chapter 9
The Governance of Droughts
Margot Hurlbert
Introduction
An important determinant of a community’s ability to adapt to future climate change impacts and current climate variability is its institutional setting and the degree to which this setting facilitates or hinders the community’s adaptive capacity (Willems and Baumert 2003; see also IPCC 2001: 891, 897 and Chapter 10 by Hurlbert on water governance in this volume). Institutions contribute to managing a community’s assets and, in the case of drought, the assets relating to rural agricultural producers’ livelihoods: land, soil, crops, and income. Institutions also contribute to the community members’ relationships with natural resources—for example, the provision of drinking water, property rights to land, or access to community pastures. Both formal institutions (e.g., government, non-profit organizations, and civil society organizations) and informal institutions (e.g., social norms, values, and contexts) contribute to the relationships of people to each other and natural resources.
This chapter focuses on government policy in relation to drought—one facet of the institutional context of adaptive capacity and the governance setting. Governance encompasses laws, regulations, and institutions, as well as governmental policies and actions, national activities, and networks of influence, including international market forces, the private sector, and civil society (Demetropoulou et al. 2010: 341). In this chapter, I describe government policies and programs that assist, or enhance, the adaptive capacity of rural agricultural producers in preparing for and responding to drought in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and then analyze their potential effectiveness at doing so. These policies and programs are divided into three categories in this chapter. The first category includes policies and programs that have been developed to assist agricultural producers in building adaptive capacity to withstand drought. An example is a program facilitating the building of dugouts or water pipelines. The second category includes policies and programs that assist agricultural producers in times of drought, for example, an income-stabilization program. The third category includes climate change and adaptation; this would include regulations reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Policies Assisting Adaptation to Drought
Drought response and adaptation have been a constant reality for the people of the Canadian Prairie provinces, and for all levels of government, since the beginning of the settlement period. The region has one of the most variable natural climates (ranging from extreme heat to extreme cold) and variable hydrological resources. Droughts and floods are frequent, and the frequency and intensity of droughts are anticipated to increase in the future (Sauchyn and Kulshreshtha 2008; see also Chapter 3 by Wheaton et al. in this volume). Policies and programs that respond to this increased risk of drought will become increasingly important. These policies and programs can be divided into two groups: those that assist rural agricultural producers in adapting to more intense water shortages of longer durations and those that help producers respond to a drought after it has been declared as such.
The federal government’s strategy to support farm programs entitled Growing Forward was reintroduced in December 2012 as Growing Forward 2. This second iteration continued to offer a suite of business risk-management programs aimed at helping farmers manage risks from income declines resulting from drought, flood, low prices, and increased input costs. These programs include the following:
• AgriInvest: This program helps cover small margin declines. It is a self-managed producer-government savings account whereby producers can set aside up to 1% of their allowable net commodity sales, and the federal government will match it (up to $15,000 per year). Funds can be withdrawn at any time.
• AgriStability: This program assists producers in cases of large margin declines in farm income, which may have resulted from low prices and rising input costs. If a producer’s margin (allowable revenue less allowable expenses) drops below their average margin from previous years (a historical reference margin) by more than 30%, governments will provide a share of the lost income.
• AgriInsurance: This program protects against production losses related to specific crops or commodities caused by drought, flood, hail, disease, or other natural hazards. Delivered by provincial agriculture departments, this crop insurance program provides for cost sharing of premiums between the producer, the province, and the federal government. Producers receive a payment when their production is below their guaranteed insured level of protection. To address flooding, unseeded acreage benefits were expanded in 2012. Livestock price insurance coverage is being explored.
• AgriRecovery: This program helps farm businesses return to operation following disaster situations. It provides a framework for federal and provincial governments to work together and cost share (on a 60/40 basis) funding on a case-by-case basis in response to natural disasters (e.g., extreme weather, disease, pests). This program provides coverage when assistance is needed beyond that available from other existing programs.
Three new programs under the Growing Forward 2 strategy were created in 2013:
• AgriInnovation: This program is designed to accelerate the pace of innovation by supporting research and development activities and facilitating the adoption, demonstration, and commercialization of innovative products, technologies, processes, practices, and services. Two lines of support exist. An industry-led research and development stream provides non-repayable support for agri-science projects (individual research projects that can be local, regional, or national in scope) or projects that are in the agri-science cluster (aimed at mobilizing and coordinating a critical mass of scientific expertise in industry, academia, and government, which is national in scope). The second line of support provides loans to facilitate the demonstration, commercialization, and adoption of innovative agri-based products, technologies, processes, or services.
