Sunday, November 6, 2016

Putting Equator Principle Banks on the Hotseat for Dakota Access Pipeline Support

I've been asked to post something about some behind-the-scenes help I've been giving to a bank advocacy tactic regarding the unfolding situation at Standing Rock.

Some Background

First: I used to be part of a team that was trying to improve the Sakhalin II oil and gas project, Russia's first off-shore oil/gas project, by putting pressure on the banks funding the project. We were able to get some improvements to the project site locations (away from critical feeding ground for Western Pacific Grey Whales) and get some concessions for indigenous groups whose reindeer-herding livelihoods were interrupted by the project.

Percent of Total U.S. Natural Gas Production
from Shale 2000-2013. US EIA (2013)
Second: the Standing Rock situation is a big topic in the news right now in the U.S., but maybe it needs a little explaining. After some technological advancements opened the door to extraction of oil and gas from shale rock deposits cost-effectively, around 2007, shale oil and gas projects began sprouting up all over the U.S. The states of Texas, California, Alaska, and North Dakota (the location of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation) are the biggest producers of shale oil and gas. Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" used in extracting the oil and gas has been associated with a raft of troubling environmental consequences, including pollution of drinking water sources (see a 2012 health impacts case study from a Montana fracking site). After extraction, transportation of shale oil and gas has risks, too. Fiery derailments of oil trains have been on the rise, one of the reasons for oil and gas companies to push for pipeline alternatives. Unfortunately, pipelines leak.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, when completed in 2016 or 2017, will carry oil from the North Dakota Bakken shale deposit to Illinois, a 1172-mile (1886-km) leg of a larger oil pipeline destined for Louisiana. (Source)

The dotted red line, representing a pipeline, is labeled "Bakken" in this 2015 Sunoco Logistics asset map. (Source, p. 3) 
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the agency in charge of permits for waterway crossings, approached the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for input on the pipeline in 2015 because the tribe's only clean water source stood to be put in jeopardy by the pipeline route. According to the tribal government, its attempts to get an assessment of pipeline impacts on ancestral burial grounds were ignored. Other tribes whose sacred sites were to be crossed by the pipeline also tried to get the ACE to assess impacts on their ancestral lands, all without success.

The ACE approved the Dakota Access Pipeline permits July 25, 2016, and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit against the ACE on July 27, 2016. On August 22, 2016, tribal members and allies began blocking the pipeline, creating a camp to support the blockade. (Source) On Aug. 23, 2016, this photo appeared on the front of the New York Times, bringing international attention to the blockade:

 Photo by Daniella Zalcman. Published August 23, 2016, NYT

The camp, called a prayer camp by supporters and an illegal act of trespassing by Dakota Access, LLC, began to experience escalating acts of violence by armed private security forces, police from multiple states and agencies, and the U.S. National Guard. These forces have been documented using weapons such as attack dogs, mace, rubber bullets, concussion grenades, and tasers on adults and children alike. Journalists covering the violence have been arrested, and in one case charged with rioting (rejected by a judge, Oct. 17, 2016). Currently camp residents are digging in for the winter.

Where do the banks come in?

Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, the parent company of Dakota Access, LLC, has put together a network of financial deals to support construction of the Dakken pipeline from North Dakota to Louisiana. The three main entities involved, called the Energy Transfer Family, has both direct loans and revolving credit from 38 banks. See the graphic below for which banks are supporting which part of the project: there is revolving credit extended to Sunoco Logistics, Energy Transfer Partners, and Energy Transfer Equity, and direct project loans to Dakota Access, LLC. In response to this research Yes Magazine published contact information for the 38 banks involved (see their list of Banks and addresses, Sept. 29, 2016).

Food and Water Watch's graphic of DAPL bank involvement
Food and Water Watch produced this
graphic with information from
Rainforest Action Network's
access to Bloomberg Terminal.
(Source, Sept. 6, 2016)
In my bank advocacy days I learned that there are differences between banks. Some want to be seen as environmentally and socially responsible. The most publicity-conscious of those banks are members of the Equator Principles Association. The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary guidelines to reduce environmental and social risk in "project finance," meaning direct loans to major infrastructure projects like pipelines and dams. They were launched in 2003, and revised in 2006 and 2013. (Read more on the EPs at Wikipedia.) Whether they have resulted in a large-scale improvement in environmental and social outcomes in project finance is open to debate, but they do create a leverage point for people trying to improve large infrastructure projects that have loans from EP banks.

