Journal of Asian Society for International Relations and Public AffairsVol. 1 (2010) ISSN Print: 1944-6640, ISSN Online: 1944-6659

A Rationale for International Cooperation in Implementing AdaptationStrategies to Climate Change in the Face of Global Inequality

PerdinanDepartment of Geography, Michigan State University, USA

Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, USADepartment of Geophysics and Meteorology, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Abstract

Climate change will adversely impact global agricultural production. The impact islikely to distribute unevenly as future climate conditions will vary from region to region.The paper discusses the regions vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on agriculturalproduction and possible adaptation strategies to minimize the impacts. Principles and barriersin implementing the adaptation strategies as well as a rationale for strengthening cooperationbetween developing and developed countries in implementing the adaptation strategies are alsodiscussed. The paper argues that there are at least three arguments that should be consideredcarefully to strengthen the international cooperation in implementing the adaptation strategies,namely: 1) the need for strengthening the global food security, 2) the critical role of developingcountries in technology transfer, and 3) the potential benefit of implementing innovations inagricultural technology in developing countries. It is also important for both groups to havethe same perception that successful implementation of the adaptation strategies is eventuallyfor their mutual benefits.

Keywords: climate change, agriculture, adaptation, international cooperation, inequality.

Introduction

Climate change is expected to adversely impact globalagricultural production (Cline, 2007). While the impact willbe disproportionately felt by developing countries, developedcountries will gain the positive impact (Cline, 2007; Fischeret al., 2005; Parry et al., 2005). The adverse impact of cli-mate change on developing countries may occur as a conse-quence of their location (Mendelsohn et al., 2006) and lowadaptive capacity (Burton & Lim, 2005). According to IPCC( IPCC, n.d.-a, p. 869), adaptive capacity is the ability toadjust to climate change to moderate its potential damagesor capture its prospective opportunities.

Considering the possible negative effects of climatechange, adaptation strategies to minimize the risk of produc-tion loss have been proposed. The adaptation strategies aredirected to improving farmers’ adaptive capacities related totheir farming management such as the planting calendar, ir-rigation scheduling, and cultivar change (Tubiello & Rosen-zweig, 2008).

However, implementation of the adaptation strategies isnot an easy task especially in developing countries. The im-

The author thanks Dr. Robert Walker and Dr. Michael Kaplowitz, Michigan StateUniversity, for their valuable comments on an early version of this article. An appre-ciation is also sent to Dante Vergara and Jordan Howell for their help in preparing theearly version of this manuscript. The author also thanks Dr. Julie Winkler, MichiganState University, for her thoughts and insights on this article.textitE-mail address: perdinan@msu.edu, perdinan@gmail.com (Perdinan)

plementation requires investments (Jones et al., 2008) andadequate knowledge (Vincent, 2007). Thus international re-sponse is highly necessary to ensure the implementation ofthe strategies in order to avoid more severe problems suchas the risk of hunger in the future (Parry et al., 2005). Cline(2007) suggested that policymakers of developed and devel-oping countries should cooperate to ensure international ac-tion for adaptation to climate change.

The paper discusses the regions vulnerable to the impactof climate change on agricultural production, possible adap-tation strategies to minimize the impact, and a rationale forcooperation in implementing the adaptation strategies. Thelast topic includes discussions about principles and barriersin implementing the adaptation strategies, and arguments forstrengthening international cooperation for ensuring the im-plementation of the adaptation strategies.

Regions Vulnerable To TheImpact Of Climate Change On

Agricultural Production

Globally, climate change will adversely impact agricul-tural production. Cline (2007) estimated that global climatechange will reduce global agricultural production up to 16%.However, the impact is likely to distribute unevenly acrossthe globe. The adverse impact will be felt mostly by develop-ing countries, while developed countries will benefit (Cline,2007; Fischer et al., 2005; Parry et al., 2005). Cline (2007)predicted that agricultural production in developing countries

1

PERDINAN

Figure 1. Percentage of Change in Agricultural Productivity under Scenarios of Climate Change with Carbon Fertilization by 2080 Relativeto Agricultural Productivity in 2003 (Source: Adapted from Cline (2007, p. 75)

will decrease up to 21% as a consequence of future climatechange exposure. The author added that the severest dam-age would be in Africa and Latin America, while Asia willexperience moderate damage.

