Scenarios for the future of adaptation session

H Carlsen
Swedish Defence Research Agency

Measures of adaptation to a changing climate may have different impacts depending on the future socio-economic context. There are a number of different methodological perspectives on how to best cope with future socio-economic conditions. In order to analyse possible climate change, its impacts and strategies as well as mitigation and adaptation, a special paradigm of future studies has become the dominated paradigm, namely scenario planning. Within this paradigm a number of different approaches have been suggested for utilising scenario planning for impacts and adaptation assessment. In order to structure the various ways scholars have proposed using scenarios for climate change adaptation, this paper starts by classifying the approaches according to i) downscaling, ii) consistency and iii) independency. Downscaling has been put forward as a way to getting a finer resolution of socio-economic parameters compared to what is the case in major global scenario studies, such as SRES, Global Environment Outlook and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Examples in the second class, ‘consistency’, include the socio-economic scenarios developed within the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP). The UKCIP work strived for a close connection with the SRES scenarios and it is argued that this is helpful because it facilitates linkages between socio-economic scenarios and climate change scenarios.

The major part of the paper is devoted to describing a methodological approach belonging to the third class above, i.e. ‘independency’. Within Climatools – a Swedish research programme aimed at providing decision-makers with a better basis (‘tools’) for developing strategies for adapting to climate change – we have developed a new methodology for constructing socio-economic scenarios for impacts and adaptation assessment. Instead of starting with the national (or global) level, this approach takes the local, regional or sectoral level as the starting point when constructing socio-economic scenarios. A specific set of scenarios is tailored for each specific planning situation and the national level is described from the point of view of the actual focal issue. It is also argued that linking the local scenarios to the global level is in most cases not necessary.

A specific problem addressed by our methodology is how to construct a set of scenarios (sometimes called storylines) from a given set of socio-economic factors with associated states. In planning situations with severe uncertainty and possible irreversible changes it is of primary interest to explore the outer limits of the relevant socio-economic uncertainties. We do so by presenting a novel method that will help scenario developers in generating scenario sets where the scenarios are in a quantifiable sense maximally different and therefore arguably best ‘span’ the whole set of feasible scenarios. We do not suggest that scenario-building should become a mechanised practice, but think that combining our method with the more qualitative approaches of the ‘intuitive logic’ school would reduce the problem of too little variation in scenario sets because the tool will stimulate scenario developers to consider the plausibility of other combinations of states than those felt most natural to them. We believe this is an important aid for planners because many societal decisions come with long-term commitment and climate change introduces an increase in uncertainty.

Furthermore, our approach addresses the issue of ‘transparency’ in scenario construction. Although it is extremely difficult to argue that any scenario exercise is value free, the aim is usually to construct purely descriptive scenarios. It has been argued that it is especially in the combination of states of the socio-economic factors that implicitly introduces a normative element to the scenario storylines. The proposed framework makes the process of going from socio-economic factors to scenarios more transparent, although of course not totally value free.

Download presentation (PDF)

E Saxon
Independent consultant

Caron (1990) introduced the concept that strategies that make it easier to manage current problems could aggravate the problems they were meant to solve, once climate changes significantly. Not only will they fail to serve the purposes for which they were originally designed, but trying to prevent their failure will reduce the capacity of future generations to meet other needs; their sustainability is negative. Such perverse adaptation strategies may result from unanticipated impacts of climate change. For example, toxic waste dumps situated in coastal, flood-prone areas below 1m above mean sea level may have been designed to survive one 500 year flood event, but not several that occur at short intervals, even before they become permanently inundated. Perverse strategies may also result from non-climate sources of stress (e.g. social reluctance to invest in aging infrastructure) and sources of stress indirectly related to climate change (e.g. the increased cost of electricity needed for pumping water). Interactions among these two factors generate four future scenarios in which adaptation strategies may be implemented.

Download presentation (PDF)

E Bohensky1, J Butler1, 2, R Costanza3, I Bohnet4, A Delisle5, K Fabricius6, M Gooch7, I Kubiszewski8, G Lukacs9, P Pert10 and E Wolanski11 1
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Australia 2 Australian Tropical Forest Institute, James Cook University, Australia 3 Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, The University of Vermont, USA 4 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences/ School of Business, James Cook University, Australia
5 Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia 6 Cairns Institute Research Fellow, School of Education, James Cook University, Australia 7 Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research, James Cook University, Australia

The extent to which nations and regions can actively shape the future or must passively respond to global forces is a topic of relevance to current discourses on climate change. In Australia, climate change has been identified as the greatest threat to the ecological resilience of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), but is exacerbated by regional and local pressures. Although there is great concern among GBR institutions about uncertainty surrounding climate change and other threats, and a recognition of the need for longer-term planning, ongoing and integrated strategic planning by these institutions has been limited.

