Adaptive institutional design in agri-environmental programs Open Access

Ensuring programs and policies facilitate effective adaptation to climate change has taken on increased importance in the wake of the global financial recession, the increasing frequency of extreme climate events such as Hurricane Sandy (and the associated financial impact (McHale and Leurig, 2012), as well as the pending imminence of climate change (IPCC, 2012). Although much literature in the last decade has explored practices of increasing the effectiveness of environmental policy in this context, and specifically the literature surrounding adaptive governance (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Foxon et al., 2009; Adger, 2003; Dovers and Mobbs, 1997), many questions are left unanswered regarding what adaptive governance actually is, and the context in which it might occur (Williams, 2011; Dewulf et al., 2007). Medema et al. (2008, p. 30) opine that perhaps it is an academic discourse that does not work in practice. Calls have been made to explore more deeply the institutional prescriptions and practices facilitating community adaptation (Armitage et al., 2007; Ostrom, 2010). The literature on “governance” becomes particularly relevant to answer this need because of its core focus on institutions and their efficacy (Kjaer, 2004). Although many studies report on institutional adaptations occurring in respect of climate change, there are few studies documenting what government practices have facilitated this adaptation, improved resilience, and reduced vulnerability of rural agricultural producers.

The study region, Saskatchewan, has and does experience a large variability in climate from year to year, and has for many decades been extremely sensitive to drought (Pittman et al., 2010; Wandel et al., 2010; Marchildon et al., 2009). It is anticipated the climate will become increasingly variable and potentially increase the vulnerability of rural agricultural producers as there will be even drier conditions, more extreme weather events, as well as increasing climatic uncertainty (Sauchyn et al., 2002; Sauchyn and Kulshreshtha, 2008; Lapp et al., 2009). Given this increasing variability and uncertainty surrounding climate in this region, understanding the practices which have contributed to successful adaptation by rural agricultural producers and how government programs have contributed to these practices is of increasing importance.

This paper sheds light on how and in what context adaptive governance might work in practice by exploring two agri-environmental farm programs, the Canada-Saskatchewan Farm Stewardship Program and the Farm and Ranch Water Infrastructure Program. Both are examples of successful government institutions as they are programs affecting a set of policies, rules, and incentives for rural agricultural producers to adapt to climate change. Both programs have successfully increased rural agricultural producer adaptation over a significant period of time in Saskatchewan by reducing negative socio-economic impacts of drought in the past (Wheaton et al., 2007; Wittrock and Koshida, 2005). Given the record of success in reducing vulnerability to climate change of these programs, this study provides an opportunity to explore certain attributes of adaptive governance. This research answers the questions:

RQ1. How are adaptive policies and programs framed?

RQ2. What types and kinds of public participation occur in successful adaptation programs?

RQ3. What role does government have in adaptive governance?

To promote adaptive capacity, an institutional governance environment must have the ability to identify social needs and problems, balance interests (or successfully negotiate and forge agreements), and execute and implement solutions (World Bank, 2010). In the 1970s, governments and policy makers adopted adaptive principles as new conceptualizations and processes for establishing, formulating, monitoring, and evaluating policy in response to ever increasing environmental and public pressures (Gunderson, 2001; Holling, 1978, 1973). Adaptive governance recognizes that the present, past and future of human and biophysical systems are closely and intricately interconnected. Because of this, significant challenges are identified for policy developers and decision makers including complexity, uncertainty, and change (both human and ecological) (Dietz et al., 2003; Allen and Gould, 1986; Williams and Johnson, 1995; Ludwig et al., 1993). This new approach involves a responsive, flexible, institutional design of policy making (Hatfield-Dodds et al., 2007; Folke et al., 2005; Kjaer, 2004) which recognizes the context of institutions (defined as a set of rules which define roles and procedures for people and determine how to collectively deal with a social function (Lauer et al., 2006)).

Problem framing can be an important determinant of the success or failure of a particular adaptation policy. This may be because addressing the problem of climate change impacts may not be perceived as urgent by civil society (Dupuis and Knoepfel, 2011). Few studies tackle the question of how adaptation policies are and should be framed (McEvoy et al., 2010; Spence and Pidgeon, 2010). This paper will address how successful adaptation policies have been framed over time by studying two programs which have been in existence for some time. Adapting to the impacts of climate change includes not only specifically designated and planned policies (as per the third IPCC report (Smit et al., 2001)) but also includes those policies and programs which contribute to the reduction of climate vulnerability and may have predated the IPCC report (Knoepfel et al., 2011).