As can be seen from Figure 1, reproduced from Cline(2007, p. 75), agricultural productivity will decrease in al-most all of countries located closer to the equator and south-ern hemisphere, whereas productivity will increase mostly incountries located in higher latitudes in the northern part of theglobe. The significant decrease will be felt mostly by regionsin the southern parts of Asia, the western parts of Australia,Africa, and Latin America. Serious damage will occur incountries located in South Asia and the Middle East, south-ern and northern Africa, northern Latin America and north-western Australia. On the other hand, countries located inNorth America and the Russian Federation will benefit fromclimate change.

This disproportionate impact of climate change may occuras a consequence of variation in future climate conditionsexperienced by each region. Global climate models projectthat the amount of precipitation in high latitude regions andmost subtropical terrestrial regions is likely to increase anddecrease, respectively (IPCC, n.d.-b).

The adverse impact of climate change on developingcountries highlights a signal that these countries could beconsidered as regions vulnerable to the impact of climatechange. Tubiello and Rosenzweig (2008) asserted that vul-nerability of agricultural systems is determined by exposure,sensitivity to the exposure, and adaptive capacity of the sys-tem. Therefore, a country may not be able to cope with thepotential risks of climate change and is considered to be vul-nerable, if its adaptive capacity is very low. Adger and Vin-cent (2005) argued that adaptive capacity is a critical elementto minimize the climate change risks.

Furthermore, the Human Development Index-HDI issuedby the United Nations Development Programme ( UNDP,2008, pp. 229-232), as a proximate indicator of socio-

economic development, and percentage change in agricul-tural productivity (Figure 1, reproduced from Cline, 2007,p. 75) were used to measure the vulnerability of countries tothe impact of climate change. The HDI was employed to rep-resent the adaptive capacity of a country as socio-economicconditions in a country can determine its adaptation capabil-ity to climate change (Klein et al., 2005; Vincent, 2007).

With reference to the values of HDI issued by the UNDP(2008), most African countries are characterized with lowhuman development (HDI less than 0.5). Major countries inAsia and Latin America are categorized with medium HDI,between 0.5 and 0.8. Meanwhile, Australia, North American,and European countries have high HDI, greater than 0.8.

Consequently, Africa may not be able to reduce the poten-tial adverse impact of climate change in the region as theiradaptive capacity is very low. Thus, this region is consideredhighly vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Countriesin south Asia and Middle East with an index from 0.5 to 0.6are also still considered vulnerable as they might not havesufficient capacity to adapt to climate change. This finding isin line with Lobell et al.’s (2008) that the adverse impacts ofclimate change on South Asia and Southern Africa is due toinadequate adaptive capacity.

On the other hand, Australia, which is categorized as anindustrialized country with HDI greater than 0.96 ( UNDP,2008, p. 229), may be able to cope with the risks. Accordingto Raworth (2007), countries whose HDI are greater than 0.9are considered to have a capacity to provide international as-sistance to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Advancedtechnology in developed countries also offers an opportunityfor farmers in the countries to substitute capital for climate(Mendelsohn et al., 2006).

To illustrate how countries’ capacity to adapt to climatechange is measured, the potential production loss (PPL) forparticular countries presented in Figure 1, reproduced fromCline (2007, p. 75), was adjusted by multiplying it with (1 -HDI). Here this loss is called adjusted production loss (APL).

2

JOURNAL OF ASIAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The adjustment production ratio (APR) for sampling countries in percentAustralia 3.5 Algeria 25.2 India 39.1Mexico 15.8 South Africa 33.0 Nigeria 50.1

Figure 2. Adjustment to Potential Production Loss for Sample Developing and Developed Countries

Then, the ratio between the APL and the PPL for each sam-pling country, called adjustment production ratio (APR), wascalculated. The lower value of the APR indicates a countrywill be able to minimize the risk of having significant pro-duction loss due to climate change as they are likely to haveadequate adaptive capacity.

