This summer, Canada endured its worst wildfire season on record. The ecological, health, and livelihood losses due to these fires are immense—as will be the costs of rebuilding and recovery. These events come on the heels of Hurricane Fiona and the windstorms in Ontario and Quebec in 2022, which alone caused over CAD 800 million and CAD 1 billion, respectively, in insured damages.

When large-scale disasters such as these occur, provincial and territorial governments can turn to the federal government to help fund a portion of their response and recovery costs through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program. With the number of climate-related disasters increasing, the federal government is now spending billions of dollars annually through the DFAA program to support post-disaster recovery.

Of the CAD 7.9 billion in assistance paid by Ottawa since the start of the DFAA program, approximately three quarters was distributed in the past 10 years. The 2021 wildfires and flooding in British Columbia alone required CAD 1.5 billion in DFAA payments, and recovery costs for Hurricane Fiona in 2022 may exceed CAD 1 billion. Reflecting these rising costs, the annual budget for DFAA payments jumped from CAD 100 million in 2022/2023 to CAD 1,724.9 million in 2023/2024.

In its 2023 budget, the Government of Canada committed funding for a modernized DFAA program to support the mitigation of disaster risks. As outlined in the November 2022 report of a federally commissioned advisory panel, modernizing the DFAA provides an opportunity to increase the climate resilience of Canadian communities and avoid future costs. By pivoting the program from being solely focused on disaster response and recovery to including disaster prevention and resilience, the DFAA program could become an important tool used to fund adaptation projects across Canada.

What is the DFAA program?

Established in 1970 and administered by Public Safety Canada, the federally funded DFAA program provides financial assistance to the provinces and territories in the event of a large-scale natural disaster. As of January 2023, provincial and territorial governments can request access to these arrangements when their recovery costs exceed CAD 3.61 per capita of their population. As the cost of disasters increases, so too does the share covered by the federal government. The federal government pays an average of 82% of eligible disaster costs: these include emergency shelters, repairs to public infrastructure, and restoration of businesses or homes.

Why does the DFAA program need to be modernized?

For years, the DFAA program has been critiqued for being inefficient and lacking the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and the unique needs of different communities across the country.

A major criticism of the program, though, is that it is primarily financing disaster response and recovery—as opposed to disaster prevention. Moreover, its requirements make it impossible for provincial and territorial governments to invest in initiatives that build resilience, such as relocating buildings away from high-risk flood zones or requiring homes to be built to better withstand wildfires. This situation is at odds with Canada's current emergency management strategy and commitments under the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, both of which emphasize preventing and reducing the negative impacts of disasters.

This means that, over the past 50 years, nearly CAD 8 billion has been spent reacting to disasters across Canada with limited mechanisms to ensure any of this funding actively prevents these disasters from occurring—even in areas where disasters are preventable and predictable.

How can the DFAA program be improved?

With the cost of disasters increasing every year, in 2022, Public Safety Canada established an expert advisory panel to "review and make recommendations on how to improve the sustainability and long-term viability of the program." In their November 2022 report, Building Forward Together, the panel members called for the DFAA program to play a much larger role in incentivizing disaster risk reduction and building long-term climate resilience. In its 10 recommendations, the panel called for

• establishing an integrated disaster-resilience standard and associated national resilience rating system, which would help Public Safety Canada target funding measures to reduce the impacts of climate-related disasters and support climate change adaptation;
• ensuring that federal finance strategically targets vulnerable populations, as informed by the national resilience rating system;
• improving the coordination and alignment of federal programs for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation to ensure measures are implemented meaningfully;
• ensuring stakeholders have access to the information, tools, and capacity they need to be aware of their risk levels and make informed decisions; and
• increasing the program’s efficiency by digitizing and streamlining the application process, providing better access to guidance, and improving responsiveness, as well as making the program more flexible to differing needs between and within regions.

Implementing these recommendations would fundamentally change the focus of the DFAA program from responding to climate-related disasters as they happen to taking steps needed to anticipate, prevent, and reduce these events—consistent with ongoing efforts to adapt to climate change.

How does this relate to Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy?

In June 2023, Canada's first National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) was released. Disaster resilience is one of the five key systems around which the strategy is organized. Consistent with the commitment made in Canada’s 2023 budget, the NAS includes a target of modernizing the DFAA program by 2025 "to incentivize disaster risk reduction and improve recovery outcomes from large-scale disasters." However, meeting the NAS target will require a significant amount of work in a relatively short amount of time; ensuring that these modernization efforts truly allow Canada to better prepare for and recover from climate-related disasters will likely be challenging. The federal government will also need to reach agreements with provincial and territorial governments.

Building resilience to climate change and extreme weather events is not just a Canadian endeavour. Countries throughout the world have struggled to better align and integrate their climate change adaptation and disaster management efforts. In August 2023, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency announced nearly USD 3 billion in funding for various adaptation projects. This follows an observed trend of greater understanding among national governments of the need for a more integrated approach to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction efforts to achieve their sustainable development goals.

What’s next?