• AgriMarketing: This program invests in projects to enhance the agriculture sector’s access to international markets or assist in developing assurance systems and standards to give Canadian products a competitive advantage internationally.
• AgriCompetitiveness: This program provides directed investments to help the agricultural sector adapt to rapidly changing and emerging global and domestic opportunities and issues, and respond to market trends.
When the Growing Forward strategy was reintroduced in 2012, it was reported that just over $10 billion had been expended through federal and provincial contributions and payments since 2007, and it was announced that over the ensuing five years (2013–17), $3 billion would be invested in the programs (Government of Canada 2012). Two of the business risk-management programs, AgriStability and AgriInvest, had benefits reduced in the 2012 iteration of the strategy.
Agricultural programming is an area of the Canadian federal system where both levels of senior government—federal and provincial—play roles in program financing and delivery. Over the course of the 1990s, government funding for programs such as AgriInsurance and AgriStability tended to reflect a 60/40 split between the federal and provincial governments, respectively, although for AgriInsurance a portion of the provincial share included in-kind contributions related to program delivery. The federal-provincial AgriInsurance program requires producers to pay premiums accounting for up to one-third of program costs. AgriStability does not require a cash contribution from farmers.
Field research undertaken prior to the 2012 reintroduction of the strategy identified considerable dissatisfaction among Prairie farmers with the AgriStability program (RCAD 2012; Warren and Diaz 2012). A common complaint was the onerous application process. Many farmers required the services of an accountant to complete the required forms, and the cost for these services runs from $1,000 to $3,000 per application. Another area of concern involved the five-year averaging system, which saw the likelihood of payments to producers reduced in conjunction with extended periods of weak commodity prices coupled with rising input costs. After paying to submit an application, a farmer had no assurance that a support payment would be forthcoming. Producers were also frustrated by the lack of agricultural knowledge on the part of program administrators located in large urban centres such as Winnipeg. Recently some provinces, including Saskatchewan and Alberta, have worked to improve the quality of program delivery for AgriStability by taking over program management. While more localized administration may reduce some of producers’ frustrations, it is unlikely that the reductions in overall program support associated with the 2012 strategy will be welcomed.
The federal-provincial AgriInsurance system has received mixed reviews from producers in the drought-prone regions of the Prairies, although complaints have historically been more common in Saskatchewan than in Alberta (RCAD 2012; Warren and Diaz 2012). Frustration in Saskatchewan stemmed from the effects of severe drought in the late 1980s and 2001–2 on finances for the program. Following a succession of years when payouts overtook the value of farmer premiums and government contribution levels, the Saskatchewan program fell into deficit. In response, premiums were raised to levels that farmers found exorbitant, and payout levels were reduced during the 1990s and early 2000s. The Saskatchewan Party government, elected in 2007, addressed farmer concerns by injecting the cash required to make premiums and payouts more attractive. Since 2007, farmer participation in AgriInsurance in Saskatchewan has increased significantly. In Alberta, the provincial government has apparently been more consistently amenable to providing financial resources to maintain attractive premium rates in the wake of major drought events. The programs in both drought-prone provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan) have benefited from the fact that, with a few localized exceptions, there has not been a severe region-wide drought on the Prairies since 2002.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provides information on drought through the Drought Watch website (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, n.d.). Timely information on weather and climate relevant to the agriculture sector in Canada is posted, including historical weather and climate conditions; impacts of these conditions on the sector; short-term forecasting products; and information on mitigating and adapting to the impacts of weather and climate.
In 1935, the federal government established rural water programs to address drought, following the devastating multi-year droughts in the 1920s and 1930s. From 1935 to 1940, the Rural Water Development Program existed to provide funding to help develop secure on-farm water supplies in the Prairie provinces. Group and community projects were added after 1980. From 1980 to 2004, the program expended an estimated total of $154 million. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), an entity created by federal statute, managed the program from its inception (Government of Canada 2002; see also Chapter 8 by Marchildon in this volume). The National Water Supply Expansion Program (2002–9) expended approximately $102 million across Canada, with roughly $68 million on the Prairies (Wittrock and Koshida 2005: 9). These programs were most often shared with the provinces.
