Adaptation to Climate Change Part 6

Context: policy and methods.

In the UK, statements by DFID (2004b), GNAW (2001) and MAFF (2000) have highlighted the dual role of public sector agencies needing both to adapt their own goals and practices to take account of climate change, whilst also shaping the enabling environment to support the adaptive capacity of private, public and civil sector actors and individuals operating within their spheres of influence. In this way it is doubly important to understand the ways in which the capacity and direction of adaptation within such organisations is shaped. Despite this only little thought has gone into planning how adaptive capacity to climate change and variability might be built as a policy imperative alongside efficiency, transparency, accountability, legitimacy and equity. Most work to date has been undertaken within the adaptive management school and there are parallels with the a.n.a.lysis presented here (see Chapter 2). This is important because existing bases for organising and implementing policy are challenged by the complex, dynamic, 'trans-scientific' (Weinberg, 1972) cross-epistemic problems a.s.sociated with climate change. In responding there is a need to develop organisational capabilities that reflect the uncertain nature of knowledge. Central to this task is a better understanding of the ways in which organisations learn and adapt. This is especially so when adaptive innovations challenge dominant ways of thinking and defining goals and responsibilities.

As Chapter 3 demonstrates, research on learning and adaptation to climate change has focused primarily on the influence of formal inst.i.tutions and on reactive adaptation. Empirical work has shown that adaptation can be a source of contestation for political actors operating across hierarchies of scale (Iwanciw, 2004), and with contrasting ideologies; for example, with tensions emerging through the interplay of top-down command and control risk management and local self-organised adaptation (Tompkins, 2005). From the viewpoint of proactive adaptation, Grothmann and Patt (2005) acknowledge the importance of psychological factors in determining the adaptive capacity of individuals.

This chapter presents evidence for adaptive capacity as arising out of cognitive processes (ongoing social learning) embedded in the social relationships of organisations (which are given shape by both formal and informal inst.i.tutions and their practices). Such generic socio-cognitive attributes of organisations can contribute to the building of robust adaptation, responding not only to surprises a.s.sociated with climate change but also the uncertainties of future economic, social and political change (Schneider, 2004; Willows and Connell, 2003). However, research in crisis management has pointed to the difficulties that can be a.s.sociated with these characteristics. Organisational culture, communication practices and decision-making processes generate the conditions in which crisis events occur (Reason, 1990a, 1990b, 1997; Smith, 1990, 1995; Turner, 1976, 1978). At the same time, this research has sought to push the boundaries of contingency planning by encouraging managers to start 'thinking the unthinkable' (Smith, 2004) as a means of considering the range of problems that can arise and how organisations might be structured to antic.i.p.ate such risks. Preparing organisations for the unimaginable as well as planning for the unexpected is enhanced where there are diverse social relationships with open informal s.p.a.ce beyond corporate control. These s.p.a.ces allow individuals or sub-groups within organisations to experiment, copy, communicate, learn and reflect on their actions.

Perhaps one reason for the limited literature on adaptation within organisations (compared with research on adaptation within local communities for example), and in particular on the ways in which social agency and inst.i.tutions interact, is the difficulty of surfacing respondent viewpoints. Much of the experience of social learning and self-organisation happens as part of the routine practice of working within an organisation with the distinctions between canonical and shadow s.p.a.ces often blurred. Elsewhere working in the shadow system is on the fringes of professional good practice and seldom disclosed publicly. The approach taken to generate the data presented below was to engage respondents in a three-stage conversation. First, respondents from each organisation were self-selecting, having responded to an open invitation to attend a workshop framed as an opportunity to reflect on the organisation's adaptive capacity and potential future strategy. Second, workshop discussions were followed up with individual interviews, or in some cases researchers were invited to follow-on meetings. Finally, summary data and a.n.a.lysis that had been made anonymous were circulated amongst respondents for comment and as a verification tool. The initial selection of organisations was based on existing contacts and a desire to engage with respondents working in different organisational forms with responsibility for setting the policy or information environment for other actors and businesses.