The frequency and cost of climate-related disasters are increasing across Canada. Federal financial assistance arrangements must change to meet this growing challenge. They should focus on reducing and preventing the damage caused by floods, fires, and hurricanes rather than simply providing more funding for disaster response and recovery. Federal funding can include provisions that lead provincial and territorial governments to incorporate adaptation measures into pre-disaster planning and post-disaster rebuilding. Crucially, we need meaningful governance systems to integrate climate adaptation and disaster prevention measures across federal departments and between federal and provincial agencies.

Without a greater focus on disaster prevention that accounts for climate change, Canada will only see a rising bill tied to increasingly devastating natural disasters. The DFAA program is a critical tool to help people across the country withstand these events now and into the future, but it is in desperate need of sharpening to support long-term resilience.

British Columbia has become Canada's epicentre of climate change-induced disasters. After historic wildfire seasons in 2021 and 2022, 2023 is now officially the province's most expensive and most destructive wildfire season on record. One of the worst fires, the McDougall Creek fire, forced more than 10,000 people to flee and has damaged or destroyed at least 181 properties in West Kelowna alone. Just a couple of years ago, 619 people died during a week-long heatwave, almost all of them perishing indoors without adequate cooling systems.

Heat waves, wildfires, and floods are costing B.C. up to CAD 17 billion per year—and the actual number is often higher when accounting for disruptions in shipping and supply chains that affect other provinces and territories or the indirect impacts on B.C.'s tourism industry. There are also costs associated with loss of life or deteriorating health, lost income and livelihoods, or the impacts on mental health and cultural heritage that often cannot be quantified in economic terms.

Last week, the province's Ombudsperson released a report highlighting how outdated, under-resourced, and inaccessible B.C.'s disaster and emergency support programs are—particularly for vulnerable people. Simply put, these measures are insufficient to address the impacts of today’s climate crisis.

What needs to change? We must acknowledge the limits of adaptation efforts

The ecological, health, and livelihood losses due to fires and floods are immense—as will be the costs of rebuilding and recovery. The uncomfortable reality is two-fold: 1) we cannot continuously finance disaster recovery, and 2) there are limits to adaptation. Even with sufficient investments into infrastructure upgrades, we will reach a degree of change too large to manage unless we collectively stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the climate stabilizes. The number, intensity, and frequency of extreme weather events will reach a point at which typical adaptation measures like building seawalls and expanding reservoirs simply won’t be enough, causing what the international climate community refers to as "loss and damage."

Loss refers to the complete loss of something, such as a human life or an ecosystem that can’t be brought back. Damage usually refers to infrastructure, for example, a bridge that collapses in a flood despite the fact it was built to more resilient standards. Loss and damage can be profound in both economic and non-economic ways that are beyond what countries, communities, and ecosystems can adapt to. While many might picture hurricane-ravaged island nations or monsoon-drenched shantytowns, the inescapable reality is that loss and damage also looks like what is happening right here, right now, in B.C.

As we reflect on the staggering fiscal and human impacts of climate change, it becomes abundantly clear that we need urgent, transformational change in how we approach climate risks and how we respond to ongoing and future loss and damage.

The federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government have finally started to get serious about climate adaptation—but there's a huge gap in tangible adaptation measures needed right now, let alone acknowledgement of the irreversible effects of loss and damage in B.C.'s current Climate Preparedness and Adaptation Strategy for 2022–2025.

The good news is that this particular strategy is due for an update by 2025. This means we have a window of opportunity to weigh in and ensure our government goes beyond the status quo when it comes to climate adaptation planning.

Coming to terms with the irreversible impacts of climate change: It's time to link climate adaptation and emergency management

One critical piece of the puzzle is better integration of climate change adaptation into emergency preparedness planning, timely and effective humanitarian response, and post-disaster recovery efforts. There is also a need to rapidly address the growing risk of destroyed homes and infrastructure that are not covered by private insurance. This means relocating buildings away from high-risk flood zones, building the capacity of communities, and improving coordination and cooperation around emergency preparedness and management at the regional level.

Local communities and municipalities must receive the tailored support they need to understand the climate risks anticipated for their area and be able to plan accordingly for more intense floods, fires, and heat-related emergencies. However, information alone will not solve the problem: many resource-constrained municipalities will need predictable provincial and federal funding and assistance to help pay for emergency preparedness, disaster response, and required infrastructure upgrades.

Preparing for climate change is complex, and the solutions aren’t always straightforward. But we cannot act with anything less than urgency right now. B.C. is often referred to as a leader on climate change, nationally and globally, and it’s time for the whole government at every level to step up and collectively rise to this challenge.

The ministerial segment was held on August 17 and 18 following several days of constructive dialogues and inputs from civil society and the group of ministerial experts.

Centred around the conference theme Seizing Opportunities and Enhancing Collaboration to Address Environmental Challenges in Africa, the plenary sessions and side events covered several critical issues for the region’s sustainability, including critical minerals, natural resources, pollution, climate finance, the SDGs, and regional and global partnerships.

The meeting concluded in the Addis Ababa declaration, in which member states showed strong commitment to work together with AMCEN as the key coordination channel to address the ongoing environmental challenges the continent is facing. The series of concerns and action plans laid out in the declaration reflect several important concerns on the region's trajectory:

• African ministers' concerns regarding unsustainable economic activities and their impact on nature, climate, and pollution are growing.
• The sustainability and well-being of the continent are at serious risk: as stated in the declaration, the region lost 65% of its productive land over the past 70 years. Meanwhile, the population has grown more than sixfold. 
• Global and regional coordination, capacity-building, and financial resources are key to addressing the ongoing challenges.