The Saskatchewan Farm and Ranch Water Infrastructure Program (FRWIP) continued this type of programming from 2008 onward. The FRWIP supports the development of secure water sources in Saskatchewan to expand the livestock industry, encourage rural economic activity, and mitigate the effects of future drought. Projects such as community wells, large and small diameter wells, shallow or deep buried pipelines, and dugouts are eligible for funding. Project costs are shared between the proponent (i.e., producer or municipality) and the federal and provincial governments (Government of Saskatchewan 2011, 2012). This program was designed specifically to deal with hydro-climate extremes (i.e., drought) by providing producers and rural communities with increased access to water resources through infrastructure developments.
The Canada-Saskatchewan and the Canada-Alberta Farm Stewardship Programs (FSPs) assist agricultural producers in adapting to water shortages. Specifically, these programs assist agricultural producers in responding to environmental risk and water supply threats, thereby potentially reducing producers’ vulnerability to climate and environmental change by increasing their adaptive capacity. The FSPs are designed specifically with the stated goal of helping producers address on-farm environmental risk (not directly responding to climate change). The programs provide eligible producers with financial assistance to implement beneficial management practices (BMPs) to help maintain or improve the quality of soil, water, air, or biodiversity resources. These BMPs are intended to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of ecological resources used for agricultural production, positively impact long-term economic and environmental viability of agricultural production, and minimize negative impacts and risks to the environment. Federal and provincial funds are available to assist in implementing BMPs. Although they are not specifically designed to improve adaptive capacity for climate variability, there are a number of complementary benefits associated with BMPs (e.g., reduced soil erosion, improved pasture management) that augment producer capacity to deal with variations in climate.
Drought Response Policies
The Agriculture Drought Risk Management Plan for Alberta–2010 plans for and responds to drought and weather extremes through strategies aimed at three situations: 1) normal or near normal conditions, 2) exceptional/notable conditions, and 3) extreme conditions. Drought is defined as “an extended period of below-normal precipitation resulting in decreased soil and subsoil moisture levels and diminished surface water supplies affecting crop growth, livestock water or irrigation water” (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010). This management plan integrates policies allowing adaptation and response to drought and establishes a drought advisory group, which provides advice and oversees the plan.
In Saskatchewan, an intergovernmental drought monitoring committee led by the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture includes representatives of the Water Security Agency, Crop Insurance Corporation, and Ministry of Environment. This committee provides advice and meets weekly regarding agricultural drought. The committee has drafted drought plans, but they have never been finalized. The last documented plan was the 2002 draft “Drought Risk Management Plan for Saskatchewan,” which was designed to help government agencies develop a coordinated response to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to drought (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2002).
Cities and urban municipalities have adapted to water shortages for many years. The City of Regina developed contingency plans in 1988, including water conservation programs and expansion of water treatment and delivery capacity (Cecil et al. 2005). Many urban municipalities have found voluntary alternate watering guidelines very effective (Warren and Diaz 2012).
Watershed groups have commenced planning for drought and excessive moisture. Plans have been developed for the North Saskatchewan River watershed (Rowan et al. 2011) and the Upper Souris River watershed (East et al. 2012); these plans were facilitated by the provincial Water Security Agency and Natural Resources Canada. For the North Saskatchewan plan, representatives mapped their watershed by identifying key characteristics (e.g., where poor drainage, good drainage, and wells existed), reviewed potential future climate scenarios, and then identified vulnerabilities and adaptations to these future scenarios. This adaptation planning exercise was then organized by actions for producers, municipalities, and for policy and programs. For the Upper Souris Watershed Plan, representatives identified components of the plan that were key action items related to preparing for drought and excessive moisture, and began implementing them through three activities: 1) an Ecological Change Workshop was held to document past changes in adaptive capacity using participatory mapping; 2) cattle producers participated in a drought planning workshop; and 3) a survey established a baseline for assessing watershed understanding in the community. So far, these drought planning exercises have only occurred in a handful of situations. No strategy currently exists for conducting planning exercises, integrating planning among watersheds, and coordinating planning with other interested groups (e.g., civil society organizations). Although these exercises are an important beginning for drought planning, much is left to be done.