In the framing workshops respondents were presented with a low probability, high-impact climate change scenario for which no contingency planning existed in the organisations under study. The UK scenario was for strong warming over 20 years to reach a climate similar to that of contemporary southern France, followed by a collapse of the north Atlantic thermohaline circulation systems and a rapid cooling over a subsequent 10 years to reach a new climatic equilibrium close to that of southern Norway. To generate concrete examples of the role of social relations in adaptation respondents were also asked to identify past a.n.a.logues for the climate change scenario. The a.n.a.logues chosen by respondents differed, but common examples of external surprises were the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2003, ongoing changes to European Common Agricultural Policy and the European Waters Directive: stressors which the organisations acted to mediate and were felt to be wide-ranging and, to varying degrees, unpredictable in their ramifications for respondents' organisations.

The range of climate change impacts considered in one workshop are presented in Table 6.1. The recognition that not only were climate futures uncertain but the development impacts of any one climate future multifaceted and potentially reinforcing was key in justifying the focus of discussion on the relevance of generic, fundamental adaptive capacities built on social learning and self-organisation rather than a search for material adaptation policies.

Table 6.1 Warming and cooling scenarios for Wales Warming scenario Cooling scenario Weather regime Increased winter rainfall and flooding Higher temperatures overall Hotter, drier summers A similar climate to that of Bordeaux Increased flooding in spring due to snow melt Lower temperatures overall Colder winters with one in seven winters 'extreme'

A similar climate to Oslo Rural development Diversified economic opportunities Increased rural population New opportunities for secondary employment Rural depopulation Transport disruption and less accessibility to services during winter Public health Increased respiratory disease in wetter winters New diseases Heat stress Pollution effects?

Increased respiratory disease in colder winters Agriculture Soil loss due to flooding New pests and diseases Late summer grazing reduced but may be compensated by increased gra.s.s production overall More difficult to use land effectively Crop diversification possible, especially on the coasts, but soil quality may limit this Soil loss due to flooding Reduction in stock or capital spending on winter housing Loss of winter growing season less grazing implies less protein production Forestry Timber productivity up while quality down Use of trees for water management?

Timber productivity down, while quality up Pressure on forestry management More forestry on marginal rural land?

Biodiversity Links between habitats forming wildlife corridors gain importance to allow species migration More active management of species migration needed under warming than cooling scenario Loss of key species like sphagnum moss Pollution effects?

Links between habitats forming wildlife corridors gain importance to allow species migration Eco-restoration possible as climate cools from a preceding high?

Warming scenario Cooling scenario Tourism Higher volumes antic.i.p.ated No extended winter slow season Improves in comparison to compet.i.tor destinations Storm and flood risk to infrastructure Loss of 'Green Hills' image Lower volumes antic.i.p.ated Possibility to develop winter sports Seaside market in decline Other industries Less vulnerable water supplies than in England but may be indirectly impacted by English extraction Sh.e.l.lfish production crashes Possible loss of high-tech and footloose industries.

Note: Additional empirical a.n.a.lysis is available on the project website, http://rcc.rures.net.

Case study a.n.a.lysis.

The aim of this section is to reveal the interplay between inst.i.tutions and individual action that construct the relational s.p.a.ce for adaptation within organisations. The dominant form of adaptation considered is resilience. The two organisations included in the discussion allow two different sides of adaptive capacity to be examined. First, in the Environment Agency, responsibilities for setting the operating environment for more local organisations to adapt are explored. Second we use efforts of a farmers' support group to facilitate aspects of adaptation for individual farmers. In both cases the a.s.sessment of capacity to adapt to climate change is forward looking. That is, we do not seek to describe a.s.sets used in past rounds of adapting to climate change. Rather we explore the social relationships and actor behaviour that const.i.tute these organisations as a way of mapping out capacity for adaptation based on the theoretical arguments made in the preceding chapters. This frees a.n.a.lysis of capacity to adapt to climate change from a historical determinism which would skew and limit results where future events a.s.sociated with climate change may be very different from past experience. In both cases the aims of the organisations are to promote adaptation as resilience. There are though examples of individual actors attempting to change the direction of the organisation; this is especially so for the Environment Agency. These serve to exemplify the skills and strategies that can enable transitional adaptation within an organisation.