Aware of these challenges and the necessity to urgently go beyond business as usual, the ministers see the adoption of inclusive wealth measures as an important step forward that can contribute to the well-being of the continent. The introductory segment of the declaration reads:

We African ministers for the environment … committed to continuing to take environment and climate action to unlock inclusive wealth creation that safeguards the socio-economic well-being of the people in Africa.

This statement, which is backed up by government officials’ warnings during the conference on the destructive nature of our activities, shows that environment ministers have strong incentives to move beyond GDP as the primary tool of policy-making and toward inclusive wealth measures. In his keynote speech during the Inter-Ministerial Dialogue on Green Jobs, Burkina Faso’s Minister of Environment, His Excellency Roger Baro, stated: “It's time we all review our growth models so that our progress doesn't jeopardize that of generations to come.”

African ministers’ concerns about the destructive nature of our activities set a good foundation for the Summit of the Future, where world leaders will agree on proposals to better address global challenges. The proposals include moving beyond GDP toward indicators such as inclusive/comprehensive wealth, as suggested by the Secretariat General. In response to the ambition of the Secretariat General and the findings from the 2023 Inclusive Wealth Report showing a declining wealth per capita in many African countries, what is needed for the continent is an accounting framework that will allow countries to measure and monitor wealth and use it for policy-making. There are several reasons why such a framework is important for the continent:

• Because wealth is positively correlated with well-being, “unlock[ing] inclusive wealth creation that safeguards the socio-economic well-being” should begin with an assessment of the current national stock of wealth and how it evolved over time. Such an assessment will give countries a clear picture of their well-being path, opportunities, and bottlenecks.
• With a natural capital measure, countries will be better equipped to monitor their natural resources and biodiversity and the contribution of revenue drawn from the extraction of these resources to the development process. Take minerals, for instance. The region hosts the world's rarest resources, such as cobalt, lithium, and diamonds. About 60% of the world's diamonds are supplied by Africa. Yet, on average, countries capture only 40% of natural resource revenues. This 60% revenue loss represents a significant resource for governments, which could contribute to investment in education and jobs, as well as closing the current biodiversity finance gap estimated at “USD 700 billion per year” (Declaration, point 5). 
• Several promising environmental and climate initiatives taken by the region can positively drive different components of wealth and thereby well-being. As stated in point 33 of the Declaration, the Green Climate Fund invested around USD 4.9 billion across 92 projects in Africa. This initiative, including many others, such as the Great Green Wall or the African Green Stimulus Programme, can positively and simultaneously drive job creation (human capital), the preservation of biodiversity (natural capital) and infrastructure (produced capital).

The 19th ordinary session of the AMCEN was another important opportunity for policy-makers to decide what they want for the future of the continent. The Addis Ababa declaration tells us that the holistic well-being of Africans and the health of the planet are top of mind. Along with the existing initiatives the region is embarked on, a wealth accounting framework will play a key role in achieving those aspirations.

“The era of waiting has come to an end,” announced Chenai Mukumba, Executive Director of Tax Justice Network Africa, at a tax policy conference earlier this year. “African countries no longer exist at the peripheries of global tax governance.”

Mukumba’s is just one of the many African voices that have been publicly questioning international tax rules for at least a decade. Established a century ago, these rules have maintained wealth imbalances between nations, with multinational corporations based mainly in rich countries exploiting legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes in the places they operate. For developing countries, this amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues and costs Africa at least USD 23 billion per year. Prominent critics have also pointed out that the established rules fail to prevent illicit financial flows—that is, money moving across borders to conceal taxable income and illegal activities.

But as new technologies, demographics, and climate change shift the global economy, governments and international organizations have started reforming the rules to keep up—and African policy-makers are seizing the opportunity to push for a fairer system to protect public revenues. For instance, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa published a 2015 report highlighting the need to stem tax avoidance and evasion. The report led to the Addis Tax Initiative, a capacity-building partnership for developing countries. And since 2009, African countries have reportedly collected at least EUR 1.7 billion in additional revenue through improved tax administration, information exchange mechanisms, and rigorous offshore investigations.

Driving the UN Push for Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation

In August, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General published a much-anticipated report that outlines three options for more inclusive and effective international tax cooperation—setting standards and norms to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. The report was mandated by a 2022 UN General Assembly resolution, which also requested the Secretary-General take stock of progress made on international tax cooperation and debated the issue at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly.

It’s a little-known but noteworthy fact that this game-changing resolution was submitted by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States at the UN. This report sets in motion a major shift in global tax architecture by proposing that the UN should play a bigger role in international tax cooperation, empowering developing countries along the way. These developments exemplify how collective bargaining can be a powerful tool to disrupt the traditional agenda-setting role occupied by developed economies. Moreover, by successfully driving international tax changes to address their needs, Africa is advancing a more inclusive system for the world.

“The era of waiting has come to an end, African countries no longer exist at the peripheries of global tax governance.”  

