Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf

7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf

1/9


2/9

162 Climate change adaptation and development I

Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168

(ecosystem, household, community, group,

sector, region, country) that helps the system

to better cope with, manage or adjust to the

changing conditions, stresses, hazards, risks

or opportunities associated with climate

change (Smit and Wandel, 2006). Althoughthe entire world will be affected by climate

change, adaptation is most necessary in low-

and middle-income countries whose vulner-

ability is compounded by limited resources,

inadequate physical infrastructure and weak

and ineffective systems of governance. This

reflects profound global inequalities: those

countries that have contributed least to the

problem of climate change will be worst af-

fected by it, while those who have profited

from high levels of greenhouse gas emissionsare the least threatened by the consequences

(Dodmanet al.,2009).

The aim of this set of three progress re-

ports onAdaptation and Developmentis to re-

view debates on the linkages between climate

change adaptation and development from

both theoretical and empirical standpoints,

and to relate these to climate policy. This

first report explores the evolution of the cli-

mate change adaptation and development

discourse and describes its relevance to thefield of development studies. The second

report will take a more practical empirical

focus on the relationship between adaptation

and vulnerability, and, acknowledging that a

significant amount of the overlap between

adaptation and development is methodo-

logical (see McGrayet al.,2007), will consider

how methodologies in development studies

can be applied to adaptation to advance

knowledge on how to do adaptation and re-

duce vulnerability in the context of climatechange. The third and final report will focus on

climate change and development institutions,

particularly the role of financing adaptation

in the most vulnerable developing countries.1

This issue is of increasing importance follow-

ing the recognition of the substantial finan-

cial commitments required for adaptation at

COP-15 in Copenhagen (Dcember 2009) and

the ongoing discussions about the sources and

disbursement mechanisms for these funds.2

II How development entered theclimate change adaptation agenda

When climate change was first addressedby the UN General Assembly in 1988, it was

considered in a similar vein to the issues of

acid rain and the ozone layer: as a cross-border,

systemic, essentially environmental issue that

should be managed by international cooperation

to mitigate the causes of pollution upstream

(Ayers and Huq, 2008; Schipper, 2006). This

global and environmental discourse on climate

change initially shied away from adaptation,

on the basis that adaptation was local and

conflicted with the global good of mitigation.The fear was that some countries might con-

sider their national costs of adaptation to be

so much lower than the costs of mitigation

that no mitigation action could be seen as

a tempting prospect (Kjellen, 2006: iv). Such

a line of argument has been taken in the past

by Al Gore, currently one of the most visible

political advocates of taking action on climate

change, who has argued that believing that

we can adapt to just about anything is ultimately

a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our abilityto react in time to save our skin (Gore, 1992,

cited Pielke, 1999: 162). Development in cli-

mate change terms was therefore initially

associated with emissions trajectories and

mitigation responsibilities.

Since then, adaptation has gradually gained

prominence in climate change science and

policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) was formed by the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

and World Meteorological Organisation(WMO) to evaluate the risk of climate change,

and published its first report in 1990 that

established climate change as a global, long-

term environmental problem requiring action.

This stimulated the creation of the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992 at the

Earth Summit. Although both mitigation and


3/9

Jessica Ayers and David Dodman 163


adaptation were set out in the Convention,the focus remained on mitigation.

By the time of the third IPCC report in 2001,it had become evident that mitigation effortswould not prevent climate change impacts,and that these would be felt particularlystrongly in low- and middle-income countries.Adaptation began to be associated with theinterests of developing countries, and it wasrecognised that adaptive capacity was depen-dent on development contexts. This wastranslated into policy in the Marrakech Accords,established at the seventh Conference of theParties to the UNFCCC (COP7) in 2001,which created three new funds to assist ad-aptation in developing countries: the LeastDeveloped Countries Fund to support the49 least developed countries to adapt to climatechange, and initially used to fund the design ofNational Adaptation Programmes of Action(NAPAs); the Special Climate Change Fund tosupport a number of climate change activitiesincluding mitigation and technology transfer,but intended to prioritise adaptation; and theKyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund, financedthrough a levy on the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM)3and intended to supportconcrete adaptation projects in developing

countries.The IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report

in 2007 showed that climate change impactswere observable, and gave rise to the messagethat action on adaptation, particularly in de-veloping countries, was an urgent priority.This has penetrated the global rhetoric onclimate change, and adaptation is now seen asa legitimate policy option alongside mitigation:even Al Gore was recently reported in the