The discussion for each organisation is presented around a series of quotations. This gives voice to the respondents but also provides a contextual richness that would be lost if a summary alone was provided. Themes of social learning and self-organisation help to structure the accounts. Self-organisation is unpacked further by statements on the interplay of shadow and canonical systems and of social communities and networks acting within and across the organisations. Data emerged inductively and act to verify these attributes of adaptation that have so far been described largely in theory. Respondents and in some cases secondary organisations are not named to maintain confidentiality.

The Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency is a key mediator for climate change adaptation in the rural sector in the UK. It is charged with protecting and improving the environment and promoting sustainable development including flood risk management in England and Wales. It acts both to regulate and advise on rural development.

Respondents discussed capacity to adapt to possible future impacts of climate change through focusing on their personal and professional experience of constraints in the canonical system, the role of the shadow system and how together they form an inst.i.tutional architecture for adaptation. Many of the observations are not tied directly to experience of climate change a.s.sociated events or policy but speak to the generic interaction between professionals and inst.i.tutional structures within the organisation. The uncertainties that climate change brings and the knowledge that past events are increasingly inappropriate as guides to future crises makes such knowledge central to understanding and potentially supporting adaptation to climate. What follows is not an a.s.sessment of adaptive capacity across the Environment Agency but rather a reporting of viewpoints from key informants working as professional scientists from different points within the organisation.

Inst.i.tutional constraints.

Taking or designing adaptive actions is facilitated or constrained by existing inst.i.tutions, which have their own logic, history and transactions costs if being reformed or dismantled. Thus an important type of observed proactive adaptation was inst.i.tutional modification: efforts to reduce conflict between adaptive possibilities and existing social realities, and so create enhanced opportunities for adaptive actions to arise as needed. The impetus for this can come from without or within the policy system, for example: In a sense, we're doing that [inst.i.tutional modification] through our seminars, but we are also working in the Welsh a.s.sembly and the Environment Agency, and everybody else. We're trying to get the Welsh a.s.sembly to lead on a Welsh climate change communications strategy. It's not a priority for them, but we are trying to lobby for that.

Inst.i.tutions affecting adaptive capacity and action were found to have a fluid quality. They were renegotiated as circ.u.mstances changed, as different individual and organisational actors became involved and as existing actors readjusted their internal priorities. For example: It is set in their contract that they have to do a workshop and that it needs to have these outputs, but there is nothing in it that says you have to do it in this way. But if one of us were to say to someone, look we think you ought to do it this way, then they're not going to say no. They might come back and say that they've had a better idea.

Negotiation is an a.s.set for facing the uncertainty induced by climate change. But this has financial and other costs. Considering how inst.i.tutions do or might change necessitates an a.n.a.lysis of the power configurations that conserve or act against particular inst.i.tutions. Power relations can be given expression in many different ways, but in an organisational context, the direction of resources is an important one. As the respondent notes, though, agent led external action is challenging: Politics is difficult. I have certainly tried to foster close relations with DEFRA, DOE, DETR whatever it happens to be, but you are dealing with a culture that is fairly rigid there they pay the bills, we do what they say.

Inst.i.tutions can both constrain and enable adaptation. For individuals seeking to influence organisational behaviour and direction this revealed a tension between personal and/or professional agendas. This was particularly difficult when it felt as though inst.i.tutions originated hierarchically, and the costs of renegotiation were exorbitant for the individual: In the day job there is a day job. I have objectives to do. What I do outside of that is my affair so corporately the culture is quite thick quite hierarchical, which is frustrating because if we are moving from managing simplicity in regulated resources through to managing complexity environmental systems one of the first tenets is devolution of decision making and yet we are going diametrically the opposite way so I find it frustrating intellectually certainly personally.

Social learning is central to adaptive capacity. It can be indicated by changes in capacity to act arising through experience for example, through inst.i.tutional modification creating an atmosphere where learning is promoted is part of the shaping of adaptive capacity and can be the difference between important experiences being overlooked, forgotten or translated into enhanced capacity to deal with future climate-change-related uncertainty and threats: There clearly has been a lot of learning: Enquiries etc., and people presenting information back to us. It's had a big impact on how we organize ourselves. It's created new areas of work and funding to tackle gaps.... The lessons are quite general and cross-cutting: How do you get bad news up the line quite quickly? How do you ramp up resources quickly? ... That can now happen very quickly. Not only are there plans to show us how to do that, but we have practice simulations.