Chenai Mukumba, Executive Director of Tax Justice Network Africa

The OECD's Inclusive Framework

In June, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released the latest guidelines on implementing a global minimum corporate tax. The guidelines follow the 2021 agreement in principle by 138 nations on the foundational premise to ensure multinational corporations are liable for a minimum tax rate no matter where they operate. African negotiators applied upward pressure, pushing for a 20% minimum tax rate (negotiators ultimately settled on 15%). And through the African Tax Administration Forum, African nations successfully advocated for including the Subject to Tax Rule to protect the primary taxing rights of developing countries and collaborated to develop a common approach to implementing key components of the global minimum tax. Exactly half of African states are represented in the 138 supporting the OECD’s minimum tax proposal, while many others are contemplating how to protect their taxing rights once the rules come into effect.

Moreover, since the IISD-ISLP guide for developing countries on the global minimum tax was published, many senior African officials have come forward wishing to discuss policy options. African countries seem to be embracing the shifting landscape as a time to explore new approaches. For instance, some countries are contemplating how to use the global minimum tax as a catalyst to strengthen their international tax regimes, both unilaterally and in cooperation with regional peers. Others are rethinking their use of tax incentives and investment promotion agencies.

Regional Trade, Investment, and Tax

At the regional level, the African continent is negotiating the monumental African Continental Free Trade Agreement, which would cover the largest trade area in the world to date, measured by the number of countries participating. The negotiation presents a timely opportunity for African countries to contemplate the interactions between trade, investment, and tax policies and how they can promote development on the continent. The trade agreement could also be an ideal forum for African countries to consider regional strategies to implement the new international tax rules advancing through the UN and OECD.

African leaders should be applauded for their efforts to create an inclusive international tax framework. The momentum built on the international level should be maintained through ongoing continental trade negotiations—but there is a need for further research on the interactions between tax, trade, and investment policies. IISD is looking forward to examining these critical policy interactions and how they support national sustainability goals.

Cotton. Once a wild perennial plant, it is now a trillion-dollar industry.

As the most common natural fibre in the textile industry, cotton is used for a wide range of purposes—from clothing and upholstery to hygiene products and medical equipment. 

But hidden behind our t-shirts and towels are over 100 million households in 75 countries that rely on cotton cultivation for a living. Nine out of 10 of these households are in lower-income countries. And they are grappling with challenges such as water scarcity, pest management, and low prices and incomes.

Voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) such as Better Cotton, Organic, and Cotton made in Africa seek to address these challenges. They set sustainability requirements for cotton farmers and processors to meet in exchange for certifying their produce as VSS compliant, which can help them fetch up to 50% higher prices.

VSS-compliant cotton production has doubled every 2.5 years since 2008 and now accounts for at least a quarter of global cotton production. This form of recognition can help consumers make more responsible purchasing choices. But how much do we really know about “sustainable” cotton?

A lack of transparency in cotton textile value chains is hindering VSSs’ impact. By the time a garment reaches the retail rack, much of the information about where and how it was produced is lost. Where did the cotton come from? What price was paid to the farmer? What environmental and socio-economic impacts were generated? Did all stages of its processing comply with a VSS?

To help answer these questions, IISD partnered with fashion retailer Kappahl to map the value chain for select organic cotton garments. We mapped the identities, locations, and operations of upstream suppliers. And we engaged with them to collect sustainability data.

This mapping could help Kappahl address concerns and make more informed decisions when purchasing from suppliers. It may also help them to verify organic certification and disclose more reliable sustainability information to their customers.

If you’re interested in learning more, check out our research:

• Global Market Report: Cotton prices and sustainability
• Improving Visibility in Cotton Supply Chains to Achieve Transparency: The Kappahl pilot project
• Voluntary Sustainability Standards in South Asia: A focus on the cotton sector in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

Some of the points stressed in the brief reinforce the conclusions of IISD’s work on expanded wealth measures to complement GDP in three countries—Indonesia, Ethiopia, and Trinidad and Tobago. IISD is working closely with economic experts and researchers from universities in each of the three countries to develop expanded wealth measures to complement GDP. Our work reflects and reinforces the Secretary-General’s call to complement GDP in several ways.

First, the UN policy brief stresses the need for a concise, widely accepted, comparable, and universally applicable (p. 10) framework to complement GDP. The expanded wealth framework IISD applies in our work is just that. Based on the global comprehensive/inclusive wealth frameworks developed by the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme, this robust framework complements GDP by measuring the assets that underpin well-being in all its forms: economic, environmental, and social. Our country partners understand the utility of the framework and are working with us to implement it using country data and expertise. We have modified the global methods used by the World Bank in ways that will ensure comparability and universal applicability—for example, by simplifying the approach to measuring human capital and produced capital.

The three coutries are using a simplified method of estimating the value of produced assets. This method builds on guidance for measuring capital stocks from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and uses basic data on fixed capital formation available in essentially all countries. As such, it effectively leverages what already exists. Data for fixed capital formation in major economic sectors were readily available in all three countries for at least a 20-year time horizon. Using OECD methodological guidance, these data were readily converted to the time series of stock values required to measure wealth.