Many studies indicate that more flexible, participatory, experimental, collaborative, and learning-based designs and approaches to policy making and resource system governance will increase the adaptive capacity of communities, improving sustainability, and people's livelihoods (Pahl-Wostl, 2010, 2007; Plummer, 2009; Cromwell et al., 2007; Kallis et al., 2006; Tompkins and Adger, 2004; Lee and Lawrence, 1986; Walters, 1986). This approach evolved from conceptual theories of resilience (which includes a structured process of learning (Lee and Lawrence, 1986; Bormann et al., 2007; Walters and Holling, 1990; Doremus, 2001)). How this responsive, flexible institutional design is operationalized and implemented in practice is not as well researched and documented.

One stream of literature dealing specifically with open institutions of governance and learning amongst groups, communities, government agencies and non-governmental organizations is the collaborative, or adaptive co-management literature (Plummer and Fennell, 2007; Armitage et al., 2007). Increasing emphasis is placed in this literature on the participation and interaction of policy makers with policy stakeholders and the general public (Plummer, 2009; Reed et al., 2010, p. 58; Armitage, 2005). This process is deemed important as it facilitates learning in and with social groups through interaction (Argyris, 1977, 1999; Siebenhuner, 2008; Mostert et al., 2007). In this context, participation increases adaptive capacity (Lebel et al., 2010, pp. 334-335). The adaptive governance literature focuses on the participation of many stakeholders in policy decisions and their involvement in the exploration of uncertainty in respect of the environment and inherent in environmental science (Williams, 2011; Huitema et al., 2009, p. 26; Nelson et al., 2008; Williams and Johnson, 1995). However, less literature documents how participation actually occurs in specific adaptive governance practice, when and how exactly stakeholders and the public are to be included in policy decisions, and how this participation might occur over the lifetime of a policy and program (Huitema et al., 2009; Warren, 2009). The research field around developing forms and methods of participation and collaborations that will work and complement existing knowledge bases in environmental sciences is as yet underdeveloped (Armitage et al., 2007; Ostrom, 2010; Hedelin and Lindh, 2008). This research explores the attribute of stakeholder participation.

Lastly, the collaborative adaptive governance literature envisions a new role for government which is different from the traditional top down approach of governance (Armitage, 2008). Policy and program initiatives consistent with adaptive governance have arisen on the periphery, in isolated niches, outside of the established climate change regime. These initiatives are exceptions to traditional top down scientific management approaches of the established regime (Brunner and Lynch, 2010, p. 68). The specifics of what the dimensions of this new government role are, and what expectations rural agricultural producers have of the government in this context again are less documented in the literature. This research will explore perceptions surrounding this new role of government.

This paper is based on research findings relating to an ethnographic study of rural agricultural producer vulnerability and adaptation to drought in Saskatchewan. Throughout Saskatchewan, 178 rural agricultural producers and community members were interviewed exploring determinants of adaptive capacity (institutions impacting natural capital, technological capital, economic capital and social capital) (Smit and Wandel, 2006; IPCC, 2001, pp. 895-897; Smit et al., 2000). These interviews were open-ended, semi structured, in depth interviews. An outline of questions appears in the Appendix. Participants were selected based on a snow-ball selection method where initial contacts (rural residents active in local, agricultural, or water governance) in the community were asked to select other participants with well-informed views and experiences. All of the interviews were transcribed, coded (based on the attributes of adaptive governance explored herein) and then analyzed. In addition, 12 individuals directly involved in developing and implementing the two agri-environmental programs, the Farm Stewardship Program and Water Infrastructure Program, were interviewed exploring the same themes. One program relates to the development of best farm environmental management processes and the other, farm water infrastructure.

Specific focus was placed in the interviews on the relationship of agricultural producers with government and the institutional design of government policies and programs (specifically the two programs which are the subject of the study), given the recognition of the importance of this factor (Foley and Edwards, 1996, p. 47). Within this context the two agri-environmental programs were explored, and specifically the attributes of adaptive governance including the framing of the programs, how stakeholders participated in and had input into the programs, how producers, policymakers and government interrelated in relation to these programs, and perceptions surrounding the role of government in relation to adaptation.

