Climate Redux. Adapt, mitigate or reduce risk?

Climate Change has forced a paradigm shift among radicals and conservatives: We have seen the enemy, and it is all of US. Unfortunately, for now we see, as in a glass, darkly. I hope soon, we shall see face to face.

Confidently now, everyone's talking about climate change, and there are two major responses that have so far come out: adaptation and mitigation. One is proactive, the other reactive. Actually, I have just found that those terms are not appropriately defined, and that's the first problem, because people assume that they can distinguish one from the other, and therefore can intelligently proceed to decide what to do based on that position. Shifting sands.

To illustrate, here are some of my readings:

The National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility of Australia is convening the 2010 International Climate Change Adaptation Conference to be held 29 June - 1 July 2010 at the Gold Coast Convention Centre in Queensland, Australia (nccarf.edu.au). Not only science but decision making in the midst of uncertainty will be tackled. I like that. If you can't decide when you don't have all the facts, you can't manage.

The Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) is a research and capacity development program that "aims to improve the capacity of African countries to adapt to climate change in ways that benefit the most vulnerable" (idrc.ca). The whole program is science-based. However, it does not attempt to demarcate what it refers to as adaptation.

The United Nations Development Programme supports "Adaptation To Climate Change" and that includes identifying financing for initiatives (undp.org). It calls for concrete actions to reduce vulnerability of the poor and increase their capacity to adapt. It has a headline 'UNDP Adaptation Strategy' and yet fails to state clearly what that strategy is.

The Climate Change Adaptation Forum in Australia will be held 24 November in Melbourne and 26 November 2009 in Sydney (dealersgroup.com.au). It says, "Organizations need to develop strategy and business models that are adaptive and resilient" on top of mitigation. Let's wait and see.

There is an International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative for Australia's neighboring island countries (ausaid.gov.au). The emphasis is on assessment of vulnerability and planning adaptation measures in response, meaning risk reduction, not really adaptation.

The European Union is preparing a comprehensive EU climate-change adaptation strategy for after 2013 (euractiv.com). While the language is that of adaptation, the actions being called for are in the nature of mitigation.

The United Nations approved in 2007 a "climate change adaptation fund" in Bali, Indonesia (scidev.net). The fund is intended both for conservation of resources and reducing risks to peoples, including early warning systems and new agricultural techniques. (So where's the fund now?)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "stressed the urgency of climate adaptation measures for the most vulnerable" in a recent visit to Mongolia (climate-l.org). He mentioned the need for countries to transition to low-carbon economies and to be adaptable. 'Climate change carries no passport,' he said. 'And no country is immune.' Climate change covers a multitude of sins!

The World Health Organization and the UNDP have a joint project called "Health Adaptation to Climate Change" funded by the Global Environment Facility (who.int). The goal is to decrease health vulnerability. That is more risk reduction and less adaptation.

UN-Habitat supports "The Cities in Climate Change Initiative" (unhabitat.org). It calls mostly for risk management, including risk reduction. The pilot cities are Sorsogon (Philippines), Esmeraldas (Ecuador), Maputo (Mozambique), and Kampala (Uganda). It calls for raising awareness, education and capacity-building. The cities have to learn to do it themselves what they have to do.

The US Government Accountability Office is talking about "climate change adaptation and strategic federal planning to help officials make more informed decisions" (gao.gov). It notes that there is no coordinated national approach to adaptation. What's the matter, guys - storm scattered you?

There was an International Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Change in West African Agriculture in April 2009 (wmo.int). The expected outcome was an enhanced capacity to identify and understand impacts and vulnerabilities and to respond to such for sustainable development in West Africa. I would expect that the report be out by now, 6 months later.

The City of London launched in August 2008 the "world's first" strategy to prepare London for climate change, London's Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (London.gov.uk). The strategy proposes the greening of the city to keep it cool during summer. Green and bear it!

Under the Alaska Climate Change Strategy is the Adaptation Advisory Group of the Governor's Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change (climatechange.alaska.gov). The Group is tasked to focus on areas such as how to address impacts on infrastructure, human health, and ecosystems. Big words, big work.

The Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries has called on leaders of the world by issuing a statement: "Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society" (insaindia.org). It emphasizes that "the strategic approach to adaptation must be based on the principle of sustainable development." What about mitigation?

There is the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation project sponsored by CIFOR and CATIE with financial assistance from the European Union (cifor.cgiar.org). The focus is on forests and how they contribute to sustainable development. I can tell you from where I sit: In the Philippines, the forests don't contribute much - they're mostly gone.

Norwegian Church Aid is financing climate change adaptation in developing countries (kirkensnodhjelp.no). The emphasis is on adaptation, as it is argued that mitigation will not start to make a difference until 2030. But we have to start to make a difference now.

And right down my alley, the "Climate Change Adaptation Award" among the many Earth Journalism Awards sponsored by Cop15 Copenhagen - unfortunately, the deadline for submission of nominees was 7 September 2009 (awards.earthjournalism.org). Awards notwithstanding, the webpage says (ANN):

It is crucial for nations around the world, their citizens and the media as a whole to grasp the need for adaptation and behavior change in the face of climate change, and to embrace efforts made to minimize its effects that use the best of our ingenuity.

While it is true that, as the webpage says, 'the media plays a vital role in informing the public on how to adapt to climate change in matters that are sensitive to the contexts and situations in which people live,' the Climate Change Adaptation Award assumes that the media does understand what climate change is all about; that, I submit, is a very dangerous postulation. The media people themselves need very much to be educated on climate change, and fast!

All in all, you will note that in the above websites visited, the single word most used as a needed reaction to climate change is adaptation; however, in application, it actually refers to both adaptation and mitigation.

