Canada needs an inclusive approach to climate action

As the consequences of a warming climate become clear in Canada—from wildfires and heat waves to floods and extreme snowfalls—so, too, do the consequences of inadequate planning for how we will adapt to these changes. Of course, we must work to curb carbon dioxide emissions, but there’s an urgent need to also invest in actions that build our resilience to current and future climate impacts. A growing contingent of policymakers recognize this, but what isn’t being addressed is that resilience doesn’t look the same for everyone. There is no one-size-fits-all model that will work for all communities. The impacts of climate change will affect nearly all people across Canada, but to different extents and in different ways; we must remember this as we plan and implement adaptation actions. The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF), developed in 2016, guides Canada’s provincial and federal response to climate change. When it comes to adaptation, the PCF outlines measures such as building climate-resilient infrastructure, supporting technological innovations, managing disaster risks, and protecting and improving human health and well-being. It also prioritizes actions that integrate traditional knowledge in decision making and assist vulnerable regions, for example by supporting community-based monitoring of climate change in Indigenous communities. It doesn’t, however, address factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, disability, or socio-economic status—even though these have a considerable influence on how people experience the impacts of climate change, as well as their ability to adapt. This represents a major gap in Canadian climate policy. The PCF presents communities as relatively homogeneous, with Indigenous, northern, and coastal communities viewed as uniformly vulnerable. This is surprising, given the federal government’s policy to support gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) in its portfolios. GBA+ is a useful tool to analyze how policies and programs might disproportionately benefit or disadvantage certain groups, with particular attention on those experiencing multiple forms of inequality. Last week, at a national gathering of adaptation practitioners and policymakers in Vancouver, a key takeaway was the need to move away from a “technocratic” framing of adaptation and toward a more holistic approach that focuses on building resilient systems and resilient people. Such an approach would consider how those with diverse identities and socio-economic backgrounds are affected by climate change and identify targeted strategies to ensure adaptation investments do not leave anyone behind. It would also address the less tangible—yet equally significant—impacts of climate change related to identity, mental health, and emotional well-being, sense of place, and social connections. In La Ronge, Sask., where wildfires forced a mandatory evacuation in 2015, recent research revealed some of these intangible impacts: community members described the anxiety they experienced in having to move far from their homes and social networks, as well as security concerns for younger people housed at evacuation centres. People’s sense of agency was compromised—for example, women volunteered to help with the relief efforts and businesses had resources to contribute, but they were not given opportunities to get involved. This has persisted in the aftermath of the crisis, with people expressing frustration that some groups continue to be excluded from planning. As a result, there is a feeling they will not be any better prepared when the next wildfire occurs. To promote inclusive adaptation, we need creative collaboration processes that combine different types of knowledge in meaningful ways: this may be social scientists and gender experts helping engineers and climate scientists consider the various barriers to effective and inclusive adaptation; it could be traditional and local knowledge informing scientific data, providing a better basis for decision making; or it could involve models and projections being combined with lived experience to fully understand how future scenarios may unfold and affect people of diverse circumstances. The discussion at last week’s conference also focused on the need for adaptation decision-making to include a wider range of voices. Efforts to prepare for the impacts of climate change, whether at the local, provincial, or national level, must be grounded in a diversity of knowledge from women, low-income communities, new Canadians, people of colour, and Indigenous peoples. In a year when countries are expected to declare new, more ambitious climate commitments, Canada has an opportunity to be a leader among northern countries by taking an inclusive approach to addressing climate change. Realizing this potential will require us to broaden our toolkit beyond conventional solutions, cultivate leadership in adaptation among those who are frequently excluded, and commit to equitable outcomes. Not only will this make our adaptation efforts more effective, it will help to redress the historic and persistent inequalities that undermine our resilience. Angie Dazé is a research associate with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and co-leads the NAP Global Network’s work on gender-responsive adaptation planning. Amber Fletcher is an associate professor in sociology at the University of Regina. Her research combines the fields of sociology, gender studies, public policy, and climate change. Maureen G. Reed is a distinguished professor and is the assistant director, academic, in the School of Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. The Hill Times