The Canada-Saskatchewan Farm Stewardship Program (Farm Stewardship Program) is designed to help Saskatchewan producers address on-farm environmental risk. The program provides eligible Saskatchewan producers with financial assistance to implement beneficial management practices (BMPs) to help maintain or improve the quality of soil, water, air or biodiversity resources. BMPs are practices ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of ecological resources used for agricultural production, positively impacting long-term economic and environmental viability of agricultural production, and minimizing negative impacts and risk to the environment (Brethour et al., 2007). Although, not specifically designed to improve adaptive capacity for climate variability, there are a number of co-benefits associated with BMPs (e.g. reduced soil erosion, improved pasture management) that augment producer capacity to deal with variations in climate. In one case study, a producer accessing the program learned of, and implemented, a system of perimeter fencing on marginal cropland which was then converted to grassland, which established a healthy riparian area (important for managing events of extreme moisture due to climate change). This increased income at the same time by optimizing forage and increasing livestock production (Steinley, 2011). Many BMPs relate to protecting natural water sources (threatened by climate change impacts) by minimizing nutrient, pathogen or pesticide transport into water supplies. Examples include improved manure storage facilities, better methods of manure spreading, and construction of riparian buffer strips and zones (Corkal and Adkins, 2008).

To be eligible for the program, farmers must complete an environmental farm plan (EFP) outlining environmental risks and opportunities associated with their operations. During this process, issues such as extreme weather events will arise. Producers are assisted in this by the Provincial Council of Agriculture Development and Diversification Boards for Saskatchewan, Inc. (PCAB), a non-profit agriculture organization specializing in agricultural program delivery. Producers, working with PCAB agrologists, then identify the BMPs that can reduce environmental risk on their own operations. These may include such things as additional fencing for cattle, remote water systems, farmyard run off control, modified and re-vegetated waterways, or improved irrigation management. These BMPs then qualify for contributory funding of up to $50,000 through the Farm Stewardship Program (PCAB, 2011).

The Farm and Ranch Water Infrastructure Program (Water Infrastructure Program) supports the development of secure water sources in Saskatchewan in order to expand the livestock industry and 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 which is cost shared between the proponent (i.e. producer or municipality) and the federal and provincial governments (Government of Saskatchewan, 2011). 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.

Only the Water Infrastructure Program was developed specifically to manage climate variability, that of extreme drought (originally in the 1930s) (Marchildon et al., 2009). The starting point for the Farm Stewardship Program was proper range management (which happens to increase preparedness for extreme weather events) and its predecessor was soil conservation and biodiversity. This program currently promotes water security by providing contributory funding to agricultural producers, rural municipalities, and Indian bands to establish community wells, large diameter and small diameter wells, shallow or deep-buried pipelines, and dugouts. All of these infrastructure initiatives improve adaptiveness by securing water supplies close at hand in times of drought (Marchildon et al., 2009).

A history of each individual program follows on Table I. Regardless of the stated intent of the programs, the two agri-environmental programs have demonstrated partial reduction to some of the negative socio-economic impacts of past water shortages (Wheaton et al., 2007; Wittrock and Koshida, 2005).

The findings of this research will be discussed in relation to flexible design, participation of public and stakeholders, and the role of the government.

The longevity of both programs (1930 for the Water Infrastructure Program and 1980 for the Farm Stewardship Program) attest to their inherent flexibility in design and delivery. Each of these programs has responded to changing conditions, politics, and needs. Each program has eclipsed delivery by different governments, differing levels of government (as well as non-governmental organizations), changing frameworks of laws and policies associated with the programs, and varying overarching statements of intent in relation to the programs. Throughout these years, the fundamental characteristics of each program have remained constant. The Water Infrastructure Program has continued to partially fund projects which increase producer water security; the Farm Stewardship Program has continued to assist producers with environmental farm planning. An explanation of the changes and their possible causes will be explored in this section of the paper. These changes include the level of government and entity delivering the program, the degree of participation and mechanism of engagement with producers, and the framing of the purpose of the program.

An emerging theme with both producers and key policy stakeholders was the belief that delivery of programs by levels of government or entities closer to the rural agricultural producers allowed greater responsiveness and flexibility. When the Water Infrastructure Program was delivered by the federal level of government, the rules for qualifying were found to be time consuming, involve significant delays in delivery of both infrastructure and funds, and also contain restrictions often inappropriate for local conditions. For instance, dugouts for water storage had to be of certain size and characteristics which often did not correspond with the geographical requirements of the local rural agricultural producer. Further, often time waiting for a drought to be recognized as “significant” was based on a larger geography when a higher level of government was required. This increased wait times for farmers. Another factor when waiting for a drought of significant geographic area as required by a higher level of government was that once recognized, when the program finally became available, a great demand occurred. This great demand resulted in a significant demand for service providers of water infrastructure and service, and a higher cost of attaining these services by farmers. Sometimes there was even an inability to attain the services because of the high demand, reducing the availability of the program. When local people or entities delivered programs, local droughts could be responded to, timelines could be lessened, and local variation in details accounted for. When delivered on a more localized basis, processing of claims occurred in a more timely fashion which allowed quicker adaptation. Program changes to the physical size and structure of dug outs could be modified to suit the local area and water source.