The result shows that the APL for developed countriessuch as Australia will be much smaller than the PPL indi-cated by the lower value of the APR (3.5%). On the otherhand, the APRs for developing countries such as India andNigeria which are about 39% and 50% respectively are stillrelatively high compared to the Australian one (Figure 2).That means these countries may not have adequate capacityto reduce the potential production loss.

Insufficient adaptive capacity seems to be a critical rea-son why the developing world is most vulnerable to climatechange. Low adaptive capacity as a consequence of poorsocio-economic conditions in these countries will not allowthem to minimize the adverse impacts of climate change(Heltberg et al., 2009).

Adaptation Strategies To ClimateChange For Agricultural

Production

With our understanding of the adverse impacts of climatechange, devising plausible strategies for adaptation is imper-ative in order to improve the adaptive capacity of agriculturalsystems of a country. Tubiello and Rosenzweig (2008) jus-tified that increasing adaptive capacity of agricultural sys-tem is dependent on providing appropriate approaches forfarmers to adjust their farming strategies to adapt to climatechange and gain as much benefits as possible.

Implementing adaptation strategies to climate change isalso considered as no-regret interventions (Heltberg et al.,2009; Klein et al., 2005). Therefore, actions to adapt toclimate change are needed despite the uncertainties associ-

ated with future trends in greenhouse gas emissions (Pit-tock, 2003; Vuuren et al., 2008; Zillman et al., 2005) andglobal climate models (Visser et al., 2000). In 2008, Tubielloand Rosenzweig proposed that the adaptation strategies canbe implemented through autonomous and planned interven-tions. The autonomous interventions are directed at improv-ing farming capacity for coping with future climate stresses,as this strategy will be implemented by individual farmersand communities. This strategy encompasses actions relatedto farming management such as planting calendar, irrigationscheduling, and cultivar change. The planned interventions,on the other hand, include strategies such as irrigation in-frastructure, efficient water use technologies, transport andstorage infrastructure, and accessible markets for productsand inputs such as seed, fertilizer, and labor (p. 169). Imple-mentation of these interventions requires a suite policy fromthe government as the strategies will be implemented at thelocal, regional, and national levels.

The government intervention is required for ensuring theimplementation of the adaptation options (Burton & Lim,2005), as individuals and societies particularly in develop-ing countries may not be able to incorporate all social costsof adaptation and have sufficient adaptive capacity (Tamirisa,2008). IPCC (n.d.-a) also claimed that the adaptive capacityis still unequal across a society and within a nation. Further-more, Tamirisa (2008) suggested that governments can en-force options for implementing the adaptation through strate-gies on fiscal self-insurance, financial sector policies, andfinancial markets. The first strategy is intended to includethe adaptation expenditure in government budgets and tostrengthen social safety nets. This strategy will enable ru-ral industries to help farmers in implementing the adaptationoptions and to secure their basic needs when facing the ad-verse impacts of climate change. The second is designed tooffer proper interest rates to allow farmers to access financialservices so that they will have adequate resources for im-plementing innovative farming management to adapt to cli-

3

PERDINAN

mate change. Finally, the last strategy is intended to createan incentive for people migrating from the highly vulnerableregions to more adaptable lands.

A Rationale for Cooperation InImplementing the Climate

Change Adaptations

Principles for Implementing the Adaptation Strate-gies

Adaptation to climate change is essentially a social pro-cess that requires collective action (Adger et al., 2003). Ac-cording to Smit and Wandel (2006), adaptations to climatechange require the involvement of the household, commu-nity, group, sector, region, and country to better adjust tothe climate exposure. Moreover, adaptations are a reflectionof interactions between environmental exposure and socio-economic determinants such as social, cultural, political, andeconomic conditions in a specific region (Smit & Wandel,2006). These arguments reveal that a successful implementa-tion of climate change adaptation strategies should recognizelocal knowledge and conditions.