Out of the ordinary, I found both Spain and my own country the Philippines as seriously considering both adaptation and mitigation. As far as I know, both are necessary. Even then, I have a problem with both.

Spain's National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (circle-era.net) calls for mitigating human interference; the bigger plan is for adaptation to climate change to be integrated into the planning systems of Spain. However, the document does not clearly differentiate the two even as the neat conceptual framework shows the arrow of adaptation going right and the arrow of mitigation going left. In fact, in the succeeding pages of the document, the plan completely does not mention mitigation at all.

Arguably much better, the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729; you can download the full text here: mndlaw.net), signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 23 October 2009, creating the Climate Change Commission, defines the technical terms used, as it should. Thus:

Sec 3 (a) "Adaptation" refers to the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.

Sec 3 (n) "Mitigation" in the context of climate change, refers to human intervention to address anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all GHG, including ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes.

And yes, I have a problem with all that! (I have already pointed out a major error in judgment of RA 9729; see my "Philippine Climate Change Act is self-defeating!" Blogspot.com).

Here, I want to point out that the definitions in that law are not particularly inspired. The lawmakers did not define their terms first thing so as to make them mutually exclusive - somebody else or they probably defined the terms after the law was done; that is, they discussed the law without delimiting their premises first.

And I think that in fact, that's the problem with all those national and international plans as responses to climate change, from Alaska to Australia to the United States to Zimbabwe, including the United Nations and its agencies - so, they can't tell which side of the coin is up: Adaptation or Mitigation, Heads or Tails. Do they realize that in fact, it is but a single coin?

To establish the case, first, let me refer to a reliable source, my favorite, the American Heritage Dictionary. It tells us:

To "adapt" is "to make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation." Synonyms: adjust, conform, fit, reconcile.

To "mitigate" is "to moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity." Synonyms: relieve, allay, alleviate, assuage, lighten, palliate.

Now then, with RA 9729, it aggravates me that:

One, the law of my country says adaptation also refers to anything that "moderates harm" - the reference is mistaken; that's the other side of the coin, Tails; that's mitigation.

Two, the law of my country says mitigation also refers to the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions or ozone-depleting substances - the reference is mistaken; that's the other side of the coin, Heads; that's adaptation.

I anticipate therefore that when they try to come up with the implementing guidelines for RA 9729, they will argue on methods, how to get there from here, because they are not clear exactly where is here. Therefore, there is the imminent danger that they will emphasize either adaptation or mitigation, not address them as both urgent. This is an emergency!

The way I see it, the 2 intelligent responses to climate change at any given time can be stated simply:
(1) Reduce pollution. (That's adaptation.)
(2) Reduce risk. (That's mitigation.)

That's clear enough, isn't it? So, "disaster risk reduction" is mitigation, period. By definition, by its very nature, DRR doesn't include adaptation; it can't. The very title of the GECHS Report 2008 of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (gechs.org) has the correct delineation: "Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation And Human Security."

Simplify, simplify! said the American Henry David Thoreau, so I will do more for the Philippine Senate and House. I have already simplified it actually: "reduce pollution" and "reduce risk." To simplify further:

In one word, the proper climate change action is? Reduce.

Now, I did imply that adaptation and mitigation are two sides of the same coin. Well, the way I see it, they are. When you reduce pollution, you reduce the risk of climate change occurring, right? Adaptation leading to Mitigation. When you reduce the risk of people suffering from the climate changing, as in moving out all those squatters from riverbanks, you have to follow that up and make sure that you reduce pollution in the new location, right? Mitigation leading to Adaptation.

The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (unisdr.org) says, "Disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change share the same ultimate goal of reducing vulnerability to weather and climate hazards." No Sir, I think that is incorrect. They do not share such goal; in fact, they're opposites. That is to say, decreasing vulnerability is mitigation; increasing invulnerability is adaptation. 2 sides of 1 coin, not the same side. One side doesn't make a coin.

I have just been browsing some more, and I find in the GECHS Report 2008 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines climate change adaptation as "adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities." That definition for adaptation definitely includes the concept of mitigation. If that Nobel-Prize-for-Peace definition is correct, then everybody should stop talking about mitigation as well as disaster risk reduction and just talk about adaptation.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization is different, as it talks about "Climate Change Adaptation And Mitigation In The Food And Agriculture Sector" (ftp.fao.org). And yet, incongruously, it adopts the IPCC definition of adaptation. Some things never change.

Likewise, the people of California are now discussing their 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy in a draft form (climatechange.ca.gov). It calls for climate adaptation and mitigation to complement each other. Even so, as does the FAO, California adopts the IPCC definition of adaptation, which dilutes, at the very least, the role of mitigation as a reaction to climate change.

Now then, since I never give up so easily, here's another attempt of mine to simplify climate change actions:
To adapt is to reduce the causes of climate change: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane.
To mitigate is to reduce the effects of climate change: death, destruction, diminution, dislocation.

Yes, we need both adaptation and mitigation at the same time. You can't have one without the other!

And no, it is not correct to state that the poor are the most vulnerable, or the low-lying areas are - ladies and gentlemen, Sir or Madam, as the case may be, climate change is no respecter of persons, or places. Wasn't that dramatically shown to the world by Super Typhoon Ketsana in Marikina near Manila on 26 September 2009, just a few weeks ago? Government officials estimated the total economic damage to run easily to $400 million; in a small country like the Philippines, that's big money. That is why it cannot be business as usual. We all have lifestyles to change.

Why am I doing this? As an online journalist, I'm trying to help the countries communicate properly to their own people first and to the rest of the world next. Climate change is too important a subject matter to be left to experts with their ambiguities!

As for me, being a practical man, I want to simplify some more and use the second most-memorable 3 words in the world as my climate change actions:
Reduce.
Reuse.
Recycle.