*Building Adaptive Capacity*

Agricultural adaptations to climate change depend on local conditions including socioeconomic status (Reidsma et al. 2010). Generally, agricultural adaptation involves adjusting farm production activities, managing finances, and introducing new technology or government assistance (Smit and Skinner 2002). Diversifying crops and altering planting dates were also identified as important adaptation strategies (Fosu-Mensah et al. 2012).

Fundamentally, the adaption of farmers to climate change initially depends on the perception of the changes and associated risks and then on the availability of resources to adapt (Tripathi and Mishra 2017). The age of the farmer, length of time farming, and education level may have affected their perception of climate change but not the choice of adaptation measures for many reasons, including the unavailability of resources to pursue high-cost or innovative measures. In this regard, a lack of financial resources may have been the main factor limiting adaptation diversity.

Maddison (2007) determined that education and access to financial services are factors that affect adaptation measures implemented by farmers. Farmers willing to implement high-cost measures may be restricted by a lack of finances. One respondent indicated that they required government intervention to implement a complex and potentially costly adaptation system. If most farmers had access to financial resources, the implementation of high-cost measures might have been more prevalent. However, most measures were low-cost measures involving minor changes to current agricultural practices.

It is also possible that the choice of adaptation measures was limited to those that were proven to be effective, and there was no further need to innovate or implement alternatives. Most of the respondents indicated that the implemented measure was effective. There is no stimulus for adaptation diversity if easily implemented, and common types of adaptation measures are effective. However, farmers had perceptions of climate change that can potentially affect adaptation effectiveness.

There were differences between the actual changes in climate and changes perceived by farmers in this study. This aligned with a study by Banerjee (2015) that determined that a farmer's perception of climate change tends to be different from actual climate change. This disparity exists because most farmers equate normal weather variability with long-term changes in weather patterns (Mertz et al. 2009). The difference between real and perceived climate change has led some farmers to mischaracterise adaptation to weather patterns as adaptations to climate change. It is important that farmers fully grasp the principles and risks associated with climate change. This will ensure that they are adequately prepared to meet the real challenges of climate change.

Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve climate change awareness among farmers. There is room for associations and government services to provide this service to farmers. Only 23% and 42% of the respondents in this study are members of agricultural societies and registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, respectively. Both entities are ideal for disseminating climate change information. Climate change issues can be discussed at society meetings, and registration with government agencies can facilitate outreach from extension officers to discuss climate-related matters. These agencies should take steps to actively improve membership (and registration).

The objective of adapting to climate change is to maintain or exceed a predefined or standard state. For farmers and organisations in general, this predefined state

is often defined by income and profitability metrics rather than characteristics of organisational operations and the services or products provided. That is, normal is not defined by the operations of the company and the product or services offered but by performance metrics such as income and profitability. Adaptation can include all measures a farmer implements to secure an income sufficient to maintain their livelihoods. This includes abandoning farming to obtain income from other ventures if necessary. Building adaptive capacity would therefore include providing and utilising resources to support farming operations or transition farmers to other economic opportunities needed to secure their livelihood. This may also include the consideration of non-climate-related factors, given that the impact of climate is one of the factors that affects the capacity of farming households to secure a livelihood (Eakin 2003).

The President of the Agricultural Society of Trinidad and Tobago indicated in an article written by Mahase (2022) that there has been a quadrupling of the cost of essential farming commodities, including seeds and fertilisers (including locally produced urea). These non-climate factors also affect the operations of farms and can exacerbate the effects of climate change. The study, however, identified low-cost solutions to climate-related challenges. However, the combination of climate and non-climate stressors can overwhelm the financial resources of the farming community regardless of the implementation of suitable adaptation measures. However, reducing climate risk can be part of an overall strategy for maintaining the financial stability of farmers. In this regard, there is a need to improve the extent to which farmers join and participate in farming organisations. These social groups are necessary for establishing knowledge networks to share and disseminate information on adaptation and exploiting opportunities that can lead to more efficient and profitable farming operations. Most of the farms in Trinidad and Tobago are small-scale individual farms. Farmers can utilise these groups to collaborate and purchase farming material at a lower cost to maximise profits. Improving or maintaining profitability will provide farmers with the capacity to finance adaptation measures if conditions continue to deteriorate or at least build up financial reserves to buffer against market changes.

There is also a need to develop government–farmer partnerships to build adaptive capacity. Government agencies can provide the resources and training needed to adapt or improve productivity. Additionally, social programs can be delivered to members of farming households to facilitate an overall improvement in the adaptive capacity of the home rather than just the individual farmer. These social programs can incentivise education and training in non-agricultural disciplines. In instances where income from farming operations is reduced, the household will be stable if members can secure employment in other industries.

It is important to note that the relatively small number of participants interviewed in this study limits the extent to which broad generalisations can be made regarding the interpretation of the findings. However, the findings provide a

foundation for future in-depth studies on the adaptation practices among farmers in Trinidad and Tobago.