Second, the Secretary-General emphasizes that any framework to measure beyond GDP must be country owned (p. 10). Our wealth framework is being applied in three countries with very different development priorities, challenges, and data availability. Nevertheless, robust estimates have been produced for all three countries by national experts using national data. The results reveal useful insights in each. To help build country ownership, IISD provides guidance and quality control while leaving the estimation work to country experts. These experts are responsible for liaising with national statistical offices, central banks, and other data providers to collect data, calculate indices, prepare reports, and consult on policy recommendations. The IISD team provides support and arranges peer-support meetings between the country experts. The approach has been strongly collaborative from the start, with the goal of ensuring country ownership of the methods and results in the end.

Third, the Secretary-General suggests that measuring beyond GDP should be “iterative and dynamic, based on what exists, while allowing for the addition of new indicators” (p. 10). By building upon the World Bank’s and UN Environment Programme’s efforts to measure expanded wealth indicators, IISD is already applying this guidance in its efforts to go beyond GDP. 

Finally, the Secretary-General also stresses that any framework intended to complement GDP should convey strong and clear messages that are actionable and intuitive (p. 10). IISD’s collaborative approach to building expanded wealth measures provides useful insights for the countries involved. It helps them build the capacity that will inevitably be needed if countries are to move beyond GDP. Our experience shows that data collection, estimation, and interpretation will consist of a multi-year effort.

While it is important to understand the concepts and rationale for this work, many of the specific challenges in national application only become evident through “doing.” IISD’s engagement with country partners has, so far, lasted 4 years and involved more than 14,000 hours of technical support. Our experience shows that with support, countries can produce expanded wealth measures. Over time, countries will be able to produce this data on their own—just as they do for GDP. But reaching that goal will require targeted long-term support and guidance so countries can gain the experience they need.

Climate change serves as a threat multiplier, amplifying biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation globally. As a result, advancing climate solutions that preserve and restore ecosystems is critical. Actively conserving our forests, wetlands, oceans, and coasts will help communities become more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate change adaptation can be a cost-effective way to increase resilience while generating multiple benefits (or co-benefits) for nature and society. But achieving measurable gains for biodiversity functioning that also deliver wins for society and adaptation often proves to be challenging.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development’s (IISD’s) recent report, Enhancing Biodiversity Co-Benefits From Nature-Based Solutions, provides recommendations to help plan, design, and implement NbS for adaptation that enhance biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. These recommendations range from incorporating Traditional Knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services and using cost-effective indicators for monitoring, evaluation, and learning to integrating local values that will help ensure that benefits address the needs of local community members.

Concrete examples of biodiversity co-benefits achieved through the implementation of NbS exist. From India to Ethiopia to Canada, we explored some of them at a recent event hosted by the Aga Khan Foundation Canada, IISD (under the Nature for Climate Adaptation Initiative), and Global Affairs Canada. These three case studies provide valuable examples of NbS’ potential while showing the versatility of NbS for different contexts.

Enhancing the Resilience of Coastal Communities in India

In recent years, natural hazards on the Saurashtra coast of Gujarat in India have become increasingly frequent. Exacerbated by climate change, phenomena such as cyclones, storms, coastal erosion, sea level rise, heat waves, floods, and extreme rains have been intensifying. To adapt to these changes, 20 coastal villages in the Porbandar district have partnered with the Aga Khan Agency for Habitat and technology company Ericsson to enhance their resilience through an ecosystem-based and community-centred approach.

Community members are planting 100,000 mangroves and other plant species to restore the coastal ecosystem and protect against coastal erosion adjacent to villages and nearby areas. Mangroves have proven efficient in mitigating the effects of storm surges, soil erosion, and salinity, as well as soaking up the carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change. Furthermore, cloud-based artificial intelligence monitoring sensors used in the project generate real-time data on the mangroves and coastal restoration efforts. With this project, new climate-resilient livelihood opportunities will arise for local communities—for example, they will plant 20,000 fruit-bearing trees across 10 villages to help increase biodiversity and reduce local heat waves.

Anita Miya, Head, Knowledge Management and Partnership, Aga Khan Agency for Habitat, provides more information in her presentation.

Improving the Health, Profitability, and Adaptability of Ethiopian Coffee Farmers

Ethiopia is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world due to its strong reliance on rain-fed agriculture and natural resources and its limited ability to adapt to the changing climate. As explained by Anil Gupta, Senior Environment Specialist at Global Affairs Canada, a quarter of the population (mostly small-scale female farmers) derive their livelihoods from the production, processing, and marketing of coffee. However, with increasing temperatures and high inter-annual and intra-seasonal rainfall variability, areas suitable for wild coffee production could shrink by 40% to 90% by 2040.

Another issue, specific to the Sidamo region in southern Ethiopia, is how to deal with coffee processing wastewater. According to an early case study presented by Gupta and Paul Stewart, TechnoServe, 2 billion litres of hazardous wastewater is produced annually, overflowing into rivers and impacting human and animal health. The Sidamo project took different NbS measures to tackle this problem, including

• composting the waste pulp from coffee processing,
• installing over 100 vetiver grass restoration initiatives around wetlands, and
• planting over 1 million indigenous shade trees on 28,000 smallholder coffee farms (to protect the soils and the coffee trees from heat and retain soil moisture).