Opportunities for learning arise throughout organisational life, and can be fostered: 'We have informal lunchtime sessions, and people ask questions about it. The questions will be more informal. People are sitting there eating lunch and asking questions. It's informal in that respect.'

On the other hand, not all learning is positive. One respondent warned about uncritically accepting the lessons of past experience, without continuing to probe their relevance to new situations; a key lesson for climate change adaptation, but one that is difficult to inst.i.tutionalise: I think one issue that is quite difficult is learning from experience. One has to be very careful that the experience you had is relevant to the problem that you now have. We often come up against the situation where people who've had long experience say 'Oh yeah, we tried that, and it didn't work. That's it.' It cuts off the options and one has to very careful that one is saying that was the experience, but was the context and the problem the same?

Good communication skills are a necessity for inst.i.tutional modification, something that a number of interviewees demonstrated, including strategies for formalising and adding value to knowledge through external collaboration. This was a particularly effective but time consuming method for influencing higher up the hierarchy or across sectoral and professional barriers. Relevant for slow onset and long-term adaptation measures this strategy for crossing the internal barriers within organisations is too slow to respond to rapid and extreme events: That is why I write so much. If it is out there in the white literature then it is in the public domain. A peer review paper has more weight than my opinion particularly when I bring in co-authors who happen to be lawyers.

Successful communicators had cultivated linkages across different epistemic communities and saw themselves as conduits of information and points of influence shaping s.p.a.ces of adaptive capacity within and between both communities and their representative organisations: The x.x.x, which is a national organization ... has done a tremendous amount and in some instances the Agency is being perceived as an obstacle and in some ways it is being perceived as an ally, but there is a risk of that relationship being lost and because I am on the board of various other charities and I'm giving a key note at the x.x.x meeting on Tuesday. I've got a very direct personal relationship there and I'm publishing papers in my own name, not using work time whatever to get the learning from that, put it in the right literature so I can go to the policy people in the Agency to say LEARN, you don't have to trawl through grey literature, unpublished sources here is all the right literature put together APPLY IT, DO IT please. So yes, I'm keeping doors open, but that is a personal mission and I don't expect that will be a particularly common occurrence throughout the organization.

Learning with wider stakeholders, and especially the public had its costs with a difficult balancing act between efficiency and building adaptive capacity; for example, by protecting staff so they might undertake their work without too much interruption from other stakeholders. The following comments respond to a recently established telephone call centre: In terms of the general public what is happening corporately is walls are being built so I think we are going in the wrong direction. You know if you are re-engineering an organization where your front line, your regional and area staff are delivery merchants then you want to stop then 'wasting time' in dialogue with the punters. You want them to be doing stuff, not talking about stuff.

... a lot of the public trust that the Agency does engender, it does not engender a lot but, a lot of that is simply because the local officers know the local people and the local issues. So actually I fear that what we are doing is losing the connection. I think the call centre is going to make us become a big impersonal monster ... It is a personal view this, I think we are losing an important part of our relationship with people ... the personal relationship with the regulator is vital ... That sort of delivery of service model [the call centre] is what the Agency's reorganization is about, so it is successful in those terms but, you know, not in terms of being in touch with the environment and people who are active in the environmental sense.

Communication that can help build capacity to adapt to climate change requires skills such as knowing who to communicate with, how to find them and how to communicate effectively, and designing acts of communication which are appropriate to the task. Communication is not a neutral act, and there are many conventions that apply to the way that communication is carried out in different relationships and contexts. Because the appropriate combination of learning and communication strategies available to actors is determined by the cultural characteristics of the organisational setting in which they operate, it makes sense to speak of the knowledge culture of an organisational setting. That is the characteristics of an organisation or other social body that make particular forms of learning and communication possible or not. The sense of a pervasive way of being that both influences the individual and that results from the collective actions of individuals came through clearly in one interview: So to what percentage am I attributable? I don't know. To what extent is culture changing around me and these ideas becoming more and more? I don't know. I can't measure that, but in my own head I'm pretty well convinced that I have banged on at certain people for long enough that we have got an understanding.

