The necessity for adaptation is now widely recognized in Canada. However, the developing pattern of response is an expanding mosaic. Individual pieces – i.e., initiatives at the provincial, territorial, and municipal levels – are visible, but the overall strategic design is lacking clarity and cohesion. This is likely due, in part, to Canada’s federalism, and to the conceptualization of adaptation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The negotiations leading to the UNFCCC conceived of adaptation as largely a place-based and local matter; of concern only to those most vulnerable communities and countries. In consequence, a bottom-up approach was viewed as the preferred option. Over the life of the UNFCCC, adaptation has grown in significance and has come to be seen as requiring top-down strategic approaches. A major challenge now facing Canada – and indeed all Parties to the Convention – will be the effective and simultaneous management and coordination of both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Currently, in Canada, the blend has been allowed to evolve almost unguided, with modest encouragement from the federal government. Leadership has emerged at both provincial and municipal levels across the country. But it is not clear what the consequences of such an approach will be.
[1]
Sisira Jayasuriya,et al.
Environment and Natural Resources
,
2003
.
[2]
T. Dickinson,et al.
The compendium of adaptation models for climate change.
,
2007
.
[3]
Pushpam Kumar.
Agriculture (Chapter8) in IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
,
2007
.
[4]
I. Burton,et al.
Integrating adaptation into policy: upscaling evidence from local to global
,
2007
.
[5]
F. Warren,et al.
From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate 2007
,
2008
.
[6]
A. Gore,et al.
Climate change action plan
,
2011
.