The recognition of local knowledge is important becauseclimate change impacts, particularly on agricultural produc-tion, are locally specific issues (Baas & Ramasamy, 2008).Thus academic knowledge should be merged with local ex-periences in the decision making process (Blanco, 2006).This community involvement will also benefit to ensure andpromote the implementation of the adaptations at the local-level (Baas & Ramasamy, 2008). As a practical example,Subbiah and Selvaraju (2007, p. 60) promote ‘end-to-endinstitutional feedback mechanism’ to utilize climate fore-cast information using Indonesia’s experience. The systemshows how local communities (farmers, farmer’ groups, andwomen’s groups) are involved in the decision making pro-cess in utilizing climate forecast information. Inputs fromthe communities could inform the agricultural agencies ofthe government to better communicate scenarios of possibleclimate impacts which were derived from climate forecasts(Figure 3, reproduced from Subbiah and Selvaraju, 2007, p.60). The better delivery of climate forecasts will ultimatelyprovide a significant contribution to allow farmers to adapt toclimate change (Fritschel, 2006). Climate change adaptationprograms should also be integrated with national develop-ment plan. The integration will ensure that the implemen-tation of the programs will not impede sustainable develop-ment goals (Yohe et al., 2007). Thus adaptation activitiesshould be parallel with economic development to create jobopportunity and alleviate poverty in poor communities as themost vulnerable groups.

Potential Barriers in Implementing the AdaptationStrategies

Implementation of climate change adaptation strategiesis a challenging task because it involves collective actionsat international, national and local levels as well as cross-interaction between these levels (Paavola & Adger, 2006).

As a consequence, these different scales may potentially re-sult in some barriers when the adaptation strategies are im-plemented. At the international level, equity and justiceissues may cause complexities to the adaptation processes(Thomas & Twyman, 2005). This issue develops as a con-sequence of unequal impacts of climate change and adaptivecapacity on each country. Developing countries whose adap-tive capacity is low will experience the adverse impacts ofclimate change, while developed countries who contributedto major green house gas emissions will gain the positive ef-fects (Mendelsohn et al., 2006). Unequal participation of de-veloping countries in climate change negotiations is also con-sidered as an obstacle for fair implementation of the adapta-tion strategies (Paavola & Adger, 2006).

Several problems may exist when the adaptation strate-gies are applied at the national level, particularly in develop-ing countries. The obstacles include insufficient awareness toclimate change, weak coordination among departments, andinadequate adaptation funding. The lack of awareness maybe a consequence of insufficient climate information that canbe utilized to support the decision making process for de-velopment programs (Agrawala & Aalst, 2008). As thesecountries do not pay much attention to raising adaptation pro-grams as a national action (Tompkins & Amundsen, 2008),coordination among departments working on climate change,development and disaster risk reduction is low (Mitchell T.,2006). This condition happens because these countries mayalready face multiple problems, and their priorities are moreon improving the economic growth for enhancing the com-munities’ livelihood.

Developing countries do not have adequate financialsources to implement the adaptation strategies as implemen-tation of the strategies will incur additional costs (Tamirisa,2008). Thus, international financial assistance is highly nec-essary for this purpose. However, the financial assistance foradaptations is still far from enough (Raworth, 2007). Andincreasing the financial assistance through economic instru-ments such as a carbon tax will not be a priority in thepost-2012, unless the mitigation agenda on carbon emissionsreaches an agreement (Paavola, 2008).

Poor socio-economic conditions and insufficient knowl-edge about climate change are major potential barriers atthe local levels. Deressa, Hassan, Ringler, Alemu, andYesuf (2009) argued that main problems in implementingthe adaptation programs in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia arerelated to inadequate knowledge about adaptation methodsand financial funding. In line with this argument, Gbeti-bouo (2009) found that inadequate knowledge about climatechange, poverty, insecure property rights, no access to wa-ter, and poor market access as well as transportation linksinhibit actions to adapt to climate change in the LimpopoRiver Basin of South Africa. Insufficient ability of nationalgovernments to supply relevant climate information for farm-ing activities may also contribute to hindering community’sunderstanding about climate change.

Thus, strong international cooperation is a necessity toovercome the potential barriers when climate change adapta-tions are implemented because the barriers can occur at any

4

JOURNAL OF ASIAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Figure 3. The Institutional System to Facilitate the Flow of Climate Information from National to District and Local Levels (Source:

Adapted from Subbiah and Selvaraju (2007, p. 60)

level and at cross-levels. Without the strong cooperation,long term goals to combat the adverse impacts of climatechange may never be reached.