The provincial drought response committees offer timely, responsive problem solving in a drought situation. The institutional context for various government ministries is established so decisions can be made quickly. However, in Saskatchewan, priority should be given to finalizing a drought plan for the entire province to allow for coordination of not only the government ministries but also civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, municipalities, producer associations, and businesses.
Climate Change and Adaptation Policies
As outlined in Chapter 10 the Prairie provinces have had specific policies surrounding climate change and adaptation for the past several years. Saskatchewan’s previous New Democratic Party Government issued an Energy and Climate Change Plan in 2007—a cross-governmental vision in response to climate change and the development of a province-wide climate change adaptation strategy, which included working with research organizations and supporting critical local research on climate change and adaptation (Government of Saskatchewan 2007). These goals have been reiterated in the 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan (Water Security Agency 2012). Several watershed groups have developed drought plans, as outlined above. Currently, climate legislation relating to mitigation remains on the legislative agenda, but it is yet to be proclaimed.
In Alberta, legislation has existed since the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (2003), a precursor for Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy (Government of Alberta 2008). In addition to establishing a carbon offset market and providing consumer rebates in relation to energy efficient products, two programs were introduced, a greenhouse gas reporting program and a greenhouse gas reduction program. These programs relate to the establishment of a greenhouse gas limit and in 2015 a carbon tax was announced (Bakx 2015). In 2003, the Alberta government also created a Water for Life strategy focusing on issues of quantity, quality, and conservation of water—all important issues in preparation for and during drought (Government of Alberta 2003). The strategy initiated three important activities: 1) planning for future management of water via the provincial Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, 2) developing land-use frameworks, and 3) watershed planning through local watershed groups.
Manitoba legislation acknowledges climate change considerations and adopts the precautionary principle and sustainable resource management practices. Recently, the Government of Manitoba announced that the International Institute for Sustainable Development would assist the province in updating its climate and green economy plan to address public concerns about reducing emissions and preparing for climate impacts. The initiative will engage representatives of key sectors, including agriculture, transport, industry, academic, civil society, and others (Pelletier 2013). Sector-wide adaptation as outlined in Manitoba’s strategy makes provisions for increasing reliance on energy efficiency and minimizing reliance on fossil fuels (Government of Manitoba 2015).
Alberta and Manitoba are the only two Prairie provinces with policies in place to mitigate climate change. Alberta has passed legislation requiring large emitters to reduce their emissions by 12% using an average of 2003 as a baseline. These requirements apply to emitters making up 70% of Alberta’s emissions. Manitoba’s legislation requires a reduction of 6% of Manitoba’s total 1990 emissions. These requirements are to be achieved in numerous ways, including embracing more renewable sources of energy and developing technology in things such as geothermal and other energy sources and developing hydrogen technologies for transportation.
Canada embraces many measures in these areas as well, but it has no legislated reduction targets for greenhouse gases. The most recent communication filed by Canada in 2010 with the secretariat for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states that Canada expects to be 802 Mt above its Kyoto Protocol target of 2,792 Mt during the 2008 to 2012 period (Government of Canada 2010). In December 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. The Conservative government blamed the previous Liberal government for having made an error by committing to the protocol. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set a target of reducing annual emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This threshold is much lower than the Kyoto Protocol target to cut emissions to below 1990 levels (CBC 2011; De Souza 2012). Publicly Stephen Harper rejected carbon pricing or a carbon tax (supporting regulating each sector instead). However, in Privy Council documents obtained under access to information, Canada stated its support for the development of new market-based mechanisms expanding the scale and scope of carbon markets (De Souza 2013). The new government of Justin Trudeau has spent much time in climate change discussions with other world leaders and the premiers. It would be safe to conclude that we shall see a change in the federal government policy.
Discussion
It is expected that the impacts of climate change in the future will be increased variability of climate with longer durations of drought and extreme moisture (see Chapter 3). This review of policies and programs relevant to climate change and related problems of mitigation, adaptation, drought, and disaster shows that short-term drought strategies are planned at the federal and provincial levels. Farm income stabilization policies do offer a level of protection in the event of both drought and flood. The economic impacts are clearly planned for with a suite of agricultural producer programs available. Research in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan confirms that available protection assists producers for a time frame of only a few years. Given that future droughts are expected to be of longer duration, these policies are not likely to protect producers. If these policies are not redesigned to respond to longer, more severe droughts, it is probable that many producers will not be able to continue farming. Further, long-term drought strategies are missing.