Scenarios–alternative future visions–provide a mechanism for individual and collective consideration and articulation of perceptions and aspirations for the future, and the opportunities and risks that may be associated with particular decisions. Scenarios can help to illuminate the enabling conditions for and constraints on current and future management approaches and strategies, identify possible adaptations and ultimately assist agencies such as those in the GBR to move from a position of ‘taking’ to ‘making’ desirable future change.

Using existing data, models and regional scientific knowledge, we undertook a scenario analysis to explore how two key uncertainties may influence climate change impacts in the GBR region in 2100: whether (1) global development and (2) Australian development is defined and pursued primarily in terms of economic growth or broader concepts of human well-being and environmental sustainability, and in turn, how climate change is managed or mitigated.

Scenarios depicted four futures: one in which global and Australian development are both based on an economic growth paradigm, resulting in a lack of global action on climate change and no regional mitigation (Trashing the Commons); one in which global development is based on an economic growth paradigm but Australia adopts a sustainability paradigm focused on increasing broader societal well- being, resulting in a lack of global action on climate change but mitigation at the regional scale (Treading Water); one in which global development is based on a sustainability paradigm but Australia pursues an economic growth paradigm, leading to a progressive global agreement on climate change but no regional mitigation (Free Riders); and one in which both the world and Australia adopt a sustainability paradigm and climate change is addressed proactively at both scales (Best of Both Worlds).

We compared the implications of these four scenarios for marine and terrestrial ecosystem services and human well- being. The results suggest that while regional actions can partially offset global inaction on climate change until about mid- century, there are probable threshold levels for marine ecosystems, beyond which the GBR will become a fundamentally different system by 2100 if climate change is not curtailed. Management that can respond to pressures at both global and regional scales will be needed to maintain the full range of ecosystem services. Modest improvements in human well-being appear possible even while ecosystem services decline, but only where regional management is strong.

Our analysis points to a need to design management responses for the GBR region that account for cross-scale processes even if appropriate global responses and institutions do not exist or if there is limited apparent scope to influence these from below. Furthermore, the future of the region depends largely on whether individuals, as well as national and regional decision-makers, choose to be active future ‘makers’ or passive future ‘takers’ in responding to global drivers of change. Despite uncertainty and knowledge gaps, there is much scope for proactive future making in the GBR, and we conclude by discussing potential avenues for using these scenarios further with GBR stakeholders.

Download presentation (PDF)

S Finnegan1, E Leahy-Madsen1 and K Mogelgaard1
1Population and Climate Change Initiative, Population Action International, United States of America

Climate change is likely to grow in intensity, but the future impacts on human health, economies, and the natural environment remain uncertain. At the same time that climate impacts intensify, the world’s population is projected to grow significantly over this century, and is an important determinant of the scale of human vulnerability to climate change. However, population projections rely on assumptions of improved access to and use of family planning which are not occurring in many areas. Therefore, in some locations, rapid population growth is likely to subject greater numbers of people to climate risk.

The uncertainties associated with population change are rarely considered in vulnerability assessments or adaptation planning. This lack of attention to the compounding effects of population (and the role that improved access to and use of family planning plays in population growth) could, in part, be attributed to a lack of tools and information targeted at policymakers that show how population and climate change will interact over time. Through the visualization of data via maps, this research illustrates that the relationships between climate change impacts, demographic trends and family planning needs are likely to affect ability to adapt to climate change in a number of countries.

Population growth rate is the key variable of the eight mapped by Population Action International, in collaboration with the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). Also important is the Vulnerability-Resilience Indicators Model (VRIM or “Resilience”), developed by JGCRI which compiles 17 physical, social, and economic indicators that assess a society’s resilience to anticipated climate change impacts and scores countries based on the results. Another variable, projected change in agricultural production, assesses the possible impacts of climate change on the world’s production of four major cereal crops (wheat, rice, corn and soybeans). The rate of unmet need for voluntary family planning as measured through household surveys is also important because it identifies countries where additional support for family planning and reproductive health may be best applied as a policy response to rapid population growth.