There are 85 financial institutions signed on to the Equator Principles at this time (according to the EP Association website). 23 are involved in supporting the Dakota Access Pipeline with 13 of those giving direct loans, an act which should trigger the EP guidelines on project finance.

When I went to my old bank-watchdog friends to ask for the environmental compliance desk contact information for the EPFI's involved in supporting the Dakota Access Pipeline, they realized that the annual meeting of the Equator Principles Association is in London this coming Tuesday, Nov. 8th, an excellent opportunity to address the association as a whole about the pipeline. A letter titled "Open letter to the Equator Principles annual meeting on Dakota pipeline and climate commitments" is now circulating among bank-watchdog organizations, accruing signatories before being delivered on Tuesday.

Here are the two key paragraphs outlining the letter's demands (DAPL = Dakota Access Pipeline):
We understand that it is not the role of the EP Association to intervene in specific project situations. Nevertheless, we consider it crucial for the credibility of the Equator Principles as an effective safeguard against violation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights that your meeting calls upon the EPFIs involved in financing DAPL that they take swift action to stop the ongoing violation of the rights of Native Americans. 
This for now requires that all further loan disbursements to the project are put on hold, and that the EPFIs involved demand from the project sponsors an immediate halt to the construction of the pipeline and all associated structures, until all outstanding issues are resolved to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

The letter is intended to be in solidarity with the leadership of the Standing Rock camp; in the absence of official camp leadership, efforts were made to align these demands with those of the Standing Rock Tribal Council.

I hope this does some good.

P.S. Monday morning update: read the full final letter that was just sent to the EP Association.

P.P.S. Tuesday morning update: read the New York Times coverage of the letter.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

The Internet of Water is Here

I have a new post up on the WWF ClimatePrep blog! It's on the internet of water - featuring the work of Branko Kerkez's lab at the University of Michigan, the Real-Time Water Systems Lab. His remote-sensing network-of-gadgets could play a big role in pushing ahead a city's capacity to reuse stormwater, something desperately needed in Los Angeles, where the majority of the city's stormwater goes directly into the ocean, but could supply the city with all the water it needs if it could be captured and redirected.

Here are some stills from an August 2016 video explaining the main pilot project Kerkez's lab is doing in Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Smart phone reading live water sensor data from the internet
An example of a read-out from one of the remote sensors installed by the Real-Time Water Systems Lab team. This is a smart phone displaying data fed to the internet at a one-minute resolution.



University of Michigan students installing a remote sensing instrument
The installation of a sensor at Ellsworth Pond, Ann Arbor (2016).

There's so much unrealized potential for creating "smart" (or "smarter") water systems: this is just a small step in that direction.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

California Adaptation Forum 2016 Report-Back

Last Wednesday and Thursday, September 7-8, the 2nd California Adaptation Forum (CAF16) was held in Long Beach, California. Attendance totaled just over 500, according to the Local Government Commission (LGC), the main organizer of the CAF. It was smaller than the first CAF held two years ago in Sacramento. But, being more intimate, it was a great networking event. Also in contrast to the first CAF it focused on one through-running theme: equity in climate change planning. Presentation proposals were required to explain how they addressed the issue of equity, and preference was given to sessions that included representatives of vulnerable populations among the speakers. This gave the gathering a distinctly different vibe from more academic and scientific conferences on the topic of climate adaptation I've attended.

Content from CAF presentations can be found here.

The lively Twitter stream from the conference can be seen by searching #CAF16 or clicking here.

The conference's smaller attendance was partly due to the lack of state employees, prevented from coming as a result of a labor dispute at the host hotel.