An important aspect of adaptive capacity revealed by looking at learning and communication in terms of a knowledge culture was that the informal and the tacit are just as important for knowledge as formal and explicit channels, even from the organisation's perspective. For example, in the case of learning, formal learning was in some cases identified with training, but it was clear that this was just one aspect of learning from the individual viewpoint. Thus, throughout the interviews a range of evidence referred to informal channels of learning and communication, and the ways these were rooted in both formal and informal activities and inst.i.tutions.

So yeah formally, in the formal email, telephone whatever you play the game but you still carry out the learning stuff. If I see the head of x.x.x who I know very well and for many years I'll say 'Have you seen this paper?'. 'No I haven't actually.' 'Oh I've got a few on the line, have you got a minute ...?' 'I've got this one on common law', you know, 'I've got this one on economics'. 'Yeah OK, let's talk about that, that's really interesting blah blah'.

Adaptation and the shadow system.

This section provides support for the claim that shadow systems are an important source of adaptive capacity. Most interviewees could identify an informal shadow system, and argued that the informal is an essential part of organisational life: 'The way I think is that the day job is largely defined by the delivery of regulation and the influencing stuff happens through the informal routes by and large.'

Shadow systems are un.o.bserved by the canonical and allow risk taking. Adaptive management has the ability to experiment and take risks as a core tenet. The benefit to the canonical organisation of the shadow system arises through a degree of alignment between actors' formal roles and their informal skills and capacities. Thus the personal capacities of individuals to wield influence and to work with knowledge became part of the organisation's capacity to adapt: 'I know that statements I have made and discussions I've had with very senior people have later turned out in more or less verbatim in strategy doc.u.ments.'

While individual initiative within the shadow system cannot be planned for, it could be incentivised, opening up a major adaptive resource for the organisation: The organization three years ago had a tokenistic approach to the social, but now has social policy. This is moving more and more mainstream, and arguably there is sort of a change in political direction anyway, but an individual mover and shaker who I happen to talk to quite a lot has been singularly effective in raising that as a policy.

Conversely, this allowed individuals to enact their values through the operation of the formal organisation, uncovering contrasting types of legitimate behaviour: That it depends who you ask these questions to. There are those who work hard to get the job done. There are other[s] who have moved between different organizations and have some weird idea to try and change the world and migrate around the place to try and do that.

My private action has feedback into the organization.

The re-alignment of formal and informal knowledge networks in this way is an example of agent-centred resource management. This helps the organisation learn about its environment, improving adaptive capacity, even when the canonical structures build barriers to communication and flexibility: And then we get back in our boxes and I don't communicate with him because he is not part of my section.

Management tends to perceive that [personal lobbying] as rocking the boat so I have kind of given up.

This suggests that an important area for working with adaptive capacity is positioning the role of canonical management with respect to the shadow system. This is not straightforward. The shadow system is almost by definition resistant to management effort. But while it is not necessarily manageable, there is scope for management activity with respect to shadow systems. The simplest strategy is perhaps to recognise the role of the informal and to accept a degree of imprecision and failure when risks are taken, allowing spare capacity in planning including providing time and flexibility for individuals to work around the formal system where required. This is not straightforward, and a key problem is providing examples of outcomes from working the shadow system where these are often indirect: How do I demonstrate that by going to this meeting rather than that one that a particular outcome came about? It's all about influencing, but only sometimes can you point to a report or a policy doc.u.ment and show that they've used your wording.

Thus a more positive strategy with respect to the shadow system might be to find ways to report on it and to incentivise individuals to use their skills in creating and maintaining informal relationships for the corporate good. Above all, it is a matter of making sure that the individual skills are available in the first place. This creates a demand for individuals with competencies relevant to the shadow system. Interviewees produced a range of examples of skills they utilised in skilled informal interaction: Learning the ways that the organization works is the only way you are ever going to be able to influence it at all because if you try to influence it from a different discourse or dialogue you just bounce off it ...