After analyzing data and generating a sequence of maps, a simple combination system was developed to isolate population and climate change “hotspots.” This simplified “index” pinpoints specific countries that are projected to experience high increases in population, in combination with high declines in agricultural production, low resilience to climate change, or both. “Hotspots” are visually represented on a global map through color-coding: countries in yellow have both high population growth rates and a projected high decline in agricultural production, countries in orange have high population growth rates and low resilience to climate change, and countries in red, or “hotspot” countries, are expected to experience unfavorable conditions for all three variables. After utilizing a range of colors to identify such countries, the key policy message is indicated by marking, with green dots, those countries that also have a high unmet need for family planning.

This sequence of maps, which was launched in an interactive database in December 2009 to coincide with COP15 in Copenhagen, aims to provide policymakers with a tool to recognize the importance of population and the need to include voluntary family planning and reproductive health in discussions around adaptation to climate change. In particular, given limited resources and the need for prioritization, these maps highlight specific areas where the combination of climate and population change may create the highest demand for comprehensive adaptation funding and programs. Preliminary results suggest that the interactive website has been assessed by a range of stakeholders and that it was draw for policymakers at COP15. The database is published online and can be viewed by visiting the following web address: www.populationaction.org/climatemap

Download presentation (PDF)

M C Badjeck1, S M Arrieta Vela2 and M Flitner3
1 The WorldFish Center, Penang Malaysia 2 Cañón del Pato, Lima, Peru 3 Universität Bremen Germany

Localized changes in the productivity of marine and inland waters induced by climate change and increased climate variability will pose new challenges to the fishery and the aquaculture sectors globally. However, climate change does not occur in isolation of other drivers of change: processes of environmental, economic, social and political change can affect the fishery sector, potentially creating additional vulnerability to climate change. Scenarios are a useful tool to explore uncertainties and understand non-climatic drivers of change. Despite their prevalence in global environmental change research, few studies have conducted a cross-country analysis of sectoral scenarios in order to understand their methodological challenges and policy relevance when applied in different contexts. Additionally, while links between food systems and the environment are well documented, fishery production systems have seldom been the subject of scenario analysis. This paper presents an integrated approach to the construction of fisheries sector scenarios at the national scale in Peru, Ghana, Mauritania, Senegal and Vietnam. Through an expert elicitation survey, we identify and analyse the multiple drivers of change faced by the fisheries sector in the past as well as exploring future ones, including drivers that reach well beyond the sphere of fisheries. During workshops and validation surveys, experts construct future scenarios for the sector in the four countries for 2050. Through a comparative analysis we address three fundamental questions: 1) what are the methodological hurdles when developing expert-based scenarios in different contexts 2) how thinking about the future informs adaptation planning to climate change and policy making, and 3) which lessons can be drawn for future implementation of scenario approaches and upscaling as well as downscaling of results. The comparative results show avenues for increasing the capacity of the fisheries sector to face the challenges posed by climate change under diverse conditions and highlight the contribution of scenario approaches to adaptation planning.

Download presentation (PDF)

D Brunckhorst1, P Morley1 and I Reeve1
1Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Australia

Current climate change vulnerability studies tend to examine the impact of future climate change scenarios on current social-ecological conditions and patterns of regional landscapes. Future landscapes however, will be quite different from the present. A three-pronged approach to synthesising some characteristics of ecological, social and economic of vulnerability was applied in a case-study of climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the Hunter Coast region of eastern Australia. Sea level rise and other climate change weather predictions were drawn from the maximum scenarios for 2030 and 2070, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The brief, 5 month, study undertook biophysical and social-ecological modelling of both the present landscape and three projected future landscapes for the study area; investigated a wide range of social characteristics drawn from the 2006 Census; surveyed the attitudes of the local population to assist in the social analysis; and analysed some key underlying concepts, such as the costs and benefits of adaptation to climate change. Vulnerability was considered in through 3 types of landscape elements: ecological, through predicting landscape change and its resulting biophysical consequences; economic, through examining impacts on built capital and its need for adaptation; and social, as measured in characteristics of the local community that indicate community sensitivity to change and adaptive capacity. A focus of the study was to trial an approach for spatial representation of 3-D vulnerability surfaces as a means for policy makers to rapidly appraise placeswhere multiple vulnerabilities (social, economic, environmental) might stack up and thereby require closer examination and adaptive strategies towards increased resilience. Some key lessons for theory and practice are drawn from the case-study.