Rational for Cooperation in Implementing theAdaptation Strategies

Implementation of the adaptation programs to improvethe adaptive capacity of the agricultural sector in develop-ing countries requires sufficient additional investments. Theadditional costs needed per year were estimated at tens ofbillions of dollars which far exceed the available adaptationfunds created under the framework of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (World Bank,2008). On the other hand, this demand for adaptation financewill grow in the future (Hepburn & Stern, 2008) as climatechange is still going on even if green house gas emissions arestabilized ( IPCC, n.d.-b, p. 14). Therefore, significant assis-tance from developed countries through public and privatesources of financing is necessary to ensure the implemen-tation of climate change adaptation programs (World Bank,2008).

Mendelsohn et al. (2006) recommended compensationmechanisms as an approach to help developing countries toavoid serious damages from climate change. Under this sys-tem, the authors proposed three mechanisms, namely: 1)adaptation program subsidy, 2) climate impacts insurance,and 3) investments in economic development. The firstmechanism is intended to aid the developing countries in im-plementing their adaptation strategies. The second mecha-nism is addressed to insure developing countries from thedamages of climate change. But, the authors argued thatadministration of this program would be challenging sincethe countries will claim for every weather disaster (p. 175).The final mechanism is aimed to help developing countriesto implement their economic development programs.

However, implementation of these mechanisms may bedifficult as a consequence of inequality in the global con-text. Heltberg, Siegel, and Jorgensen (2009, p. 98) stated

that “many issues related to fair, equitable, and effective waysto share the costs of adaptation which concerns with ethics,social justice, and political economy are central—who paysand who benefits from adaptation.” Developed nations, whoalready agreed to help developing countries to meet the costsfor adaptation, have not translated that pledge into action asreported by UNDP (2008). This report claimed that “Inter-national cooperation on climate change adaptation has beencharacterized by chronic under-financing, weak coordinationand a failure to look beyond project-based responses” (p.167).

Understanding this situation, a combination of the firstand the third mechanism may be the plausible strategy inassisting developing countries to implement their adaptationprograms. Under this combination, a subsidy will be givento aid these countries to accomplish their economic devel-opment plans if the plans are considered as adaptation pro-grams. By doing so, the programs can still be continued af-ter the projects have ended. Moreover, developed countriescould also assist developing countries in promoting the adap-tation programs through educational campaigns about adap-tation options, and by providing tools for adaptation assess-ment (Baldwin & Strachan, 2006).

As for measure distribution shares of developed coun-tries’ responsibility to increase the adaptation funds, Ra-worth (2007) proposed an Adaptation Financing Index (AFI).The AFI measures the responsibility and capability basedon each country’s excessive CO2 emissions per person since1992 and Human Development Index, respectively (p. 37).Based on the index, the United States, European Union (17States) and Japan should provide a large contribution to in-crease the finance needed for adaptation. The three countriesaccount for more than 80% of the shares, where the UnitedStates and the European Union are responsible for more than40% and 30% of the shared distributions, respectively (Ra-worth, 2007, p. 27).

Furthermore, it has been discussed that implementation ofthe compensation mechanism faced difficulties. Paavola and

5

PERDINAN

Adger (2006) asserted that the climate change regime hasfailed to translate the pledge to assist developing countriesin implementing climate change adaptation programs. Thisproblem could be a result of the debate about the distributionof costs and benefits (Paavola, 2008). Therefore, a key pointto ensure implementation of the adaptation programs is mu-tual understanding between developed and developing coun-tries. All nations should have similar perception that ‘Cli-mate change is arguably the most persistent threat to globalstability in the coming century’ (Adger et al., 2003, p. 180).

The mutual understanding will transform the views aboutclimate change negotiations in the context of climate changeadaptation programs from ‘compensation’ into ‘coopera-tion’. ‘Compensation’ has a connotation of one way direc-tion, where developed countries provide assistance to devel-oping countries only as a part of their responsibility withoutrecognizing the benefits of doing so. On the other hand, ‘Co-operation’ will recognize shared responsibility of each partyso that both parties will mutually benefit. Cline (2007) urgedthat the governments of developed and developing countriesshould work together to ensure international action againstthe adverse impacts of climate change.