I write books as well and ask people to tell me what is wrong about them this is a way of roping people in. I treat publications as a way to integrate views with some clarity and common sense.

In terms of playing the corporate game, it is about knowing to put the right, copy the right, people on emails, don't jump levels over and above bosses, all the basic hierarchical things; that is the way it works formally. The way it works informally having been around the organization for a million years and knowing all the other people that have been in the organization a million years, you know that is what water coolers and coffee machines are for.

Inst.i.tutional architecture for adaptation.

Understanding organisations and the inst.i.tutions that shape them is a key part of balancing canonical and shadow s.p.a.ce and facilitating adaptive capacity. In this section we examine respondent viewpoints on inst.i.tutional architectures in terms of communities and networks that cross-cut the formal organisation.

Communities comprise groups of people who share ident.i.ty expressed through similar interests and common values: So I am not interested primarily in a community that want[s] people to play by the rules. I am interested in people who, for want of a better word although it is a s.h.i.tty old phrase 'want to make a better world'. In other words, if someone really cares about social factors and sustainability and they have sorted out a job in an organization that can do something, I will feel sort of attracted to spend time with them. In terms of my community it is people who are looking to make the step changes.

Community boundaries do not necessarily reproduce those of the formal organisational contexts in which they occur. Thus communities tend to arise through mutual engagement rather than management fiat, and are very much of the shadow system. But although they have their own rhythm of development it is possible to give them s.p.a.ce to grow by making time for individuals to interact. From the individual's perspective, communities can be a significant resource, opening up opportunities for action though links with others with similar interests: 'There are other trouble-makers out there that I tend to gravitate towards. My community is people often dressed as very establishment but who are basically in the organization for their own agenda.'

Shadow communities are a natural unit for adaptive action, as shared interests and similar worldviews make negotiating and endorsing plans and reactions quicker and easier.

For example, there's a group of farmers in mid-Wales who are looking at how they can make agriculture more sustainable, looking at how to deal with flood control, with soil quality. That's like a self-motivated group of 10 farmers, acting as a community because they see particular environmental threats. You'd have to look at groups like that to get that core of adaptation.

As with any form of organisation, communities have internal differentiation, and there can be disagreement within their membership over their shared ident.i.ty and boundaries. Also membership is not necessarily mutually exclusive, and communities overlap, giving a dense texture to social architecture Wenger's (2000) constellation of communities. Because shared interest is a.s.sumed and may be beyond challenge, they can also close down opportunities for change.

A more open social form is the network. Networks arise in social life across boundaries of difference. Thus, unlike communities, common interest is not a.s.sumed, but instead is negotiated. As with communities, interviewees were able to point to examples of networks with significance for their professional lives. Networks were a site of bridging social capital, linking together organisations and communities. The encounter with different values and worldviews that occurred through networks made engagement in networks a significant opportunity for learning: Yes, there's a network. If you can identify where to implement different policies ... you can identify certain people, you can see who has done this and been quite successful at it. You build a little network of people to go to. A little expert group in a sense. It's important to learn from people, rather than start off from a blank sheet all the time.

Thus networks provided opportunities to build and operate adaptive capacity: The [Welsh] a.s.sembly would need to base its case for change on reasonable evidence, and that's where it works with networking. Networking with the likes of the Environment Agency in order to say 'This is a current situation', and be able to make predictions in terms of what is likely to happen.

It may be that operating as an individual in a network requires a different skillset from working within a community. With their basis in relationships between individuals, there is a danger that forcing networks into existence will result in a paper exercise or a locus of discontent. However, there is much that can be done from a management perspective to foster networks: When you're dealing in a cross-cutting issue, which this [adapting to rapid climate change] would be, then you have to try to pull the people together in some sort of project group. The difficulty is making sure that that happens more than in name. You can get people along to meetings, but it requires issues to be sorted, actions to be taken, so that it permeates out into additional action, with all the resource that requires.

What both networks and communities have in common is that they are founded in relationships of trust. Within communities, trust was shown to arise from shared interest: You tend to know certain people, certain groups, and they establish a track record of whether they can deliver or not, because you are clearly trying to find the ones who are most effective, rather than spend a lot of time saying you want this to start from gra.s.sroots sort of thing.