Download presentation (PDF)

C Attwater1
1 SGS Economics & Planning, Australia

Adaptation to climate changes will be an essential feature of this century and probably those following. The degree of adaptation required clearly depends on the global response to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mitigation) and the climate’s response to GHG forcing. There are good reasons why areas subject to increasing hazard arising from climate change should not be hastily abandoned; retreat should not be the principal adaptation response to increased risk. In many areas, the costs of accommodating changes such as sea level rise is modest, for modest changes in sea level and modest rates of change. Similar comments may apply to bush fire risk or water stress where prudent change to behaviour and resource use can allow continued occupation and use of areas facing change.

Examples can readily be given for a wide spectrum of expected changes where communities already cope now in one place with conditions that may apply in the future in another, demonstrating some of the character of the accommodation and change that is required.
But not all change can be accommodated so readily:

• We can adapt by designing new assets to the new conditions but that does not help with the existing structures.
• While new assets may be designed for anticipated new conditions, if conditions change differently or more quickly than expected, the new assets will also not be suitable for very long.
• At the extremes, very much longer periods of heat or drought, or whole islands submerged from rising sea levels will be beyond accommodation. While examples exist of the more extreme conditions, few people can – or choose – to live there (eg. deserts). In some conditions, particularly for sea level rise but also for other risks, the costs of accommodating, or the sheer practicalities mean that retreat from the stressed area becomes the only alternative. There are two critical factors:
• Rates of change that overwhelm accommodating responses
• Changes beyond normal habitability/economic productivity Examples are provided of how these two limits to adaptation apply in different situations such as:
• Changes that occur at rates that overwhelm the normal renewal rate of assets
• Impacts on assets of modest value over extensive areas
• Different assets that have different adaptation rate limits
• Boundaries on habitability and economic viability where adaptation proves to exceed local responses at a significant extent, it may encourage geo-engineering responses to adapt on a wider scale. The limits of these approaches are also discussed briefly.

D Burton
NCCARF, Australia

Although climate change by itself presents significant risks for cities, the risks do not exist in a vacuum. In fact climate change exacerbates many of the current and soon to be realised risks (e.g. global financial crises, pandemic, peak oil, cluster of extreme weather events). In this paper the author presents findings from a study on the mid north coast of NSW to argue that the by 2030 the region (like many throughout the country) will be perhaps only one shock away from systemic collapse.
The author describes a likely scenario of 2030 using recent downscaled climate change projections, climate variability patterns, projected changes in population demographics, anticipated council operational costs, international energy association oil forecasts, NSW policies and changes to economic outlook. The author shows that a confluence of these issues is likely to lead to a perfect storm, and potential system failure.

To overcome these challenges the author argues that climate change adaptation planning must involve resilience planning for other stressors. Examples of win-win adaptation processes are introduced to facilitate a discussion on challenges for local government adaptation.

A Grant1 and R L Ison2
1School of Geography & Environmental Sciences, Monash University, Australia 2Monash Sustainability Institute (Uniwater), Monash University, Australia

This paper reports research which investigates the framing of climate change adaptation research in relation to the projected scenarios by the IPCC and as interpreted and implemented within a Victorian state government department. Through this pilot study we seek to understand how future research designed and conducted under the rubric of ‘climate change adaptation’ research may contribute to delivering more systemic and adaptive governance regimes. In particular we are concerned to learn if systems thinking and practices can contribute to future cycles of R&D, including project and program management, by asking whether research does what it sets out to do and whether it is able to make a difference.

We build on the department’s response to (impact) information and (adaptation) knowledge development from the perspective of recommendations generated by the Australian Public Service Commission’s (2007) framing of ‘wicked problems’ as a systemic response to climate change. We approach the pilot study from the perspective that within department research and framing ‘climate change adaptation’ can be understood as part of a broader nested set of relationships. From here we argue that relational dynamics are important in the generation of information (understanding of impacts) and development of knowledge (adaptation responses) ‘for’ adaptation. Furthermore, we explore the implications of researchers taking a step back from this approach and invite consideration of other ways of thinking about adaptation ‘with’ and adaptation ‘to’ and using this shift in language as a means of understanding processes of realising a low carbon economy.

L Padgham1, D McEvoy1 and P Hayes1
1RMIT University, Australia

Future climate change will result in a range of increased risks, characterised by both complexity and high levels of uncertainty. Those with responsibility for planning and policy will need improved levels of information (and more importantly ‘usable knowledge’) to help strengthen community and organisational resilience, and better inform planning and response strategies. Promoting more effective adaptation (and importantly avoiding mal-adaptation) will require new learning processes which enable decision-makers to explore alternative responses, with opportunities for iterative reflection as new information becomes available.