It is noteworthy that the policy framing of the agri-environmental programs over the years did change in response to perceived changing priorities of both government and rural agricultural producers. The Farm Stewardship Program changed from grazing and pasture technology, to water quality protection, and finally the impact of farming on the environment. All changes were cited as a result of changing government priorities. There was also a tendency to respond to structured policy problems. Structured policy problems are problems where there is substantive agreement on norms, principles, ends and goals surrounding a problem as well as agreement on relevant and required knowledge inherent in solving the problem (Hoppe, 2011, p. 23). Both programs frame the problem being addressed in a structured manner, predominantly assessing “impact of farming on the environment,” as well as “soil conservation,” and “building drought resilience.” However, both programs were found to assist in adaptation to climate change (Wheaton et al., 2007; Wittrock and Koshida, 2005) which is an unstructured, dynamically complex problem (Batie, 2008, p. 1176; Carroll et al., 2007; Rittel and Webber, 1973). This discrepancy was explored.

Although not listed specifically in the program documentation, the changing climate was a very real experience of rural agricultural producers. Many producers confirmed the changing climate over the last 40 years citing reduced snow fall, less water for irrigation than in the past, and the need for increasing feed stock supplies for preparation for longer droughts. One area of the province had many interviewees converting from dry land farming to livestock production due to both climate variability and returns based on market prices for product and input costs.

When key policy stakeholders were questioned about the framing of the policy problem, focus was always directed to a shorter time period than the ten to twenty year time frame of climate change. This time period corresponded to the program funding term, election cycles, and budgetary commitments. Policy stakeholders felt that having programs responding to immediate climate variability was more responsive to agricultural producer's needs. Various justifications were cited by key policy stakeholders for this: “People tend not to worry about climate change because we have so much natural variability in climate in the prairies anyway that it masks any additional variability”. One interviewee stated that, especially among more senior level people, he hears that:

Another said:

Regardless of the short-term focus of policymakers, planning for future climate change was taking place within the programs. The process for incorporating climate change science into the two programs appeared to result due to the occurrence of extreme weather events in the recent past. It was generally acknowledged by key policy stakeholders that the Farm Stewardship Program was not initially looking at long-term climate scenarios and no contingency plans existed within the program with respect to extreme weather. However, the events of drought and flood have recently been added to the EFP work book because of the occurrence of these events in the recent past. This resulted not only because of the occurrence of the extreme events and the requirements of agricultural producers planning in relation to their land, but also the initiative of policy personnel who were cognizant of climate change science. These personnel cited the sources of their information on climate change as international bodies such as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change scientists at local universities, and the publications of these scientists. Further, the Water Infrastructure Program had been reinvigorated in 2008 as a result of a multi-year drought. This was due to the lived reality of an extreme event by local agricultural producers. The process of changing programs and policies in relation to climate change appears to occur based on the lived experience of producers, the foresight of key policy personnel in recognizing and responding to climate change science, and the input of both international and local climate change scientists.

The changes in the programs were cited as both a result of the input of people, and changing government priorities. Both these aspects were explored further. Specific mechanisms of input into the programs by people were explored, and then the perception of rural agricultural producers of the role of government in relation to their adaptation to climate change. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

A diversity of consultation and public participation methods were used in the creation, assessment, and monitoring of the programs from initial creation to the present. Key policy stakeholders supported these changes and models of engagement. The more involvement of the public in the creation and evaluation of the program, the higher the belief of producers that the program was responsive to their needs. Lack of public involvement lead to an increased skepticism of whether or not producer views actually were incorporated into the program.

The Farm Stewardship Program is funded by the federal and provincial governments and delivered to producers by PCAB. The federal government provides technical expertise and research capacity; provincial governments provide technical expertise and effective program design, policy design and implementation experience; PCAB provides extension expertise and linkages with rural communities. The program is overseen by a steering committee made up of representatives from these groups who are in charge of implementing the program and can recommend program changes. Ultimately, decisions regarding program changes are made by high-level provincial and federal decision makers. However, the structure of the Farm Stewardship Program is consultative in an inter-governmental and non-governmental organization partnership with rural producer viewpoints being funneled through PCAB.