(Through the project) I learned that coffee trees have a shorter lifespan when grown under full sun and reduce the coffee yields. That is why I loved to plant trees on my farm, as it, in turn, leads me to live a comfortable life.

Birtikuan Debeko, beneficiary of the program in Aleta Wondo (Sidamo, Ethiopia)

As a result, both the river water quality and the climate resilience of small-scale coffee farmers in the Sidamo region have improved over the past 10 years.

Restoring, Protecting, and Connecting Natural Landscapes Across Southern Canada

Southern Ontario contains the highest diversity and density of species in Canada, explained Janet Sumner, Executive Director, Wildlands League. The region is home to approximately 200 endangered species—out of a total of 500 endangered species in the country—and 80% of the species at risk in the province. To address both the extinction crisis and the climate emergency, the Nature Connectivity Project brings together protected area initiatives on both public and private lands under the Southern Ontario Nature Coalition and aims to integrate these parcels of land into the Rouge National Urban Park, enlarging it by 30%.

An important piece of the connectivity puzzle is the Ontario Greenbelt, which is composed of 800,000 hectares of farmland and natural areas around the Greater Toronto Area that are currently protected from urban sprawl. It provides multiple benefits, such as offering spaces for outdoor activities, alleviating the impacts of climate change, and countering biodiversity loss. But a rapidly growing population and their housing and transportation needs are threatening the integrity of this space. It will only endure if we find ways to recognize and preserve viable ecological connections among a web of green spaces—namely for fauna to safely migrate to and from larger protected areas.

The Nature Connectivity Project enables just that as it aims to achieve an interconnected network of protection and ecological corridors across Southern Ontario, with positive mitigation and adaptation benefits for 12 million people. Among the multiple benefits, the project will create jobs, protect communities from flooding, and deliver on biodiversity co-benefits, including protecting a rare Carolinian forest that hosts over 1,700 species of plants and animals—23 of which are at risk.

Working Together to Scale Up NbS for Adaptation

If our communities and ecosystems are going to work together to survive these modern crises, we will need to increase evidence-based, inclusive, impactful, and gender-inclusive NbS for adaptation and biodiversity worldwide. This is what the Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) for Climate and Biodiversity Community of Practice aims to do by allowing organizations across the world to share their insights, expertise, and networks—as seen with the case studies above that were presented in the same meeting to cover a variety of perspectives and NbS practices.

Furthermore, Stefan Ruge and Michael Opitz from the German foundation Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung along with Kevin West from popular coffee chain Tim Hortons shared findings from a collaborative project on coffee and climate change adaptation. In addition, Jerry Nwigwe from the youth-led association Debate and Development Resource Centre–Nigeria discussed the integration of an NbS approach applied to a cassava value chain.

Nicholas Macfarlane, International Union for Conservation of Nature, also introduced to the Community of Practice the Species Threat Abatement and Recovery (STAR) metric, which measures the potential of “particular actions at specific locations to contribute to global sustainability targets, supporting science-based targets for species biodiversity.” It is a spatially explicit and standardized way of measuring biodiversity that allows a range of stakeholders, from policy-makers to NbS project teams, to compare the potential biodiversity impacts of specific actions.

Any organizations interested in NbS for adaptation and biodiversity are welcome to join the Community of Practice and can email PartenairesClimatPartners@international.gc.ca for more information.

The initial work plan of the NbS for Climate and Biodiversity Community of Practice was co-developed by Global Affairs Canada, members of the Canadian Coalition on Climate Change and Development, and other organizations in Canada.

The event From Knowledge to Practice: Advancing Biodiversity-Positive Nature-Based Climate Solutions was organized as part of the Aga Khan Foundation Canada’s Speaker Series on Climate Resilience and Adaptation. All presentations from the event can be found here. Don't miss our upcoming event, From Knowledge to Practice: Mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Nature-Based Solutions for Adaptation, on 19 October 2023.

Relevant resources are also available on the Nature-based Infrastructure Global Resource Centre.

The topic of artificial intelligence (AI) has been ubiquitous following the release of Open AI's ChatGPT language processing model in November 2022. The fast uptake of ChatGPT and other new AI tools since then has prompted governments to weigh their options and seek expert input, even as many questions remain over the tools' benefits and risks.

Early steps by policy-makers to answer the questions posed by AI include the Government of Canada's proposed Bill C-27, the proposed AI Act under consideration in the EU, and the April release by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology of a voluntary AI Risk Management Framework.

While laws, regulations, and government-crafted guidance have a role to play in mitigating risks and promoting public benefits, AI is already widely available. As AI uptake increases and new tools emerge, AI users will need to decide how this technology can be responsibly applied in each context, including in the field of environmental governance.

In this piece, I will explore some of the considerations that dominate the current debate around AI, focusing on implications for environmental governance and policy. I will then draw on my knowledge of water management in Guyana to illustrate some of the impacts that previous technologies have had on environmental governance, while outlining some of the questions that remain.