In a network, trust was required in order to negotiate a mutual interest, and arose through ongoing engagement. Trust can be invested in individuals and expressed in personal relationships. However, it can also arise through inst.i.tutions, from the social contracts embedded in formal organisational forms. Trust was important in adaptive capacity, because it enabled social action and decreased the amount of effort involved in maintaining communities and networks. That is not to say that creating and maintaining trust does not have costs of its own: If you pull that lever and nothing happens, then you lose all credibility for what it is that you're doing. It makes it clear that you don't understand what you're doing and people will therefore take no notice of you. So there's a credibility issue here in actually making things work.

Gra.s.shoppers farmers' group.

The Carmarthenshire based dairy farmers' support group, Gra.s.shoppers, has about 20 members and was established six years before our study. Its aim is to explore what became known as the New Zealand grazing system. This system differs from dominant dairy practices in the UK through a combination of conserving hay for the winter, turning cattle out earlier in the year and calving only once a year. This results in little or no spending on winter feed and reduced labour costs. Thus although less milk is produced than under a more intensive regime the profits are greater, and the farmer has more time to pursue other interests. The intention of Gra.s.shoppers' members is to maintain their rural livelihoods and quality of life by changing farming practices: a case study in resilience.

The members of Gra.s.shoppers are well positioned to discuss the generic attributes of organisational relations that shape adaptation. As a group they have already demonstrated an ability to adapt proactively to changing economic conditions within the dairy sector. Their current mode of practice is probably better adapted to climate warming than conventional dairy production in the UK. Nevertheless, under an extreme climate change scenario there would be substantial challenges to be faced. Exploring the proven adaptive capacity of the group offers an opportunity to explore the role of inst.i.tutions and social learning in shaping organisations to support individual farmers in planned and proactive climate change adaptation.

Group activities centred around monthly, rotating farm visits. Meetings had a sharply critical tone which, over time, had developed a culture of mutual respect, trust, fostered social learning and encouraged innovation. As with the Environment Agency, the themes of community, network, trust and exclusion arose from discussions and provide themes for understanding the production of adaptive capacity and social learning within Gra.s.shoppers.

Seen as a community, Gra.s.shoppers appeared to have a strong and well-developed shared ident.i.ty. Gra.s.shoppers was created intentionally with new members being recruited through invitation only, reinforcing this shared and distinct group ident.i.ty. Importantly, membership did not focus directly on joint commercial activity. Members were more concerned with sharing knowledge, improving practice and mutual support in meeting the challenges of the New Zealand system than in striking business partnerships or joint commercial advocacy: 'Sharing information is really key, something I realise from these other farmer groups compared to us.' One member likened this feeling of being in a learning community to adaptation: 'Openness and sharing information is a major part of adaptation.'

Examining Gra.s.shoppers in terms of networks highlights external relationships, and once again the focus is on information and learning. That is, through Gra.s.shoppers members were able to manage their access to information resources. The strongest expressed links were with dairy farmers outside the UK, drawing on contacts made from a range of contexts, because: 'Overseas is best. The UK is too mainstream [in dairy farming] and we're not! Also there is no basic/market research in this area because there is no commercial basis so it is not picked up on.' In this case, it was clear that a wide base of information sources was a valued resource for adapting to future climate change. For Gra.s.shoppers, this enabled both improvements in existing practices, as well as challenging adaptations, with shifts in livelihood and lifestyle goals.

In terms of adapting to a different climate, you could go and look at places in the world where people already live with it. Now we have learnt from New Zealand, but if the climate cooled we would learn from other parts of the world.

In Gra.s.shoppers, trust was closely tied to the duty of confidentiality, ident.i.ty and membership, indicating that it arose first and foremost as a function of community building: Trust is very important to the group's functioning and this has taken time to build up. For example, Gra.s.shoppers started with members sharing limited information on the purely financial aspects of the gra.s.s economy. We now share economic and other information on all aspects of farmers' livelihoods.