The absence of policy responding to long-term drought appears to be due in part to uncertainty surrounding when such an event might occur, which may reflect disagreement on the certainty of climate change science. Alternatively, difficulty in preparing and implementing strategy and policy to respond to long-term drought could relate to values and norms. Government has competing priorities in terms of its attention and its budget, which must be addressed through bargaining. Given these two competing characterizations of the policy problem, it would appear that work needs to be done to overcome both issues. Thus, attention should be given to increasing dialogue and focus on climate change science, specifically in relation to the needs and requirements of policy makers, and bargaining within the policy system for increasing focus, attention, and priority on climate change and its impacts.
Government attention and funding need to address adaptive measures. These measures might include additional water storage, irrigation infrastructure, and programs to incentivize water conservation. Prioritizing these initiatives needs to be done through public engagement and dialogue, wherein conflicts resulting from different values and norms surrounding these decisions can be resolved. Currently, programs that encourage adaptive measures (e.g., FRWIP and FSPs) are “sold” on the basis that they enhance efficiencies and improve profitability of farm operations. These programs are not directly marketed to the public and producers as assisting in adaptation to climate change. This allows the policy problem with which these programs are attempting to assist to be structured as improving farm profitability rather than adapting to climate change. Incorporating the climate change problem into these policies would enhance them by encouraging producers to incorporate climate change science into planning for a longer term, thus improving their adaptive capacity.
A challenge surrounding drought policy is the fact it is “creeping” in time (over several weeks, months, or even years) and space (occurring often in a dispersed manner within various rural municipalities). This creeping characteristic accentuates the policy problem of drought. The goals of government are somewhat uncertain as governments are hesitant to allocate today’s resources to what could be tomorrow’s (or the next government’s) problems.
Although provincial governments have an apparatus of intergovernmental committees ready to respond in the event of a drought, the federal government is absent in the field of this policy problem in relation to long-term proactive planning. Although droughts were once listed as four of the five top disasters in Canada (Public Safety Canada 2007), droughts no longer appear in the listing, and other than several droughts in the 1990s, total costs are not estimated for droughts. The federal government’s lack of policy on drought is notable and cause for consternation. Responding to droughts without formalized institutional relationships and policy is problematic. Although the federal programs associated with Growing Forward offer individual producers some income protection, research has shown this to be inadequate for droughts lasting longer than two years.
The federal response to climate change, climate mitigation, and adaptation to climate change is even more problematic. Canada’s performance in relation to the Kyoto Protocol is dismal. Canada’s plans for greenhouse gas reduction are confusing. A void in policy responding to climate change problems exists.
Many municipal governments and individual agricultural producers have plans in place for adaptation to climate change. Plans for disaster response to floods, plans for conservation of water in the event of dry years, and plans to deal with drainage access issues have always been part of the Prairie landscape; ensuring that these strategies meet the future anticipated climate is the challenge. Policies exist to encourage best farm practices (e.g., FSPs), many of which allow producers to adapt to climate change by building infrastructure such as dugouts and pipelines (e.g., FRWIP). Although these individual initiatives are important, more concerted planning needs to occur at community and regional levels for responding to flood and drought. This planning would alleviate the pressure placed on individual adaptive initiatives.
Often, policy that responds to flood does not consider drought, and vice versa. For instance, when infrastructure is built and considerations of flood are paramount, communities and government may construct dams or weirs to retain water and protect communities. When infrastructure is built and considerations of drought are paramount, communities and government may construct water storage facilities. Often water storage infrastructure constructed for one of these events is not appropriate for the other. For example, when irrigators in southern Alberta were confronted with significant flooding, their irrigation infrastructure, constructed for water retention in times of drought, was not effective in times of flood (Hurlbert et al. 2015). Predictions of increased variability and more rapid swings between drought and flood should result in a holistic approach to water planning and policy aimed explicitly at responding to both flood and drought and this new condition of extreme variability.