Some saw the labor dispute as a teachable moment. I heard several panelists over the course of the two-day conference reference the dispute and cite the need for labor rights and fair treatment of workers as part of a vision for a sustainable world under climate change. That sentiment was expressed by speakers whose work involves supporting labor unions, immigrants, and outdoor laborers, and one voice from the business sector, President of the Sierra Business Council Steve Frisch.

More on the Labor Dispute

Earlier this year the CAF host hotel, the Renaissance Long Beach, was put on a boycott list by a local union, UNITE HERE Local 11. The organizers found out about it in June, too late to relocate the conference without incurring a steep financial penalty. As a result of the boycott, California State employees were told by their union that they couldn't attend the event. Presumably as a result of that, the pre-conference climate science symposium (which was targeted at state employees in its previous iteration) was canceled. This cancellation might have had some knock-on effects, causing people who were more interested in the science symposium to stay home.

State agency representatives comprised at least 1/3 of the attendees at the first CAF (my estimate based on a show of hands of attendees at one of the keynote addresses). This time, there was only one state employee, and he was attending (I was told by a mutual friend) "on the down-low." Most of the attendees were from local governments, federal agencies like NOAA and EPA, non-profits, and consulting firms.

Apparently the basis of the boycott is the hotel's resistance to maintaining neutrality while allowing union organizers to approach employees and ask them to sign a card authorizing the union to represent them, whereupon the hotel would have to agree to recognize the union if a majority signed the cards, also called "card check neutrality."

After the conference, Kif Scheuer, the LGC's Climate Change Program Director, told me that he and other LGC representatives met with the hotel management on the second day of the conference in the company of some allies from organizations attending the CAF. At that meeting they asked the hotel to notify people planning events at the hotel about the ongoing labor dispute, and also to consider agreeing to card check neutrality. The hotel was apparently noncommittal in its response.

It appears the hotel doesn't dispute the employees' right to organize, but it would prefer they organize by secret ballot, not by being approached one-on-one by union organizers and being asked to sign something publicly while the hotel is bound to not attempt to undermine the effort (e.g., not hold mandatory meetings denouncing the union).

Go here for the most recent information on the labor dispute at the host hotel, last updated on August 24th as of this writing.

A Vision for California in 2050

Just a guess, but I'm betting this call for comments on a state "vision" that I received in my inbox this past Wednesday Sept. 14th via the California Natural Resources Agency's "CNRA_CLIMATE" mailing list was supposed to be launched at the CAF:

"The California Natural Resources Agency, in partnership with the California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, California State Transportation Agency, California Health and Human Services Agency, California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Strategic Growth Council, and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, is please to share the attached, 'Vibrant Communities and Landscapes: a Vision for California in 2050.' This draft vision for comment and discussion is intended to consider land use in the context of California’s climate change policy and begin to explore how the State can support actions, at all level of government, to facilitate development and conservation patterns that help to achieve the state’s climate goals, both greenhouse gas emissions reductions and the ability of communities and natural systems to adapt to the expected impacts of climate change. Please send comments to: ca.50m @ opr.ca.gov"

(Hyperlink and spaces in the email address are my own.)

More on the 2014 CAF

My Sept. 2, 2014, article written for WWF about the first CAF

My Sept. 15, 2014, post about the first CAF with audio/video links, and the slides from the panel on fog that I moderated.

Presentations from the first CAF - held August 19-20, 2014, in Sacramento, CA.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Looking at Sea Level Rise through New Eyes

Here is my newest post for the WWF ClimatePrep blog, on a San Francisco Bay sea level rise visualization project:

Sea Level Rise Seen with New Eyes: the OWLs of San Mateo (Aug. 30, 2016)

I'm currently supporting this collaboration, called LookAhead - San Mateo, led by the climate change communications NGO Climate Access, by contributing to its Twitter feed and Facebook page.

Check out LookAhead - SMC's new website, just launched this week.

This cool outreach tool-- the OWLs, which show the viewer the surrounding landscape under higher sea levels-- will be moved to San Francisco in 2017.

