management cycles to contribute to desirable social, economic and environmental outcomes.) While it is difficult to pinpoint the systems uncertainty, on a scale from one to ten, it is clear that there are some issues or objectives which are relatively better or worse understood from a scientific perspective.
How does scale affect the current situation?
Much like the number of stakeholder involved, scale can make issues more or less complex to manage.
Large scale: if an issue is prevalent across a region, state or at a national scale or even large tracts of a region it may be possible to use a single technical analysis to decide (computational problems), set up testable hypotheses (judgement) or where there is substantial disagreement about goals (bargaining, inspiration) devise a robust scenario-oriented decision-making or adaptive learning process that can be applied across a region.
Medium scale: if an issue only occurs at a sub-regional scale, futures analysis will need to focus more on goals in bargaining-, or inspiration-oriented problems (e.g.
foresighting / backcasting), and more on application of scientific analysis in computational problems
Small scale: if an issue is very local in scale, it may be difficult to get robust data and/or independent analysis.
Where there is local division, facilitation to find common ground and building on that ground (e.g.
through strength-based or inquiry-based approaches) will often be needed before clear action can be taken across a locality. Working only with groups with specific values can lead to on-ground outcomes, but may also result in challenges to the legitimacy of organisations.
Thus work in localities with sub-groups might be best framed and designed as trials, and results of these trials used to stimulate broader community discussion.
How do capacity constraints affect the current situation?
Capacity is a critical issue for adaptation. This is especially the case for implementation of NRM strategies which rely on partners and stakeholder to undertake many activities to achieve NRM outcomes (e.g. local government, landholders) (Leith et al., 2012).
Adaptive capacity has been defined as:
“the ability to design and implement effective adaptation strategies, or to react to evolving hazards and stresses so as to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence and/or the magnitude of harmful outcomes resulting from climate-related hazards”
(Brooks and Adger, 2005, p. 165).
Of course, adaptive capacity may be more broadly defined beyond climate, in which case adaptive capacity can be seen generically as the available resources of a group or an individual, and the ability to use them to adapt to changing conditions either pre-emptively or reactively (Leith et al., 2012). Approaches to evaluate and identify investment opportunities to overcome critical capacity constraints are detailed in the SCARP report on adaptive capacity (Jacobs et al., 2015).
In general, capacity and constraints will affect the ability to develop and implement options and even to invest in the processes and institutions which are used to develop them. While the effects of low levels of funding are obvious and often the focus of concern, it is also remarkable what can be achieved if there is agreement within a group in the absence of funding.
Social capital, both the bonding capital within groups and the linking capital among them, can create high levels of volunteerism and good will to support activity.
Working with the willing can create high bonding capital but can also undermine the bridging capital that builds the broader legitimacy within a community.
These forms of capital as well as institutional and political capital need to be maintained by NRM
organisations through good processes and well defined, outcome-oriented activities. Adaptive capacity is thus closely linked to the principles that guide NRM governance, strategy and implementation.
How does urgency affect the current situation?
Issues that are more urgent are usually so because there are high stakes (for some, at least) involved in their resolution. Urgent issues are often politically charged and may not be amenable to resolution through deliberate, well-reasoned processes involving the best possible research and information.
However, urgency also creates moments in which good science, good processes and leadership can be brought together to address problems -- if the ground work has been laid in advance.
Many climate change adaptation issues are not yet politically charged but may become more so as climate impacts become more acute. Sea-level rise and storm surge activity provide a straightforward example. As sea-level rises, the effects of the same sized storm surges will be progressively greater. Each storm surge can be used to bring greater attention to the
importance of sea-level rise planning or create potential for its implementation. In this way, extreme conditions can create opportunities for plans to provide a way forward when the community realises it needs it most.
The same patterns recur in different ways for other extreme events: bushfires, heatwaves, floods, droughts.
These moments of heightened urgency can be used to precipitate action and commitment, and thereby enable implementation.
Figure B.1 Example subjective evaluations of ‘climate-ready’ objectives developed by NRM planners rapidly in a workshop setting, demonstrating the relative strength (1 - Low; 2 - Medium, and; 3 - High) of each of the 6 dimensions in the current situation assessment framework.