The governments have not holistically responded to our changing climatic future with proactive policy changes. Nevertheless, Canadian climate change policy exhibits some strengths. These strengths relate to long-standing programs, such as crop insurance programs, the FRWIP, and FSPs. However, a comprehensive policy consideration of future climate change has not yet occurred. From this brief overview, it is apparent that policy response is fragmented and considered only in relation to the structured policy problems of impacts (droughts and floods). Reduction of greenhouse gases in the future, or mitigation, is not even being considered as one long-term adaptation to future climate change. To date, Canada is far from achieving its Kyoto commitments and has in fact given up and removed itself from the Kyoto Protocol. Sparse lip service is paid by the federal government to mitigation of climate change, with mixed messages about tools and strategies. To effectively respond to future climate change, a comprehensive strategy is required that uses the policy framing approach identified herein (see Hisschemöller and Hoppe 1996; Hisschemöller and Gupta 1999; Hoppe 2011). Continuing in a fragmented manner as has been done in the past clearly will not work in the future.
Conclusion
Producers in the Prairie provinces have a long history of adapting to droughts. Future climate change is expected to result in increasing climate variability, including increasing duration and intensity of droughts and floods. One of the key determinants of rural agricultural producers’ ability to adapt to drought is the capacity of institutions interacting with these producers to assist with adaptation. Government policies and programs relating to drought are key determinants of whether producers will be able to adapt to future climate change.
This chapter reviewed the institutional governance setting, specifically in relation to drought and flood policies and programs, that impacts a producer’s ability to adapt to climate change. This institutional setting is informed by government policies and programs appropriate to water shortages or drought that draw from agricultural policy, water governance, and disaster response. These policies and programs are many and varied when one considers the totality of programs relating to climate change and climate change adaptation, as well as the policy problems of building resilience through drought and flood infrastructure, anticipating future floods and droughts, and responding to present-day droughts. This chapter assessed the successes and challenges that exist in this institutional framework in relation to helping producers adapt to one impact of climate change—drought.
Although policies and programs for responding to present-day droughts and floods have existed for some time, these initiatives have not been reinvigorated to respond to droughts lasting more than two years, as is anticipated with future climate change. Many policies and programs do assist with adaptations, but they are not currently structured around responding to this larger issue. Framing these programs and policies in relation to future climate change may assist in their implementation, allowing producers to plan for a longer term. Local watershed planning is a perfect forum for pursuing discussions of anticipated future climate change and appropriate community and watershed adaptations.
The federal government’s lack of attention to drought and climate change mitigation and adaptation is cause for concern. Leadership is required at the national level to comprehensively tackle future climate change, especially in the areas of climate mitigation and greenhouse gas reductions. Provinces, municipalities, and local watershed groups have led the way with comprehensive, sectoral initiatives. These important policies and programs need to be expanded with federal government support. As well, the federal government needs to enter into the policy and program space in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation, not only in its national coordinating and planning role but also in relation to all sectors under federal jurisdiction, including international and interprovincial trade, energy, and waters.
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. n.d. “Drought Watch.” Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website. http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1326402878459.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002. “Drought Risk Management Plan for Saskatchewan, 2002.” In Canada-Saskatchewan MOU on Water Committee Minutes, June 24, 2002. Regina: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2010. Agriculture Drought Risk Management Plan for Alberta. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/ppe3883.
Bakx, K. 2015. Alberta carbon tax could bring whopper of a bill to cities and towns. CBCnews. CBC website, November 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-climate-change-calgary-edmonton-medicine-hat-1.3333666
CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). 2011. “Canada Pulls Out of Kyoto Protocol.” CBC website, December 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pulls-out-of-kyoto-protocol-1.999072
Cecil, B., H. Diaz, D. Gauthier, and D. Sauchyn. 2005. Social Dimensions of the Impact of Climate Change on Water Supply and Use in the City of Regina. Report prepared by the Social Dimensions of Climate Change Working Group for the Canadian Plains Research Center. Regina: University of Regina..
Demetropoulou, L., N. Nikolaidis, V. Papadoulakis, K. Tsakiris, T. Koussouris, N. Kalogerakis, K. Koukaras, A. Chatzinikolaou, and K. Theodoropoulos. 2010. “Water Framework Directive Implementation in Greece: Introducing Participation in Water Governance – The Case of the Evrotas River Basin Management Plan.” Environmental Policy and Governance 20: 336–49.