AI: Its promise and pitfalls

The continued development of AI and of the Big Data systems it relies on present some clear benefits to policy-makers and the general public. At IISD, our team working on freshwater science and policy has been exploring the benefits of technologies like AI, Big Data, the Internet of Things, and blockchain in environmental impact monitoring and decision making. For instance, AI, coupled with Big Data, might be used to paint a clearer picture of watershed health and to weigh different solutions, all while engaging the public. In another example, AI is already being used to track progress toward reducing global methane emissions. These benefits are not trivial, and more robust AI systems could make a decisive difference in innumerable environmental issues in coming decades.

At the same time, AI models are often opaque, and it can be difficult for users to evaluate the validity of their findings. For instance, data biases are of special concern for environmental and social justice, with AI potentially compounding other forms of systemic discrimination. Additionally, generative AI like ChatGPT can often muddy the waters by generating its own "source data" (such as fake references or data sources), which can further complicate the task of verifying and validating AI outputs. The opacity of AI can also present challenges for assigning accountability and ensuring that principles surrounding privacy, transparency, and due diligence are met (as was the case in a recent airline lawsuit).  Finally, AI is likely to disrupt environmental industries—such as farming, forestry, and fishing—due to biases, risks of cascading failures, and unequal access. However, these risks are not entirely new or unique to AI, and there are lessons to be drawn from yesterday's innovative technologies in imagining a path forward for tomorrow.

Looking Back: The impact of recent innovations on water management

To illustrate, I will draw on my own knowledge of the issue of water management in Guyana. The Rupununi savannah of Guyana is home to many Indigenous Peoples who live off the land through farming, fishing, hunting, and gathering practices. Recent droughts brought on by climate change are threatening this way of life, and Guyanese policy-makers have been working with international organizations to build new infrastructure, such as wells and dams, and improve year-round water access. Between 2017 and 2019, digital models of water systems, based on satellite imagery, economic datasets and climate science, allowed for infrastructure solutions to be designed remotely and deployed rapidly across dozens of communities.

However, upon speaking with many of those involved, it became clear to me that technology often exacerbated barriers to effective decision making and ultimately to water access. In many cases, the technologies used allowed for data to be collected and decisions to be made without the communities' knowledge or consent. One major infrastructure project faced strong opposition from surrounding communities and was cancelled mere weeks before construction. In another case, a dam flooded a crucial wetland area, impacting local hunting, gathering, and herding practices.

These failures lay, at least partly, in the use of technology as a substitute for other necessary governance practices, such as community consultation and information sovereignty, a problem which Tania Murray Li calls "rendering technical" in her book The Will to Improve. If applied in this way, technologies can impair, rather than improve, environmental governance.

Charting a Path Forward

Yet there is also room for cautious optimism. Many organizations and AI users are combining technologies with a return to basic principles to imagine an ethical place for AI. These include knowledge mapping and human-centred design for collaborative governance, as well as data traceability and blockchain to ensure privacy, transparency, and accountability. 

I asked OpenAI's ChatGPT to write me policy recommendations for climate change adaptation in the Rupununi and in seconds it suggested numerous solutions like sustainable land management and strengthening water resource management. These results were highly relevant to the subject, yet the process used to generate them is completely opaque. There is no clear way for me to decipher what information specific to Guyana and the Rupununi (if any) was used to generate these proposals. There were also omissions of topics, such as fisheries, fire management, and Indigenous subsistence practices, which I know from experience to be of high importance. Despite its polished language, this sort of AI-generated result is better understood as an initial foray into a policy topic rather than a conclusive analysis.

While it remains a useful and impressive technology, generative AI cannot replace years of in-person experience and research, including active engagement with and consultation of the communities impacted by environmental issues. Like other technologies before it, the net impact of AI will depend on our ability to optimize its use, to account for its limitations, and to retain space for the core principles of sound environmental governance.

Recent federal actions in Canada, like the National Adaptation Strategy and the upcoming Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, signal that climate change adaptation efforts in the Canadian agriculture sector are increasingly becoming a priority. While these policies are well intended to increase the adaptability, profitability, and viability of Canadian farms, most Canadian farmers are not yet implementing deliberate actions that will increase their resilience to climate change.

The momentum to build climate resilience at the farm level has stagnated, but solutions do exist. Below, we outline a few policy options that will encourage producers to consider adaptation actions.

Canadian producers are used to planning and decision making around the variability of day-to-day weather because of its effects on crops, livestock, transportation, and, ultimately, the economic viability of their farms. However, the climate that producers are used to is changing, and the decisions of the past may no longer be appropriate for the changes already experienced and those yet to come.

Unfortunately, many producers remain skeptical about the concept and impacts of climate change, adaptation actions, and the link to greenhouse gas emissions. As Canadian producers are currently experiencing the negative impacts of climate change, why is there reluctance to implement deliberate actions that will increase their resilience to climate change?

The reasons for this skepticism are wide ranging but include a lack of easy-to-understand information about regional climate change projections and adaptation actions tailored to the needs of agricultural producers and shared through trusted sources, like commodity groups and fellow producers. Producers also do not feel included or understood in regulatory decisions and programs, which is why they, along with other agricultural experts, want to engage in these decision-making processes, applying their knowledge and experience to policy research, development, and implementation.

It is crucial for collaborative dialogue to occur between agricultural policy-makers and producers to help the latter recognize how climate change will impact their farms and begin to take action to increase their resilience.