Trust was described as having built up over time to extend beyond members' professional affairs to finances and even friendship, the latter effectively blurring the boundaries between the canonical and shadow relationships and roles of Gra.s.shoppers members: 'Other than my wife and the nucleus of my family I'd talk with group members first [about a problem].' As a result, members of Gra.s.shoppers felt they could rely on the information they received from one another (in contrast to other members of the wider farming community). Within the group, trust also enabled honest criticism of one another's business. This was essential for Gra.s.shoppers' ability to fine-tune and adapt the New Zealand system, and at the same time in this case it helped to avoid the trap of groupthink where trust and community can lead to the uncritical reproduction of a shared way of seeing the world, a key a.s.set in adaptive management (see Chapter 2). Instead, the values that are conserved through this supportive community were a tolerance for risk taking and innovation, and an openness to new ideas, even those that challenged individual perceptions and led to modified practices, the essence of organisational adaptive capacity. This was perhaps best shown in the expressed willingness of members to move from the New Zealand system to other solutions if the economic or environmental consequences of climate change required it.

The reciprocal of trust is exclusion suggesting the social limits of adaptation. In the case of Gra.s.shoppers, exclusion was particularly strong around alignment with the culture of open criticism of farming practice. This could result in a personal challenge. The cost of membership is maintaining group standards, and dealing with group dynamics: I'd have to admit that at some points I've had to ask 'Is this worth the extra ha.s.sle? Do I need to be a member of this thing?'. But if you look at it in the longer term, I suppose everybody goes through points when they're extremely keen, and then not so keen.

In a network, where difference is positive because it enables exchange, exclusion is more likely to arise externally. In the workshop, there were several references to communication initiatives by the group in the UK that had not fared well.

It should not be a.s.sumed that trust is an unalloyed a.s.set, and exclusion a constraint on adaptive capacity, or vice-versa. While it is certainly true that the learning culture within Gra.s.shoppers had arisen through close ties of trust, it clearly also depended on exclusion. After all, potential members who could not cope with the group culture were expected to leave. Similarly, while exclusion enabled trust and learning, the question is what opportunities for learning and for wider social equality are being pa.s.sed up in the name of maintaining group cohesion?

During the workshop, the group was optimistic about their ability to adapt to the challenges of climate change and variability, as and when needed. When pressed about this confidence, they ascribed it to successful change in the past: 'Having initiated change, it wouldn't bother us to change again in whatever direction, if it made sense.'

The adaptive capacity of Gra.s.shoppers seems to be founded in a learning culture. The group fostered learning amongst its members, and this brought significant rewards for the effort of remaining an active member: Discussion groups are the best way of learning you can get to know each other's businesses, better than a lecture theatre.

It's like 20 heads learning at once, and sharing that information back. It would have taken me a lot longer to get where we are today.

The learning culture resulted in and was supported by a set of learning practices on the part of individual members, reinforced by the group's values. These had already built a culture of resilient adaptation to climate change: We measure ground temperature and climate a lot more than other farmers. When we see change we change our practices. The data we have seen is getting warmer. The response to this is to withdraw fertilizer and put cattle out earlier.

A notable feature of the culture of Gra.s.shoppers was the willingness of members to change embedded practices to achieve important life objectives, even to leave dairy farming. This seems a strong contrast with many other farmers who feel stuck, unable to make or even see the changes they need to remain viable. This also suggests that success in applying adaptation as resilience provides confidence for transitional and potentially transformational forms of adaptation at the level of individual businesses.

The members of the group were happy to view the Gra.s.shoppers organisation as something transitory. The formal organisational structure was useful for the moment, but not necessary of itself. Seen as more important, and likely more enduring, were the informal relationships that group membership had fostered. This suggests that the shadow relationships that thicken the social ties within Gra.s.shoppers now also prove a flexible social resource for forming new coalitions as future climate change and other challenges arise. While canonical organisation provides structure to help resolve defined adaptation challenges, shadow systems are the raw resource that should be strengthened to provide capacity to adapt to future uncertain threats and opportunities of climate change. That shadow systems are developed around and as a response to canonical organisation suggests a symbiotic relationship. This also points to a policy opportunity where shadow systems of relevance to wider society can be fostered through canonical organisations.

Conclusion.