Economist(11/9/08) as saying I used to think

adaptation subtracted from our efforts onprevention. But Ive changed my mind Poorcountries are vulnerable and need our help.The outcomes with regard to policy have seenCOP13 in Bali in 2007 bringing adaptation onto equal footing with mitigation, highlightingit as one of four building blocks required inresponse to climate change: alongside miti-

gation, technology cooperation and finance

(Ayers and Huq, 2008). As adaptation

gained prominence in the negotiations and

policy, it has become increasingly branded as

a developing country issue, and supporting

adaptation is often seen as tantamount to sup-

porting development.

III How climate change entered thedevelopment arenaThe link between climate change and develop-

ment was drawn in the development arena as

early as 1987, when the Brundtland Report

Our Common Futurecited climate change as

a major environmental challenge facing de-

velopment (World Commission on Environ-

ment and Development, 1987). In 1992, the

United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development produced the Rio Declaration

and Agenda 21, both of which made explicit

connections between environment and de-

velopment (UN, 1992). These themes were

taken up by the research community, who began

to apply theories of vulnerability to climate

change adaptation. Development was seen as

making an important contribution to climate

change adaptation through strengthening en-

titlements and boosting the resilience of in-

dividuals and communities (see Adger, 1999;Cohen, 1998; Sen, 1999; Smit, 1993).

However, the dominance of the mitigation

agenda in the climate change discourse of the

1990s meant that development practitioners

were initially slow to adopt climate change in

practice, perceiving it as an issue of scienti-

fic constructiona global scale environmental

problem caused by the universal physical pro-

perties of greenhouse gases (Demeritt, 2001:

307), with little relevance for poverty alleviation,

poor communities, and development. Thisis reflected by the absence of any clear re-

ference to climate change in the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) drafted in 2001.

However, a 2002 report released by 10 leading

development funding agencies Poverty and

climate change: Reducing the vulnerability

of the poor through adaptation stated that

climate change was a threat to development


4/9



efforts and poverty reduction, including the

achievement of the Millennium Development

Goals, and that pro-poor development was key

to successful adaptation. The report reflects

many of the themes emerging in the academic

literature on vulnerability at the time (for ex-ample, Huq et al., 2002; Kates, 2000; Smit

et al., 2000), including recommendations

to support sustainable livelihoods, improve

governance, and make institutions more ac-

countable and participatory (Klein, 2008;

Sperling, 2003).

Since 2002, research and NGO communities

have increasingly incorporated climate change

within their development work, believing they

have the skills, experience, local knowledge and

networks to undertake locally appropriate vul-nerability reduction activities that increase

resilience to a range of factors including climate

change. This is particularly evident through

the recently emerging discourse of Community-

Based Adaptation (CBA). CBA claims to

identify, assist, and implement community-

based development activities, research and

policy in regions where adaptive capacity is

as dependent on livelihood indicators as cli-

matic changes. In practice, CBA is often not

dissimilar to development (Polak, 2007); the

difference lying less with the intervention

itself than the inputs to and motivations for

the intervention.

The risks that climate change presents

to development interventions have also

been recognised by many major donors who

are taking steps to mainstream adaptation

into development policies and programmes.