As for strengthening the international cooperation for im-plementing the climate change adaptation strategies, thereare at least three arguments that should be considered scrupu-lously.

The first argument is the need for strengthening the globalfood security. The food security is not only to secure foodsupplies to meet the people’s needs, but also to accesshealthy foods (Schmidhuber & Tubiello, 2007). Global pro-jections estimated that developing countries will become big-ger markets for cereals exported by developed countries by2030 (World Bank, 2008). However, they may not be able topurchase the supplies since these countries will face seriousproblems with climate change. Schmidhuber and Tubiello(2007) reported that the adverse impacts of climate changecan increase the number of people at risk of hunger in de-veloping countries. Eventually, this condition will ultimatelythreaten the global food security.

The second argument is the critical role of developingcountries in technology transfer. Conventional models oftechnology transfer only recognize one way direction oftransferring technology from developed to developing coun-tries (North-South paradigm). Brewer (2008) argued that themodel ignores the role of developing countries as the loca-tions for research and development as well as the headquar-ters of large multinational companies with global businessdomains. The author also claimed that ‘south to south’ and‘south to north’ transfer mechanisms are highly importantand should be recognized with regards to the role of devel-oping countries as ‘sources of climate-friendly technologies’(p. 516).

The third argument is the potential benefit of imple-menting innovations in agricultural technology in developingcountries. According to Cline (2008), rapid technologicalchange which could increase agricultural yields in developedcountries is a false panacea for coping with climate change,because increasing yields that started from the green revo-

lution has already slowed down. This condition may occurdue to the fact that the optimal level of increasing yields inthese countries has been reached. Meanwhile, relatively lowproductivity of crops in developing countries (World Bank,2008) provides enough room for improving these countries’crop productivity through innovative technology. Beside thisreason, World Bank (2008) reported that main sources ofincome will also move toward non-agricultural activities ascountries are becoming more developed. This situation sig-nifies that the growth rate of rural labor force in developedcountries will be lower than that in developing countries. Im-plementation of new agricultural technologies in developingcountries will also provide significant opportunities for cre-ating job markets, considering that the agricultural sector isstill being a major source of income in these countries in thefuture (World Bank, 2008).

Therefore, having the above considerations in mind, bothdeveloping and developed countries should be able to movetoward better cooperation in combating the possible severeimpact of climate change threatening the global food secu-rity. I believe better agricultural development in develop-ing countries is a critical part to avoid the potentially seriousproblem. This improvement will also ultimately stabilize theeconomy of these countries, which will eventually lead toglobal stabilization.

Conclusion

Climate change will adversely impact agricultural produc-tion in developing countries. This adverse impact can causeserious problems in these countries due to insufficient adap-tive capacity. Eventually, this condition will threaten theglobal food security.

In response to the potential impact of climate change,strategies to minimize its risks or capture its benefits wereproposed. The adaptation options include autonomous andplanned interventions. The first intervention encompassesstrategies such as planting calendar, irrigation scheduling,and cultivar change. The second one includes strategies suchas irrigation infrastructure, transport and storage infrastruc-ture, and accessible markets for products and inputs.

To successfully implement the adaptation programs, lo-cal community involvement and government intervention arehighly important. The local knowledge is needed becauseclimate change impact is locally specific. The involvementof government is also required to incorporate the adaptationprograms into national development plans so that the imple-mentation of the programs will be coherent with the coun-try’s development goals.