Monday, August 22, 2016

California Climate Change Conferences in Flux

This will not be news to people registered for the California Climate Adaptation Forum, but bystanders might be interested to know:

The California Climate Change Symposium "Science to Safeguard California" that was to be held Tues. Sept. 6 at the Renaissance Long Beach Hotel, the same hotel where the California Adaptation Forum (CAF) will be held Sept. 7-8, has been rescheduled and relocated. It will be held in Sacramento on January 25-26, 2017.

The reason for the above change is that it was being organized by state entities (California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) and there is a labor dispute at the host hotel that has led to all state employees, who are union members, being told to stay away from this hotel. This is a paraphrasing of something passed on to me a few weeks ago by an employee of the California Coastal Conservancy (who was trying to figure out a work-around, such as attending as a private individual, with no luck).

The organizer of the CAF, the Local Government Commission (LGC), is a non-profit and not a union shop, so the CAF is going forward despite state employee withdrawal from participation.

A friend who is not a union member but who has qualms about potentially crossing a picket line contacted the LGC about the labor dispute, and was sent this reply on Aug. 12 indicating some ways she might engage with the negotiation process (the text links are as sent in the e-mail):

The hotel staff is not on strike, there is an organized campaign by UNITE HERE [Local 11] to raise awareness of labor issues and to pressure the hotel to allow them to unionize using a card check neutrality process. The campaign includes a protest outside the hotel on some days. We have more information here on a web page  we setup on the situation so that everyone could know what was happening. 
In terms of updates, we are still in active discussions with representatives from UNITE HERE about ways to further engage during our event and to use our presence as a means to engage with hotel management on their concerns. We are currently developing a letter to the hotel management and owners describing how their actions have affected our event specifically, and at the request of some partners have created a template for anyone who wants to provide their own feedback to the hotel. We are talking with UNITE HERE about following-up with this letter by bringing a delegation to management during the event to ask them to allow the card-check neutrality process to go forward and are potentially going to try to get a news piece to cover the situation during the event.
If you are interested in any of these activities please let me know. Don't hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kif Scheuer
Climate Change Program Director
Local Government Commission

So far it looks like the UNITE HERE Local 11 campaign will not be resolved in time for state employees to participate at the California Adaptation Forum. That, plus what I've heard about the approved workshops, makes this a gathering with a strong emphasis on private, local community groups. It will be interesting to see what unfolds!

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Adaptation Futures - Rotterdam Report-Back













Earlier this month I was one of about 1,700 people from 102 countries attending Adaptation Futures 2016, touted as the biggest-yet climate change adaptation conference, in Rotterdam, Netherlands. It reportedly sold out to capacity each of its three days (May 10-13). The week ended with a day of trips (13 of them) to various flood control landmarks and projects. There were 155 sessions with daily plenaries that were simultaneously translated into French and Spanish. It featured an active Twitter feed, a LinkedIn group, and its own app to facilitate conference networking, Fuseami. There was a "Tool Shed" with its own parallel program of presentations, and a daily poster session after the end of the day's program. It was sponsored chiefly by the Global Programme of Research on Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation (PROVIA) alongside the European Commission and the Government of the Netherlands.

There were seven sectoral themes and three cross-cutting issues, all what I would call standard issue except for one...

1. Cities and infrastructure
2. Food, forestry and rural livelihoods
3. Fresh water availability and access
4. Public health
5. Ecosystems and ecosystem based adaptation
6. Disaster risk reduction
7. The Arctic
8. Risk assessment, adaptation planning and evaluation [cross-cutting]
9. Institutions and governance [cross-cutting]
10. Finance, investment and business [cross-cutting]

The Arctic stood out as the only track with a geographical focus.

Poverty and inequality were addressed in sessions across all sectors and issues. The program was a mix of developing world and rich world topics, with some sessions touching on issues common to both, such as early warning systems for public health.
Something unique in my experience for an adaptation conference is that it featured an address by local royalty: Queen Maxima of the Netherlands addressed the conference on the second day, followed by a panel on adaptation finance. She gave a well-informed speech about the need to provide financial instruments such as weather-indexed crop insurance to smallholder farmers in developing countries. (Unfortunately, she gave her well-informed speech wearing a safety-orange floral sleeveless sun dress that blew out my camera-phone's settings-- I was close enough for a good photo but it yielded me nothing.) The Q&A at the end of the plenary gave an opportunity for the other member of a royal family in the room to address a comment to the queen: Princess Abze Djigma of Burkina Faso (an engineer and CEO of her own solar company) pointed out that you need to build trust before expecting farmers, or anyone, to buy into an insurance scheme.

