None of the current approaches that we are aware of is likely to generate a large movement on climate change adaptation. As climate change remains being seen as an issue for the future with the bulk of efforts concentrated on mitigation we risk postponing action for too long.

Adaptation, a systemic issue

A few years ago, while working on a report on freshwater future  for the French Academy of Science, I remember being amazed by the analysis presented to our working group on the possible consequences of a major flood in Paris. Such an extreme event occurred in the past century in 1910 and remained in the collective memory as one of the worst natural disasters in France. Almost one century after, are we better prepared to such an event? Surprisingly, in spite of the construction of a series of reservoirs upstream from Paris in the Seine basin, this is not the case! We are obviously aware that the risks associated are high, but our vulnerability has considerably increased since then. We live in a much more sophisticated and interconnected environment than one century ago and a disaster would have today many more cascading effects. It would affect our heating systems, our water systems, our information systems, our transport systems, all dependent on electricity, which may cascade in many economical, societal, health and in turn political disorders. While in 1910 most of the problems remained local, they would also have today much more far-reaching consequences on the entire country.       

This systemic dimension of risk, is key to adaptation to climate change, i.e. to the actions required to reduce or get prepared to its anticipated negative impacts. This issue has been and remains the poor cousin of climate change negotiations and action, essentially because reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases is perceived as the immediate priority.

Adaptation, a matter of climate justice

There is however an overall consensus that even a 2°C increase of the average global temperature will have dramatic consequences. In Paris during the COP meeting, adaptation has clearly been one of the main hurdles of the negotiators. The reason is that it is connected to the ethical dimension of climate change that opposes North and South, the usual divide in UN negotiations since the first Earth Summit in Rio 1992. The opposition goes much beyond geopolitics: those mostly affected by climate change are the most vulnerable and also those who contributed less to climate change. Hence the acrimonious discussions on the $100bn annual contribution of the North to support the transitions in the South.

But, beyond these ethical considerations, we need to recognize that adaptation is complex. At least two reasons for this: firstly, those who need to take action do not have enough information on risks and their associated costs and benefits; secondly there are good reasons to postpone implementation because of the general preference of humans for the present.  

Yet, as stressed by many experts including in the Stern report and in a recent publication of The Economist on the Cost of Inaction, the more quickly we act, the lower the toll on the economy and on global well-being. Hence the need for solutions that work on the ground.

There are already good reasons to act

Extreme events of meteorological and hydrological nature have increased in frequency as observed in time series of the global database on disasters since 1950. These data alone seem insufficient to convince that urgent action is required. Partly because in emerging or developing economies, there are many other priorities than managing risks associated natural hazards and also since there are still less assets protected e.g. by insurance (with thus no pressure through e.g. rising premiums). Furthermore there is still debate on the causes of this increase. Could it be the result of an improvement of reporting of natural hazards and not a consequence of climate change?

There are obviously other reasons. Interestingly, the report on The Cost of Inaction bases its arguments in favour of action on the three-fold increase of the value at risk to manageable assets, from 4.2 trillion dollars to 13.2 trillion (using a high discount rate i.e. as used by the private sector) in case of a 6° temperature increase in 2100. This type of reasoning, also used in the Stern report – but using lower discount rates, as used in public sector-, bases the arguments mainly on risk i.e. on extreme events that are likely to happen in the future. While sounding scientifically justified, it introduces implicitly the idea that climate change is for the future and gives good arguments to procrastination.

Source: EM-DAT | The international disasters database

Systemic impacts of climate change are visible today!

This type of reasoning is in close symbiosis with the one of climatologists in the climate services approach. Climate models “naturally” induce such an approach because the frequencies of extreme events are what they can predict.  But climatologists are not able to predict the systemic changes that result from the progressive and nearly unperceivable evolutions of the climate. And these systemic changes are occurring now in a very visible manner in many systems, especially those (such as agricultural systems) that can integrate small temperature or rainfall changes over a certain period of time.

What can we notice in these systems? A rainy season is shifted from a few weeks; the growth period of crops starts earlier; the harvest is also advanced often by 2 to three weeks (e.g. in France). These shifts have consequences for instance on the sensitivity to certain diseases or on post-harvest transformation processes. They may in turn require a complete reorganisation of a production system: water needs to be available in a different period, crop protection requires new or adjusted tools etc..  They already have impacts on production: in France the stagnation of wheat yields over the past 30 years has been attributed to a large extent to the various impacts of climate change (see overview here).

This is what is observed today and it gives us two important lessons. The first one is that the most disruptive consequences of climate change are today not due to the extreme events but to changes induced by interactions in ecosystems and in value chains. These systemic changes have a combined effect on the economy and they will reduce production, they will put health in danger, they may destabilize societies in an imperceptible way. The second one is that it is urgent to start monitoring how systems are impacted and may be destabilized (using in particular the results already collected by the Resilience Alliance). We need to start observing and developing better knowledge on these systems to understand their breaking points and associated mechanisms.  

The only positive thing about this is that it will demonstrate how climate change is already impacting us today, and thus most likely induce a mindset shift by putting emphasis on the present and not the future. Hopefully enough to convince that action needs to be scaled urgently on adaptation to climate change.