This paper reports on an innovative way to support this agenda using agent based simulation. We describe how our approach to simulations of future scenarios, can improve understanding of climate-related risks, inform the development and implementation of more effective adaptive strategies, and be contributed to and used by a broad range of stakeholders. Agent based simulation is an analytical approach which is gaining in popularity internationally as a powerful tool for decision- makers and policy analysts to better understand complex interactions between different aspects of a given situation. It is especially useful for exploring complex scenarios, where standard mathematical approaches are not possible, and is perhaps the only experimental means for exploring complex social systems. Agent based simulation can thus play an important role in the exploration of adaptation strategies which – undoubtedly – must include consideration of human behaviour. The technique aims to capture the macro-level phenomena which emerges from the complex interactions of autonomous, decision-making entities at the micro-level, both with each other and their environment. By exploring social and institutional contexts (including the practices and behaviour of different actors, and important chains of influence between them) it is then possible to explore, through alternative simulated situations, how influential variables interact to result in different decision-making processes and outcomes. A range of future climate and non-climate scenarios can be considered.

The traditional approach to agent based simulation is to capture the entire scenario in a single model. The consequence is that the model itself quickly becomes nontransparent, and the process becomes too complex to capture all relevant aspects. To address this, drawing on the expertise of a multi-disciplinary research team, we are developing an interactive platform for integrating multiple, smaller agent-based modules into a single simulation. This will allow complex simulations to be built up incrementally by adding together independent modules created by members of a large distributed community, interested in the application area. Each module (a simulation in itself) will capture a different aspect of the environment, and could potentially be created independently by people with expertise relating only to that aspect. This distributed approach to agent based modelling and simulation is novel, and addresses the need for large, complex simulations which need to be transparent and reusable.

Ultimately, the vision for this ‘learning’ platform is that it will facilitate the iterative development of an open source, shared, resource where modules can be contributed by a variety of groups, building up an extendible framework or ‘family’ of resources which can be used to establish a range of complex simulations for exploration of a variety of climate change scenarios. The modelling and exploration of different scenarios will help identify the most effective strategies to ensure that individuals, governments and the private sector (acting at different spatial scales) are better prepared for a changing climate. Furthermore, the research program is intentionally designed to be ‘solutions oriented’, with close engagement with different stakeholder communities intended to promote ‘co- generation of knowledge’, as well as stimulating a process of mutual learning between scientists, policy-makers and wider stakeholder communities, leading to the enhancement of community and organisational resilience.

L Soste1, R Chaffe1, D Griffin2, S Kelly3, S Handley4 and R Eckard5
1Future Farming Systems Research Division, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia 2Climate Change Policy, Policy and Strategy Group, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia 3Evaluation and Facilitation Specialists, Victoria, Australia 4Facilitation Services, Victoria, Australia 5Future Farming Systems Research Division, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia

Agriculturally dependent regional communities comprise intricate, highly interdependent systems. While primary producers focus on milk, grains or meat, the undergirding systems involve land-use zoning, infrastructure provision and institutional arrangements. Processing facilities and service industries contribute to employment and regional economic activity. Employees and their families need schools, hospitals and other community services. What happens when these complex, interdependent systems are perturbed by climate and non-climate induced change? Are some elements of that system more vulnerable than others? How should regional actors respond to uncontrolled changes in the contextual operating environment? What policy frameworks and instruments might governments implement to facilitate effective, systemic, regional-scale adaptation? These questions are not trivial, and their nature suggests that we require a systemic approach to regional adaptation planning.

We present a methodology for on-going collaborative engagement with selected stakeholders aimed at eliciting their tacit and explicit knowledge to assess the likely systemic regional consequences produced by scenarios of climate and non- climate change. We discuss some of the insights into systemic regional response to perturbation gained by participants, and present their recommendations for integrated regional-scale adaptation. Finally, we outline how those systemic insights and recommendations are being transferred into the policy arena. The methodology has the potential to make a contribution in the area of integrated assessment, and is put forward for further consideration and development.

The work was undertaken under the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) component of the Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Program (VCCAP). VCCAP aims to increase the knowledge and capability of government, agri- business and rural communities to make informed, holistic decisions with respect to climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector. DPI VCCAP has piloted a number of research themes in south west Victoria including modelling, institutional adaptation, policy response frameworks, visualisation and the use of scenarios.