De Souza, M. 2012. “Canada Officially Pulls Out of Kyoto Agreement.” The Leader-Post, 15 December 2012. Regina, Saskatchewan.
De Souza, M. 2013. “Federal Report Supports Carbon Pricing. At Odds with PM’s Public Position.” The Leader-Post, 20 August 2013. Regina, Saskatchewan.
East, V., J. Pitman, J. Kylie, K. McRae, and E. Soulodre. 2012. Upper Souris River Watershed Drought and Excessive Moisture Preparedness Plan. Moose Jaw, SK: Saskatchewan Watershed Authority.
Government of Alberta. 2003. Water for Life – Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability. Edmonton: Queen’s Printer.
———. 2008. Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy. Edmonton: Queen’s Printer.
Government of Canada. 2002. “Backgrounder on Drought Measures. Farm Financial Assistance Programs.” Ottawa: Government of Canada.
———. 2010. Fifth National Communication on Climate Change. Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat on 12 February 2010. Ottawa: Government of Canada. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/can_nc5.pdf.
———. 2012. “Backgrounder on AgriInnovation, AgriMarketing and AgriCompetitiveness Programs.” Ottawa: Government of Canada.
Government of Manitoba. 2015. Adapting to Climate Change: Preparing for the Future. https://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/beyond_kyoto/adapting_to_climate_change.pdf Accessed November 24, 2015.
Government of Saskatchewan. 2007. Energy and Climate Change Plan 2007. Regina: Premier’s Office.
———. 2011. “Farm and Ranch Water Infrastructure.” Government of Saskatchewan website. http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/FRWIP_2009. Accessed 29 September 2011.
———. 2012. Website Archive—“2008 Farm and Ranch FRWIP.” Government of Saskatchewan website. http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=a06a158f-551b-4c10-9f01-ba20e122bc42.
Hisschemöller, M., and J. Gupta. 1999. “Problem-Solving through International Environmental Agreements: The Issue of Regime Effectiveness.” International Political Science Review 20, no. 2: 151–74.
Hisschemöller, M., and R. Hoppe. 1996. “Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis.” Knowledge and Policy 8, no. 4: 40–61.
Hurlbert, M., Hague, S., Diaz, H. 2015. Vulnerability to Climate Extremes in the Americas Project (VACEA) Governance and Policy Assessment (Unit IC) (167 pp.) Available at: www.parc.ca/vacea/assets/PDF/reports/institutional%20governance%20report%20final.pdf Accessed November 24, 2015.
Hoppe, R. 2011. The Governance of Problems, Puzzling, Powering and Participation. Briston: The Policy Press, University of Bristol.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Technical Summary. A Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001. Geneva: IPCC, World Meteorological Organization, and United Nations Environment Programme.
Pelletier, N. 2013. “IISD to Lead Engagement with Manitobans in Climate Change and Economic Development.” Correspondence posted to the listserver (iisdnews@lists.isd.ca), 30 July, 2013.
Public Safety Canada. 2007. “Canadian Disaster Database.” Public Safety Canada website. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/cndn-dsstr-dtbs/index-eng.aspx. Accessed 10 September 2007.
RCAD (Rural Community Adaptation to Drought Project). 2012. Rural Communities Adaptation to Drought: Research Report. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center.
Rowan, K., J. Pittman, V. Wittrock, K. Finn, and J. Kindrachuk. 2011. North Saskatchewan River Watershed Drought and Excessive Moisture Preparedness Plan. Moose Jaw, SK: Saskatchewan Watershed Authority.
Sauchyn, D., and S. Kulshreshtha. 2008. “Prairies.” In D.S. Lemmen, F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (eds.), From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Ottawa: Government of Canada. http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca.assess.2007/index_e.php. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Warren, J., and H. Diaz. 2012. Defying Palliser: Stories of Resilience from the Driest Region of the Canadian Prairies. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center Press.
Water Security Agency. 2012. 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan. Moose Jaw, SK: Water Security Agency.
Willems, S., and K. Baumert. 2003. Institutional Capacity and Climate Actions. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Wittrock, V., and G. Koshida. 2005. Canadian Droughts of 2001 and 2002: Government Response and Safety Net Programs–Agriculture Sector. SRC Publication No.: 1101-2E03. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Research Council.