A different model of involving stakeholders in the program has been utilized in the Water Infrastructure Program. An evolving and revolving program delivery has reflected a combination of government top down programming and grass root individual initiative. While initially provided by the federal government in the 1930 Great Depression until the early 2000s, grassroots activism was responsible for the program's renewal in 2008. The development of the current Water Infrastructure Program was led by a group of producers experiencing drought who were finding existing programming inadequate. This group initiated dialogue with the provincial Minister of Agriculture to pursue the necessary program renewal and changes. Their vision was to create a program that was responsive to producer needs in the short-term but would provide long-term drought resilience. These local leaders recognized the recurring nature of drought in their region and developed cost-match programs in collaboration with federal and provincial agencies and departments for long-term water-related infrastructure projects initiated by producers. The new program was accessed on short timelines. Subsequently, administration was transferred to the provincial government.

The program was initially reviewed and assessed frequently as it was developed by producers with many inputs from other producers. The documents surrounding the program were considered a “living document”. The stakeholder group forming the program originally revised and evaluated it. Currently the provincial government assesses the program by spot checks or audits and once a year people involved in the program meet and assess the program based on comments and advise received from producers over the phone.

In respect of the Water Infrastructure Program, opinion was unanimous by both the producers and the key policy stakeholders that the program responded to input by the public. This is not surprising, given that the 2008 program was established and modified by a group of producers as outlined above. Even without the involvement of the local community any more, all producers were supportive of the Water Infrastructure Program and expressed a desire to have the program continue into the future indefinitely. Not one producer expressed the sentiment that the Water Infrastructure Program was not useful. Many producers interviewed had accessed the program and found it very helpful and useful. Only a few stated that a drawback of the program was having the required percentage contribution by the farmer towards the project (ranging from 50 to 70 percent). In cash strapped times, this adaptation became beyond the reach of some farmers.

Within the Farm Stewardship Program, there was divided opinion amongst key policy stakeholders on whether this program was responsive to public input. A member of the steering committee stated that stakeholders were very influential and could change a program, as the government listens to the grassroots. However, another interviewee stated that the program would not be changed based on producer input, and in fact the government employees were not even allowed to talk to the producers. This was confirmed by a second interviewee who stated that producers had very little influence. Instead, this interviewee perceived consultation consisted of information being made public so that people could access the information about the program. The range of response in respect of this issue shows a lack of uniform opinion and in fact quite conflicting opinions respecting the goals and aims of participation and consultation.

Producers were generally very skeptical that senior levels of government (both provincial and federal) were listening to them. Many expressed a sense of alienation or disconnectedness from these levels of government, but cited examples outside of these two programs. Better relations were cited with local municipal government, institutional networks, and local watershed committees assisting in the delivery of the Farm Stewardship Program.

Several themes emerged in the data in relation to adaptation to climate change and the role of government. Many farmers expressed the view that good farmers would do well and be rewarded outside of, or regardless of, government programs. A certain pride in farming well and not relying on government programs existed. A reciprocal view also existed that some farmers were very good at farming the “government program”. On rural agricultural producer made the statement that in order to have a program work for you: “You had to farm the program […]. You know, there are guys that did well with it because they knew how to milk the system.” Many of the institutional adaptations to extreme weather practices by rural agricultural producers were the result of this “do it ourselves” initiative. Rural agricultural producers had started initiatives on their own including taking over an abandoned rail line in the south west corner of the province, forming a local water management institution in order to take over water infrastructure the federal government was divesting itself of, forming labour sharing systems at times of harvest or calving.

Regardless of this individualized adaptation to climate change, the same agricultural producers did envision a clear role for the government to fulfill. This role related to responding to “disasters”, encouraging through financial contribution to large infrastructure projects such as water pipelines and irrigation projects, developing water plans and resolving water conflicts and fights, and finally mapping ground water. The government was envisioned in having a role in responding to disaster and responding quickly. Payments to assist with the crisis needed to be accessible quickly, and not within the usual time frame of several years. One producer stated:

Further, a significant role in assisting farmers' in respect of climate change and variability education was envisioned for the government. Rural agricultural producers expected the government to provide access to available opportunities, funding or other services in a timely manner. There was not a perception that a responsibility rested on government to be innovative, experimental in programming, or provide a “new” program.

The skepticism surrounding the utility of producer participation in program design, evaluation, and redesign spilled over into perceptions surrounding the appropriate role of government in establishing programs to respond to extreme weather, and specifically the two agri-environmental programs the subject of this research. In respect of the stated intent of the Farm Stewardship Program in making producers more aware of “their impact on the environment,” the government was not trusted. This distrust stemmed from a belief the government would require measures protecting the environment and resulting in their farming enterprise being less profitable. Further, a loss of credibility had occurred as producers noted that the government lived by a double standard – supporting the Kyoto Protocol, and then backing out of it.