A hot topic at the conference was the the December 2015 Paris agreement, especially the new adaptation funding stream and how it can be managed so as to remain in alignment with economic development projects and goals (and not be a haven for projects that are actually just rejected economic development ideas). There was a session on how to make this funding stream "gender sensitive," a term I'll discuss further below.

A new-to-me term in currency at the conference was "climate services." I understood it to mean the disciplines of mitigation and adaptation combined, but another conference-goer pointed out that it could be applied to almost any project. Elsevier apparently had a launch event for a new journal called Climate Services at the conference. (Its first volume from March 2016 is available for free on Science Direct.)

A little Googling tells me that the Climate Services Partnership was founded in New York in 2011.

Check out some climate service projects featured by the Global Framework for Climate Services, which was founded in 2009 (or a decision was made to create it) at the World Climate Conference-3.

Another new-to-me term I encountered at the conference was "adaptation pathways," described in the program as "an emerging approach to decision-making accounting for future uncertainty,
resilience, complex systems and multiple stakeholders’ goals." I missed the CSIRO's presentation introducing the approach, but others were live-tweeting it and discussing it over the coffee breaks. One of its innovations (as I understood it second-hand) is to do an assessment of the collective capacity to act prior to any vulnerability assessment in order to generate more actionable information (e.g., instead of spending resources on an exhaustive examination of vulnerabilities, including those that logistically cannot be reduced).

Read more about it on the CSIRO's Enabling Adaptation Pathways initiative website.

Good questions that were brought up at the conference:
  • Maladaptation and maldevelopment: where they intersect, where adaptation can be maldevelopment, and where development can be maladaptation. It was pointed out that this is a matter of your time horizon-- short-term versus long. The Green Revolution in India established food security, a good short-term success, but it created disparities that took away from resilience in the long-term.
  • Ethics in the adaptation planning process: there are value judgments inherent in vulnerability assessments, stakeholder engagement, monitoring and evaluation, etc., and they all need to be made salient and examined. 
  • NOAA's Roger Pulwarty brought up a few good questions at the opening plenary that were discussed throughout the conference, including:
    • How much data do we need? We can pursue a lot more data and still make the wrong decision. He cautioned against producing data to support a pre-determined decision about action: "If we aren't careful we'll end up where we're going."
    • Is the goal agreement on action or appropriate action? Riffing on the anecdote about six blind men and an elephant that's used to illustrate how silos make us stupid, he pointed out that six elephants can agree that a human is flat.
  • Teleconnections: I heard not just the usual discussion of climate change affecting supply chains for private enterprise, but also how one government's decision about adaptation could have ripple effects in a world region. The common understanding that mitigation is global and adaptation is local needs to be revised: adaptation is also global.
  • Insurance: while the role of insurance (especially micro-insurance, weather-indexed insurance, and other developing-world schemes) has been examined in the light of climate change for many years now, it is getting new attention. I heard discussion of its drawbacks and limitations, but also its importance. Governments are now widely recognized as not having sufficient capacity to address the impacts of climate change. Insurance companies and other private financial institutions need to be engaged to work with governments more actively.
  • Should there be international standards for adaptation? Who should dictate them? There was only one session on global infrastructure standards, but I think it's an up-and-coming topic. Australia has adopted building standards for climate change. What can we learn from their experience? (Read a 2014 paper on Australian Standard AS 5334 ‘Climate change adaptation for settlements and infrastructure.’ to learn more.)