Our work shows that change processes in complex agri-community systems often ripple across a number of scales and institutional boundaries. Assessment by in-house governmental staff may not always pick up the subtleties of system interdependence, or problems hidden at the boundaries of jurisdictional responsibility. Stakeholder engagement at the inform, consult, involve levels may not provide decision makers with sufficient understanding of system behaviour for effective policy design. Our work illustrates that on-going collaborative engagement with carefully selected stakeholders can provide insightful contributions to understanding systemic regional behaviour. We therefore propose that one component of robust systemic adaptation planning in the face of uncertainty is targeted on-going collaborative engagement between government and selected stakeholders. This complements modelling information, enables policy makers and stakeholders to better understand the nature of the problem, engage in mutual learning, build trust and respect, consider multiple perspectives and formulate shared visions and plans for the future. The end result is likely to be smoother introduction and greater end-user support for policy. Such an approach will require commitment by government to the development of new paradigms and processes for engagement. Without it, government is likely to be hampered by an imperfect knowledge of system operation and sub-optimal regional adaptation planning and implementation.

C Welsh1, J Treeby1, P Strange1, and S Putland1
1Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia

Background: The ‘Sunraysia’ region of North-West Victoria is one of Australia’s premier producers of irrigated horticultural crops. The region faces challenges and opportunities associated with issues such as climate change, reduced water security, drought, and market volatility. These issues require that industries and communities change how they think about and plan for their future to ensure the long term sustainability of irrigated agribusiness in Sunraysia.

Climate change in particular is likely to require that irrigated agribusiness change from their current operating paradigms, which will have flow-on effects to supply chains, market presence and investment in agriculture.

Project: The Resilient Agribusiness project aimed to assist industry, service providers, governments and other agencies along the agribusiness chain to develop future scenarios of the potential impacts of climate change, social-demographic changes and market forces on irrigated horticulture in Sunraysia up to 2018 and to incorporate those possible futures into their long term strategic planning.

The methodology was adapted from the “Irrigation Futures of the Goulburn Broken Catchment” project, a scenario building and active community engagement project.

Community Engagement: Community Engagement was achieved through the careful selection of a Stakeholder Leadership Committee (SLC) who included CEO’s, board members and key decision makers from across the agribusiness supply chain.

A key rationale of the project was that participants, via the SLC, would take the lead in shaping the outputs of the project and building the scenarios. The DPI Project Team took the role of facilitating this process. Therefore, it was the SLC who identified and prioritised the ‘topics of information needed for long term planning about the future of irrigated agribusiness in Sunraysia’. The SLC also chose the key regional people to participate in the scenario planning workshops.

Scenario Building: Scenario Building is a process that involves a creative, forward looking search for patterns that might emerge in the future. Rather than identifying one preferred future, participants identify a range of plausible futures. Resultant scenarios can then be used to construct specific strategies to cope with change.

Whilst the decisive role taken by the SLC contributed to the success of the scenario planning process and the choice of a broad participant group, their initial prioritisation of issues indicated regional impacts of climate change (including carbon trading) rated much lower than immediate concerns about water security and economic and market trends, even when considering long term planning. Industries and community were adamant to avoid dealing with climate change in isolation and preferred it in context with issues such as economics and social aspects.

To ensure all participants had a similar level of knowledge on the issues raised by the SLC, the Project Team collated the most recent data and information as they applied specifically to the Sunraysia region. This was distributed prior to a series of four scenario planning workshops, during which participants identified four possible scenarios for Sunraysia’s future. It was not until well into the workshop series that participants fully appreciated the impact that regional climate change could have on their industries, businesses and the region.

The Project Team has since tested the scenarios for plausibility and has prepared them in a variety of formats for different audiences including detailed summaries, short stories and catchy working titles including; “Modern Mungo (Dystopia)”, “Status Quo”, “Making an Effort” and “Embrace the Chameleon (Utopia).”

The process currently underway is presenting the scenarios to decision making committees (mainly boards) of key agribusinesses in the region to discuss the strategic implications of all four scenarios. Questions asked at this level include; how does your organisation respond to or seek to influence each issue? It is anticipated that incorporating scenarios into strategic plans will help each industry/business/agency to anticipate and respond to change in a confident and co-ordinated manner and build a resilient agribusiness community in Sunraysia. Next steps will be to discuss identified main themes with industries, putting these themes into the industry’s strategic plan context and looking at gaps and next steps.

The process so far has enabled industry and business leaders to base their planning on up to date information on topics outside their specific industry. The identification of a range of plausible futures through the scenario planning workshops has broadened the scope of their thinking from an industry based preferred future to a regionally based series of possibilities.