The success of the Farm Stewardship Program is the result of the utilization of the non-governmental organization, PCAB in its delivery. This non-governmental organization effectively allowed this skepticism to be circumvented. The distrust of government by the agricultural producers was avoided through this mechanism which allowed local producer networks and informal institutions to effectively deliver the program.

A certain frustration existed in government bureaucrats delivering farm programs and not knowing anything about, or understanding farming, and being situated in a large community far away. Rural producers were frustrated with fewer government agents living close to them in rural communities. A strong sentiment was expressed that the government needed to communicate with farmers better. One specific example of excellent communication was cited by one producer in respect of the practices of a federal government crown corporation, the agricultural lender, the Farm Credit Canada. This institution's use of internet survey and follow up feedback were thought especially laudatory.

The longevity and success of both programs can be linked to the involvement and participation of rural agricultural producers in the program design and delivery. Very different models of participation occurred in each program, and the mechanisms of participation changed over time. This research confirms that no one model or mechanism of public participation is superior in all situations (Davidson, 1998; Jackson, 2001), which is contrary to literature which seems to conclude that more participation is always better (Arnstein, 1969; Johnson et al., 2004). This research's contribution to the literature on adaptive governance and participation is the finding that these two successful programs have utilized a multitude of vehicles for stakeholder participation over the lifetime of the programs. Increased participation coincided with the occurrence of extreme climate events (drought in these circumstances) and reduced participation at other times. This finding builds on the work of Davidson (1998) and Jackson (2001) which posit in different contexts, and circumstances, differing forms of engagement with stakeholders and the public is appropriate.

In addition, this research illustrates that during an extreme climate event, a very flexible, responsive institutional design is an asset. Depending on the policy program, the problem being addressed, the context at the time, and the issue framed, a delegation of decision making, and a two way communication flow (Dorcey et al., 1994) may occur. The institutional design of the Water Infrastructure 2008 Program corresponded to an event of extreme climate event (a drought of several years). However, several years later, when an extreme climate event was not occurring, such inclusive, participatory, program design was no longer needed. Producers involved in the establishment of the program and key policy personnel all agreed in the interviews that the program had been refined based on the intensive, inclusionary participation of producers, the producers no longer felt required to participate actively in the design of the program, and in addition, the event of extreme climate (drought) had subsided. The program was then delivered by provincial government and the participation of stakeholders, minimal.

A clear preference emerged in the research for programming to be delivered and accessible locally. Both the utilization of a local non-profit organization as in the Farm Stewardship Program, and the grass roots activism resulting in the 2008 Water Infrastructure Program were well regarded. The local non-profit organization, PCAB, was able to overcome hurdles of distrust stemming from, among other things, the federal government's involvement in agricultural producer environmental planning. Producers believed any “environmental” program forced on them in a top-down manner by government would only result in increasing costs and harming their farm operation. However, PCAB, being a local organization with local connections, could utilize these connections to initially assist individual producers in participating in the program. Thereafter, by highlighting several initial “success” stories of environmental planning which were both good for the environment and the producer (including the productivity and profit of the producer's operation) inroads were made with other producers. Further, often producers participated in the program with their neighbours such that the local environment could be assessed on a larger scale than the individual producer's land. Although the literature is clear that lack of trust is a barrier to successful adaptive governance (Stohr and Chabay, 2010, p. 350; Soneryd and Uggla, 2000, p. 285), this barrier was overcome by flexible, institutional delivery by way of local producer networks facilitated through PCAB, a non-profit local organization.

Almost unconditional support was expressed for the Water Infrastructure Program in relation to how responsive the program was to input. This emerged because of the 2008 re-creation by a group of agricultural producers, even though currently delivered by provincial government. In contrast, some skepticism regarding the responsiveness of the program had emerged in relation to the Farm Stewardship Program. Although the Farm Stewardship Program is delivered by a local non-profit organization, the reality of program decisions being made at high institutional levels of government was not lost on producers.

A disconnect was discovered between the framing of the changing climate and the policy planning of the government for climate change. Producers were very cognizant of how the climate had changed in the past and the adaptations which had been required in response to this. Further, producers had clear expectations of government surrounding what requirements they had for facilitating adaptation and responding to extreme events. The government had a much more short-term vision of planning priorities failing to both perceive of these expectations and to meet them. Policy framing in the context of integrating adaptation into public policy is only starting to be studied (Adger et al., 2009; Dupuis and Knoepfel, 2011; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Wolf, 2011). This research uncovered structural disconnects between agricultural producers and policy stakeholders in relation to framing climate change policy. These differing “perspectives” may result in what Hoppe (2011, p. 5) describes as a democratic deficit or an infarct in which democratic systems lose viability.