The conference brought up one old worry and one new worry for me. The old worry: why the short-schrifting of indigenous issues? At this point no climate change conference should treat indigenous adaptation as an afterthought. The only session explicitly addressing this was held in the conference venue's tiniest room with the poorest air circulation (and it was packed, standing room only). There were four speakers, and two of these were not indigenous people, but white people discussing projects they were documenting. The study of traditional environmental knowledge is a well-developed field, it can't be that hard to recruit people to talk about TEK and climate change from an indigenous perspective.

My new worry is what was discussed as the closing plenary as the "silofication" of adaptation. Adaptation is by its nature interdisciplinary: it will reduce its effectiveness to forge and require an adaptation brand. To some extent, it makes sense to create a silo insofar as it is a new profession and needs a silo to be identified as such, but to a large extent adaptation is a repackaging of a lot of different existing silos (public health, public safety/ disaster response, ecosystem restoration, etc.). There are new conferences springing up in the U.S. that are marketed using adaptation language, charging exorbitant fees, and featuring boutique trademarked tools and frameworks that seem to me to be aimed at generating income predicated on a sense of panic in the face of "the sky is falling" climate change reporting. I'm worried this will alienate the otherwise reasonable skeptics in government who need to start incorporating climate change into their government's planning processes but who don't want to fork over a pile of cash to an adaptation-branded consulting firm in order to do so.

Now for the surprises: things I'm still turning over in my mind that I learned at the conference.
  1. Lightning is killing a lot of people in India. I noticed this in a talk about heat waves: there was a slide with a graph about deaths by natural events in India to illustrate the heat wave problem, but the tallest column was twice as tall as heat wave deaths, and it was labeled "lightning." I thought I couldn't be reading it right, but turns out over 24,700 have been killed by lightning in India in last 10 years, and its on the exponential rise. A little Googling tells me that some are attributing this to climate change (read Thousands of Lightning Deaths in India Highlight COP21’s Climate Change Challenge - WSJ, Dec. 4, 2015). One sad adaptation strategy is to increase payments to the families of those killed by lightning, apparently usually farmers out tending their fields during the monsoon season.

  2. In some places a village will lose all its women in a flood, according to Robert Glasser, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction. Why? Because it is not considered culturally appropriate to teach women to swim, and because women won't take off culturally prescribed restrictive clothing. So they all drown. This insight is still haunting me.

  3. DON'T TAKE AN ARCTIC CRUISE. Tell everyone you know: just say no to Arctic cruises. There is apparently an influx of cruise ships entering waters they once couldn't because of ice. I got to hear about the lack of response capacity in Iceland and Greenland (three helicopters!). Meanwhile, people are paying 21,000 USD for a berth on the Crystal Serenity to go through the Northwest Passage this fall. Apparently U.S. and Canadian rescue teams are going to -- coincidentally-- conduct training drills in the vicinity of the cruise's maiden voyage, just in case. Beyond the lack of emergency preparedness, there's also the small matter of the impact of these giant cruise ships on the local cultures and environment.

  4. The Dutch don't talk about flooding. If they bring it up it is to say "this is something we don't worry about." A person working on retrofitting NYC public housing for the next Hurricane Sandy told me that Rotterdam is not retrofitting old housing stock for flooding: it's not even on the table for discussion. I thought there would be a whole track in the conference on flood preparedness, but no. One of our tour guides at the Delta Works (during the field trip day) complained that people laughed when someone tried to organize evacuation drills for flooding in Rotterdam. The Delta Works were built for a once-in-10,000-year flood event, but that is predicated on weather patterns not changing. The peat that the dikes are built on (or in some cases made of) becomes brittle in the summer. If there was an anomalous summer rain event that flooded the Rhine at the same time as a high tide with storm surge in the North Sea, there would be problems. At the closing plenary a young student playing the role of a  "flying reporter" was asked her conclusions from the conference, and one of her take-aways was the realization of how lucky they are in the Netherlands to have their seawalls. She wished everywhere in the world they could have the same protections. I thought, "yes, but..."
Some critical afterthoughts about Adaptation Futures:

There were too many sessions. I heard this from more than one experienced adaptation conference-goer. Some presentations were really repetitive of others, and some only tangentially related to adaptation. I'm looking at you, "Livelihood adaptation to long term exposure to volcanic ash."