Furthermore, potential barriers at international, nationaland local levels may exist when implementing the adaptationstrategies. At the international level, the barriers deal withthe equity and justice issues. At the national level, particu-larly in developing countries, lack of awareness of climatechange, weak coordination among departments, and insuffi-cient financial funding for the adaptations are considered tobe the major obstacles. At the local levels, the main barri-ers include poor socio-economic conditions and insufficient

6

JOURNAL OF ASIAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

knowledge about climate change.Therefore, I argued that strengthening cooperation be-

tween developing and developed countries is a key pointto ensure the implementation of climate change adaptations.The cooperation between the two groups is important to over-come the barriers for implementing the adaptation strategies.As for fortifying the international cooperation, there are atleast three arguments that should be considered carefully.The arguments are 1) the need for strengthening the globalfood security, 2) the critical role of developing countries intechnology transfer, and 3) the potential benefit of imple-menting innovations in agricultural technology in developingcountries. Both groups should also have the same perceptionthat successful implementation of the adaptation strategies iseventually for their mutual benefits. This better perceptionwill stipulate policymakers of these two groups to negoti-ate a better way to cooperate in implementing the adaptationprograms rather than debate about compensation.

ReferencesAdger, W. N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conwaya, D., & Hulme, M.

(2003). Adaptation to climate change in the developing world.Progress in Development Studies, 3(3), 179–195.

Adger, W. N., & Vincent, K. (2005). Uncertainty in adaptive ca-pacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337(4), 399–410.

Agrawala, S., & Aalst, M. V. (2008). Adapting Development Coop-eration to Adapt to Climate Change. Climate Policy, 8, 183–193.

Baas, S., & Ramasamy, S. (2008). Community Based Adaptation inAction: A case study from Bangladesh. Project Summary Report(Phase I): Improved Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Sus-tainable Livelihoods in the Agriculture Sector. In Rome: Foodand agriculture organization of the united nations.

Baldwin, S., & Strachan, J. (2006, October). Adapt-ing to Climate Change in Developing Countries [ElectronicVersion]. Available from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn269.pdf

Bank, W. (2008). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture forDevelopment. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Blanco, A. V. R. (2006). Local initiatives and adaptation to climatechange. Disasters, 30(1), 140–147.

Brewer, T. L. (2008). Climate change technology transfer: a newparadigm and policy agenda. Climate Policy, 8(5), 516–526.

Burton, I., & Lim, B. (2005). Achieving adequate adaptation inagriculture. Climatic Change, 70(1-2), 191–200.

Cline, W. R. (2007). Global Warming and Agriculture: ImpactEstimates by Country. In Washington, dc: Center for global de-velopment and peterson institute for international economics.

Cline, W. R. (2008). Global Warming and Agriculture. Finance &

Development, 45, 24–27.

Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., & Yesuf, M.(2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methodsto climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environ-mental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 19(2), 248–255.

Fischer, G., Shah, M., Tubiello, F. N., & Velhuizen, H. van. (2005).Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture: anintegrated assessment, 1990-2080. Philosophical Transactionsof the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360(1463), 2067–2083.

Fritschel, H. (2006, December). How Will Agriculture Adapt to aShifting Climate? In Ifpri forum.

Gbetibouo, G. A. (2009). Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions andAdaptations to Climate Change and Variability: The Case of theLimpopo Basin, South Africa. In Washington, dc: Internationalfood policy research institute.

Heltberg, R., Siegel, P. B., & Jorgensen, S. L. (2009). Addressinghuman vulnerability to climate change: Toward a ’no-regrets’approach. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 89–99.

Hepburn, C., & Stern, N. (2008). A new global deal on climatechange. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2), 259–279.

IPCC (Ed.). (n.d.-a). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adapta-tion and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Ed.). (n.d.-b). Summary for Policymakers. In: ClimateChange 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UnitedKingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Jones, B., Keen, M., & Strand, J. (2008, March). Paying for climatechange. In Finance & development.

Klein, R. J. T., Schipper, E. L. F., & Dessai, S. (2005). Integratingmitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy:three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(6),579–588.

Lobell, D. B., Burke, M. B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M. D., Fal-con, W. P., & Naylor, R. L. (2008). Prioritizing climate changeadaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science, 319(5863),607–610.

Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., & Williams, L. (2006). The distri-butional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries.Environment and Development Economics, 11, 159–178.

Mitchell T., T. T. . W. E. (Ed.). (2006). Tearfund Climate ChangeBriefing Paper 1. Overcoming the barriers: Mainstreaming cli-mate change adaptation in developing countries. Middlesex:Tearfund.

Paavola, J. (2008). Science and social justice in the governanceof adaptation to climate change. Environmental Politics, 17(4),644–659.

Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2006). Fair adaptation to climatechange. Ecological Economics, 56(4), 594–609.

Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., & Livermore, M. (2005). Climatechange, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philosoph-ical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences,360(1463), 2125–2138.

7

PERDINAN

Pittock, B. (2003). Climate Change: An Australian Guide to theScience and Potential Impacts.

Raworth, K. (2007). Adapting to climate change What’s neededin poor countries’ and who should pay. Oxford, UK: OxfamInternational.

Schmidhuber, J., & Tubiello, F. N. (2007). Global food security un-der climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences of the United States of America, 104(50), 19703–19708.

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity andvulnerability. Global Environmental Change-Human and PolicyDimensions, 16(3), 282–292.

Subbiah, A., & Selvaraju, R. (2007). Climate Prediction and Agri-culture. In M. V. K. Sivakumar & J. Hansen (Eds.), (pp. 57–61).New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Tamirisa, N. (2008). Climate Change and the Economy. Finance &

Development, 45, 18–22.

Thomas, D. S. G., & Twyman, C. (2005). Equity and justice inclimate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependentsocieties. Global Environmental Change, 15, 115–124.

Tompkins, E. L., & Amundsen, H. (2008). Perceptions of theeffectiveness of the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change in advancing national action on climate change.Environmental Science & Policy, 11(1), 1–13.

Tubiello, F. N., & Rosenzweig, C. (2008). Developing climatechange impact metrics for agriculture. Integrated Assessment,8(1), 165–184.

UNDP. (2008). Human Development Report 2007/2008. FightingClimate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. NewYork: Macmillan.

Vincent, K. (2007). Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the im-portance of scale. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 12–24.

Visser, H., Folkert, R. J. M., Hoekstra, J., & Wolff, J. J. D. (2000).Identifying Key Sources Of Uncertainty In Climate Change Pro-jections. Climatic Change, 45, 421–457.

Vuuren, D. P. van, Vries, B. de, Beusen, A., & Heuberger, P. S. C.(2008). Conditional probabilistic estimates of 21st centurygreenhouse gas emissions based on the storylines of the IPCC-SRES scenarios. Global Environmental Change-Human and Pol-icy Dimensions, 18(4), 635–654.

Yohe, G. W., Lasco, R. D., Ahmad, Q. K., Arnell, N. W., Cohen,S. J., & Hope, C. (2007). Contribution of Working Group II tothe Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. In (chap. Perspectiv). Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Zillman, J. W., McKibbin, W. J., & Kellow, A. (2005). Uncer-tainty and Climate Change: The Challenge for Policy. Canberra:Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

Short Bio of Perdinan: Mr. Per-dinan is a Ph.D. student of Depart-ment of Geography, Michigan StateUniversity, the United States of Amer-ica, sponsored by Fulbright. He isalso currently pursuing a specializa-tion at Environmental Science andPolicy Program of the Michigan StateUniversity. He obtained his Bache-

lor Degree in Agro-meteorology from Department of Geo-physics and Meteorology, Bogor Agricultural University, In-donesia, in 2002. For completing the bachelor degree, Hewas awarded BCA Scholarship in 1999 to 2002. After com-pleting the degree, He joined with the Bogor AgriculturalUniversity, as a teaching staff and research assistant with spe-cialization in Applied Climatology.

In this field, he had been involved in a number of researchactivities at national and international level that focus on ap-plying climate information associated with climate variabil-ity and climate change to enhance human adaptive capacityto the climate conditions. In 2006, he was awarded Aus-tralian Development Scholarship to study Master in Natu-ral Resources Economics at The University of Queensland,Australia, and did research on economic assessment of cli-mate change risks. After completing the master degree in2007, he back to Indonesia and did research on assessing theimpact of climate change on water resources in Indonesia,collaboration research project between Indonesian and Ger-man Government, and synthesis of climate change study inIndonesia funded by Asia Pacific Network. Generally, hismain research interests are in the areas of climate variabil-ity and change, land use change (carbon), and economic riskanalysis. Specifically, he is interested in the topics of climatechange mitigation, climate change risks and its managementoptions (adaptation).

8