This deficit of expectations does not necessarily warrant government policy in all aspects of climate change adaptation, however. A predominant theme amongst both producers and policy personnel was the in respect of adaptation, producers looked to themselves and their own responsive decisions. However, in a time of crisis, a clear role and expectation of government response was envisioned. Farmers felt they should be otherwise left to do what they do best without government interference, farm. The infarct may develop around a point where agricultural producers realize that the risks of extreme events from climate change have not been adequately planned for. This may be because of either:

• a series of extreme events leaving these producers overly vulnerable (because of perceived insufficient government planning); and/or

• a developing cognition amongst rural agricultural producers that something proactive to prevent these extreme events should have been done by the government (such as further climate mitigation).

This paper explored the perceptions of policy makers and rural agricultural producers, in respect of policy framing and adaptation to climate change, stakeholder input (participation), and the role of government in respect of two agri-environmental programs in Saskatchewan, Canada. In this way, an attempt has been made to bridge the gap between theory and practice, between theoretical constructions of “adaptive collaborative governance” and how these processes might actually work in practice. Based on semi-structured qualitative interviews of agricultural producers and key policy stakeholders, the attributes of policy framing, participation, and the role of government in building adaptive policies were explored. The policy programs studied relate to the development of best farm environmental management processes via the Farm Stewardship Program and the development of farm water infrastructure via the Water Infrastructure Program.

Much support was expressed for the Water Infrastructure Program (whereby producers initiated water infrastructure projects with the government contributing cash); less support and some distrust was expressed over government programs whereby environmental planning was facilitated. Perceptions were that government intervention in case of disaster was alright; however, the government should stay out of the business of farming. Promoting environmental protections was generally regarded by producers as reducing farming profitability. However, the Farm Stewardship Program's success (and its ability to overcome distrust) is accounted for by the delivery by a non-profit organization utilizing local producer networks.

The participation of, and mechanisms of input of agricultural producers into the farm programs changed over time based on a variety of factors including, most importantly whether an extreme event was occurring or had recently occurred. The more involvement of stakeholders in the programs, the greater the perceived responsiveness and the trust surrounding the programs was. Further research surrounding what the determinants are for which mechanisms of stakeholder and public involvement, how this may change over time, and exactly what factors contribute to the increase or decrease of this involvement would be warranted. How producer networks can be encouraged, accessed, facilitate, and contribute to flexible delivery of programming should be further studied.

Lastly, exploration of how the framing of policy problems should occur, and how this informs and interacts with extreme climate events should be further explored through the perceptions of stakeholders. This research raises the issue as to whether a gap exists between producer perceptions of climate change and government policies of adaptation and mitigation. A clear role was envisioned for government in relation to extreme events of climate. Further research exploring how to address possible gaps in producer perceptions of climate change, and the framing of a coherent policy suite by government, might prevent a policy problem from happening and resultant loss of faith in government.

Rationale: to assess the ways in which people are vulnerable to drought issues, especially in the context of exploring ways of dealing with the issues in the future.

This part of the interview situates the person being interviewed in the larger picture with personal details (family history, occupation, and community involvement) which will allow for more appropriate questions later.

The purpose of this part of the interview is to document, from the respondent's point of view, those conditions (i.e. “exposure sensitivities”) that are important to people, and why, and how those are dealt with (why, why not, how effective) (i.e. “adaptive strategies”), and how these might be dealt with in the future. This gives a basis for describing the vulnerabilities specifically considered relevant by these individuals, without bias or suggestion or prompting from the researcher.

This portion of the interview provides a systematic basis for assessing exposure-sensitivity and adaptive capacity to ensure that all potential factors are covered in a rigorous and comparable manner. In the process, we necessarily prompt for expected conditions relevant to weather, climate, and institutions.

For example, if water or drought have not come up yet on their own, they would be explored including conditions such as too much water, timing, quality, contamination, etc. be sure to understand: seasonal variation, year-to-year variation, and what is done about these.

It is important that all of the categories of items included in the checklist are systematically covered – the above examples were developed for water, but we must also probe for temperature, biophysical (flooding, mudslides) hazards, and economic and social stresses, and explore these fully in light of potential adaptive strategies. Like water, institutions are of particular interest in this project, and examples are provided below.

Institutions represent an item on the checklist. If they have not come up on their own, ask specific questions to place the respondent's understanding of institutional roles/opportunities in managing current and future exposure sensitivities.