Although the indigenous approach to adaptation only got one session, there was still a palpable attraction to the idea of traditional environmental knowledge being key to good adaptation. Also, ecosystem-based adaptation. In principle, I think that's fantastic. But I worry that there are unrealistic expectations, even a fetishization of TEK and EbA. I hope the next conference has some grounded-in-reality discussions of how best to combine TEK and EbA with other approaches, keeping an eye on effectiveness and efficiency.

I saw no sessions focusing on the question of how to define adaptation or how to set adaptation goals, but a lot on measurement, monitoring, and evaluation. Can we talk about the dangers of doing the second without the first?

I saw no sessions on ocean acidification. I wonder if it's because it's an ost-risk. -- That's a new adaptation pun I learned at the conference: a risk so terrible you have to stick your head in the sand (you know, like an ostrich).

Lastly, I have a futile complaint about the use of the term "gender" at Adaptation Futures and elsewhere in the international development context. A term like "gender-sensitivity," such as in the deployment of the Global Environment Fund's new adaptation funds, should really be "sensitivity to women's issues." Coming as I do first from an LGBT human rights background before working on environmental issues, I find the international development field's use of "gender" to mean "related to women" at best annoying. It is as though women are the "people of gender," and everyone else is genderless, or invisible (there are third-gendered people, such as India's hijras, who might experience climate impacts differently from cis-gendered women). Men also have gender, and it is salient in the context of climate change, particularly in the context of natural resource-scarcity-driven conflicts. Making "gender" a gloss for "women" weakens the entire gender analysis of climate vulnerability.

Let me end with a billboard that a bunch of us saw and darkly enjoyed while roving around looking for dinner one evening, just a few blocks from the conference site. It's not inspirational, but it has the ring of truth after you've dwelled a while in the world of climate change adaptation.



Onward toward the next Adaptation Futures: see you in Cape Town in 2018!

Thursday, April 7, 2016

George Wright Society 2015 Proceedings Now Online

Last year (March 29-April 3, 2015) the George Wright Society met in Oakland, California, my home. It was great. I walked 20 minutes downtown and saw many people I've known from various projects regarding climate change and public open space lands presenting about their research. The proceedings are now available for download.

Get free downloads of PDFs of some the papers and attendee reflections from the 2015 conference here.

The George Wright Society is -- for the uninitiated-- "a nonprofit association of researchers, managers, administrators, educators, and other professionals who work in, or on behalf of, parks, protected areas, and cultural/historic sites" (per Wikipedia's article). I did not realize until I looked it up after the conference that George Wright--George Melendez Wright-- was born in 1904 and died in a tragic car accident on the job at age 31 in 1936, and was (a) from San Francisco, (b) El Salvadoran-American, son of an immigrant, (c) like me a graduate from UC Berkeley, and (d) the first scientist employed by the U.S. National Park Service. A cool-sounding dude.

The 2015 conference held by the non-profit named after him was titled "Engagement, Education, and Expectations: The Future of Parks and Protected Areas." You can download a 203-page book, edited by Samantha Weber, with 49 papers and reflection statements from the conference.

Climate change was all over this conference. Here's the one scientific paper on the topic that made it to this collection:

Monitoring Landbirds in National Parks: Understanding Populations, Migratory Connectivity, and Climate Change (Albert et al.) - 7 pages

I saw a great presentation at GWS 2015 by Mark Schwartz (UC Davis) on assisted migration-- a cautious and rational approach to the quintessential hot-button topic in natural resource management. He was in the climate change "Focus Session" provocatively titled  "Climate Change Adaptation isn't for Sissies," moderated by NPS climate change luminary Leigh Welling, and featuring, besides Mark, other big names in the adaptation field UW's Josh Lawler and NPS climate scientist Patrick Gonzalez. Unfortunately, the research presented by them isn't in the free downloadable materials.

Read "A Framework for Debate of Assisted Migration in an Era of Climate Change" -- Mark Schwartz's influential 2007 article, authored with Jason McLachlan and Jessican Hellmann-- free on CAKEx.