Making sure farmers have a seat at the table

Producers need to lead the conversation on climate adaptation to ensure that agreed-upon decisions make sense, can be implemented, and have measurable impacts. Their active participation will also increase the likelihood that decisions will be well received by the wider farming community, as well as foster a more positive message about Canadian agriculture and the good work already going on.

Some positive examples already exist to support momentum at the farm level and across the industry. Farmers for Climate Solutions is a national coalition that advocates for agriculture as part of a solution to climate change, facilitating conversations between producers, the public, and decision-makers that lead to practical climate solutions. They also fund the Farm Resilience Mentorship Program (FaRM), a free, farmer-to-farmer learning hub, in partnership with regional farm organizations across Canada. Living Labs, an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research initiative in which the International Institute for Sustainable Development is a partner, makes participating farmers a key partner throughout the program, valuing, recognizing, and applying their input and hands-on expertise from the start.      

Unleashing the potential of EFPs

Environmental Farm Plans (EFPs) are voluntary processes through which farmers identify areas of environmental assets and risks and set realistic action plans to improve environmental conditions on their farms. As of 2021, 45% of Canadian farms had completed or were in the process of completing an EFP, although participation varies across production types and regions. While already successful, EFPs have untapped potential. They could be used to evaluate environmental efforts at the farm level, helping to demonstrate alignment with commodity-based sustainability efforts (e.g., Dairy Farmers of Canada’s proAction program requires an up-to-date EFP) or international export standards (e.g., Farm Sustainability Assessment equivalency in Alberta’s EFP).

Quebec and British Columbia already include a climate change adaptation and mitigation lens in their existing programs. Quebec’s equivalent of the EFP is the Agri-Environmental Support Plan (Plan d’accompagnement agroenvironnemental), delivered one-on-one with an agronomist through agri-environmental clubs. The adaptation component of British Columbia’s EFP contains a 5-step On-Farm Adaptation Planning Process and identifies a list of BMPs for adaptation specific to farm production, resource protection, and environmental concepts.

There remains a critical need to mainstream similar content in EFP programs across the rest of Canada, helping to increase producers’ knowledge and to normalize climate change and adaptation within the agricultural community. To keep the EFP manageable and approachable, the climate change lens should be incorporated into existing content, simplifying new concepts and helping to identify actions they can take or may already be taking to enhance resilience.

Quebec and British Columbia have both developed regional agriculture adaptation strategies, providing locally relevant information regarding the anticipated impacts of climate change and potential adaptation planning, a key tool that supports producers during the completion of their EFPs. Regionally relevant strategies and actions are needed across the rest of Canada, providing producers, agricultural extension specialists, commodity organizations, and farm policy groups with the tools to understand and take adaptation action. Producers in the United States already have access to a tool that can support their capacity to adapt to climate change, giving them a head start compared to Canadian producers. Adaptation Resources for Agriculture is a useful tool designed for the Midwest and Northeastern United States that provides a structured yet self-guided process to identify and assess climate change impacts, challenges, opportunities, and farm-level adaptation actions. A similar resource would be useful to support Canadian producers.  

Looking to the private sector for inspiration

While Quebec and British Columbia provide excellent examples of provincial-level leadership in adaptation, commodity groups are also showing initiative. The Egg Farmers of Alberta, for example, recently completed a climate risk assessment and identified adaptation actions with All One Sky, an Alberta-based non-profit organization.

To ensure egg producers were a part of the process, All One Sky hosted a webinar with an overview and summary of climate projections, undertook an online survey, hosted a risk assessment workshop, and conducted ongoing engagement to identify adaptation actions. The climate risk assessment identified six climate change impacts that were used to determine adaptation actions that egg producers can take, as well as the Egg Farmers of Alberta, to enhance resilience. In the coming year, the Egg Farmers of Alberta will begin to implement some of the suggested adaptation actions by first developing informational resources for egg producers, such as how to manage heat stress in birds. The Egg Farmers of Alberta recognize different perspectives on climate change but respect that egg farmers are supportive of the concept of resiliency.

Framing the conversation appropriately

Adaptation to climate change can be a frustrating concept, with the existing heavy workload, tight profit margins, and public scrutiny that are a reality on many Canadian farms. Framing the conversation appropriately is important to avoid alienating some producers. Risk management tends to resonate, as producers have always been risk managers—be it of weather, markets, consumer demands, or other factors—but now that risk is changing. The conversation should also be realistic and practical, recognizing that adaptation actions can increase resilience and may even improve efficiency and productivity, but many are costly or have restricted accessibility, such as irrigation with expensive infrastructure and limited water licences.

There is no time to waste as farmers increasingly face reduced yields, failed crops, feed shortages, and loss of livestock—which, in turn, has implications for food security in Canada and internationally. The agricultural industry is on the frontlines of climate change but also has an opportunity to be at the forefront of building climate resiliency into their operations and futures. Coordinated and collaborative efforts are necessary at federal and provincial levels to build trust with the farming community, provide relevant and contextual information about climate change and adaptation, embed climate change and adaptation initiatives into EFPs and regional agricultural adaptation strategies, and allow producers to show Canadians the great work they are already doing. Canada’s climate is changing, and we need our agricultural industry to adapt, or we risk leaving producers—and our food security—behind.