At this point, it is important to address the respondents' ideas or recommendations for addressing specific problems. Using the vulnerabilities that have already been noted, probe further:

The community adaptation to drought project is focused on climate change, water, communities and institutions. Consequently, we focus on the interrelationship among these issues in our consideration of future exposure sensitivities and adaptive capacities. As above, we prompt for specific/anticipated changes that may not have come up in the open-ended questions, including repeating partial answers to follow up.

To understand the context of the larger climatic system, we ask about potential climate changes such as decreased river flow, hotter, colder, windier, conditions and responses.

Second, we use a scenario-driven approach (based on the work of climate scientists) to get the respondent's assessment of potential implications of specific (predicted) changes.

We check other predicted changes (as per study-site-specific checklists) in a similar manner, and explore the (perceived) implications of these for community members including relationship to institutions.

It is likely that water will come up on its own when discussing climate, however, we still ask about water such as what changes are being experienced in relation to water and implications for livelihood.

We already know which institutions are currently relevant to respondents. However, we still need to explore potential future institutional dynamics. First, we give respondents a chance to anticipate:

Similarly, we can employ a scenario-driven approach if we have discovered potential institutional alternatives to the status quo (through key informant interviews. For example, there have been repeated calls for a review of AgriStability, and farmer interviewees could have opinions and insights into how a risk management program could be better structured to mitigate the impacts of drought.

“We conclude the interview by giving respondents a chance to provide us with feedback and add anything else that they may feel is relevant”

• Age, occupation(s).

• Genders, etc. please note the gender of the person you are talking to), educational achievement.

• Who is involved with the watershed group (membership)? What groups/people are missing?

Is it agricultural use? Oil and gas? Urban requirements? Irrigation? If you have this info from other community info/interviews, do not waste your time!

• What type of weather events have impact?

• What other variables are important in their watershed? (environmental concerns, open wells, cattle practices).

• Drought? What are the impacts? What, how when etc? Recent droughts – when were they? How bad were they? (impact – shortage of water? Crop failure? Financial impact? Fires? On water supply? Insect infestations? Soil erosion? Livestock?) → timing of impact? (e.g. equipment supply dealer – might be a year later?).

• What happens when there is not enough water?

• Flood – Too much water? What are the impacts? Drainage problems, what, how when, etc.

• Does the watershed group plan for water variability – or how is the watershed plan responding to these incidents of high variability?

• Will the plan respond, or will other meetings/measures actions be needed? What type/kind?

• When has this happened before, how long did it last, how severe was it? What was done to get through it? Did the watershed group assist in getting through it?

• Was there any institutional involvement? (did they participate with any support programs? Federal, provincial, local government? Funding of their activities?

• What was successful about the experience, how could it have been better, would you do the same thing; Did the watershed committees have any influence on this? Community organizations? NGOs? Did they go to agricultural extension sources?).

• Has the government implemented or assisted in any of the measures contained in the plan? (enacted through regulation, etc.).

• What would have made the drought/flood more manageable last time? (including barriers to participation in existing programs, etc.).

• If 2001-2002 (or 1998 – swift current) did not come up, bring it up – get that story too!

• What would you like to see available in the next drought/flood?

• (You should have an idea of the groups' plans and activities before meeting with them – it is on the internet) update activities/plans, etc. How are plans revisited? Reassessed? Changed? What is the process/timeline? Who is involved and how do issues come to the group's attention?

• How are decisions made on the plan? Consensus? Is there conflict and how was that handled?

• What sorts of information do you need to help you plan? Who should provide it? (What further information about drought characteristics do they need?).

• Have you incorporated future climate variability due to climate change in your plans? Why/why not?

• Did the last drought/flood change how things are done?

• What planning horizons do people use now, and what did they use then? (i.e. how many years could your current/past strategies deal with? How well? How are these changing?) What if you had a four-five-six year drought?

• For what range of conditions are people planning for? Are they planning for changes in water quality? How?

• What does this planning consist of? When will plans be reconsidered? How are they monitored?

• What can be done beyond the community to ensure that the communities can cope better? (what do they need from the province, federal government, local government, etc.? What are the price points that enable participation in existing programs, etc.?).

• Last questions: is there anything I should have asked you about water and drought that I missed?

Professor Margot Hurlbert is jointly appointed in the Department of Justice Studies and Department of Sociology and Social Studies at the University of Regina. She researches in the area of adaptation to climate change, governance, and environmental justice. Margot Hurlbert can be contacted at: margot.hurlbert@uregina.ca

Funding for this research is gratefully acknowledged from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).