Mainstreaming involves integrating climate

change adaptation into social, institutionaland infrastructural development planning, and

has been adopted in a variety of forms in de-

velopment policy and practice. Most major

donor agencies including the World Bank,

regional development banks and national

donors, are climate proofing their development

investments by screening them for climate

change vulnerabilities and then taking action

to address them (Burton et al., 2006; Klein

et al., 2007; Schipper, 2006). However, al-

though mainstreaming does link climate change

and development and is seen by many as a

win-win opportunity for development organ-

isations, this approach depicts adaptation assomething external to be tacked onto de-

velopment rather than being an integral part

of it. In other words, mainstreaming can be

depicted as adaptationplusdevelopment, in

contrast to a CBA approach which adopts an

adaptationasdevelopment approach.

IV Unresolved tensions betweenadaptation and developmentThe ways in which the adaptation agenda has

evolved within climate change and develop-ment discourses has resulted in confusion both

within and between the development and

climate change arenas on several issues: what

adaptation actually is; the distinction between

adaptation and development (indeed, whether

there is a distinction at all); and differing per-

spectives of how to do good adaptation.

1 Understanding adaptation

Smit et al.,(2000) suggest that variations in

interpretations of adaptation include adap-tation to what? which can refer to climate,

climate variability, or climate change and

who or what adapts? which might refer to

people, social or economic sectors, processes,

or system structures. Within the international

climate change frameworks of the UNFCCC,

adaptation to what? is interpreted as adap-

tation specifically to climate change, rather

than to broader climate variability (including

climate change), and without taking into

account underlying drivers of vulnerabilitystemming from development needs. This

has given rise to a policy context that is sci-

entific, technical, and environmental, and a

technology based view of adaptation that

has placed priority on adaptation measures

such as dams, early-warning systems, seeds

and irrigation schemes based on specific know-

ledge of future climate change conditions


5/9



(Klein, 2008). Correspondingly, the UNFCCC

treats adaptation in the narrowest sense, as

an issue of climate change, with adaptation

actions limited to changes that are proven to

be anthropogenic and distinct from climatic

variability. Adaptation interventions are there-fore stand-alone and additional to baseline

development needs.

However, development practitioners, parti-

cularly those engaged with the CBA agenda,

argue that this interpretation of adaptation

limits the extent to which adaptation can

contribute to broader and more sustainable

vulnerability reduction. This has been re-

peatedly demonstrated through debates in

development studies in relation to disaster risk

reduction (see for example Janssenet al.,2006;Smit and Wandel, 2006; Wisneret al.,2004)

which connect the risks people face with the

specific and contextual reasons behind their

vulnerability in the first place (Wisner et al.,

2004). Accordingly, technology-based meas-

ures can only be partially effective if they do

not also address non-climatic factors that are

the underlying drivers of vulnerability. Klein

(2008) provides the example of improving a

water-supply system where climate change

is associated with increased drought, which

can only be effective in so far as everyone has

equal access to that system; if the unequal

distribution of water rights or the price of

water excludes certain users from the system,

people will remain vulnerable to drought. The

definition of adaptation as an issue of climate

change has created policy frameworks that

do not fit with defining adaptation in terms of

sustainable development.

From a development viewpoint, adaptationand development are often viewed as sy-

nonymous, as stated by Huq and Ayers

(2008a: 52):

Good (or sustainable) development (policies

and practice) can (and often does) lead to

building adaptive capacity. Doing adaptation

to climate change often also means doing

good (or sustainable) development.

Any adaptation intervention cannot

be stand alone but must go hand in hand

with development, as with mainstreaming

(adaptation plus development), or even be

synonymous with development (adaptation

as development). Adaptation as developmentwould involve making progress against the

development indicators in light of climate

change, including reducing poverty, providing

general education and health benefits, im-

proving living conditions and providing access

to financial markets and technologies, which

will all improve the livelihood of individuals,

households and communities, increasing their

ability to engage in adaptive action (Ayers and

Huq, 2009).

In terms of understanding adaptation, then,we see three types of adaptation emerging

from the climate change and development com-

munities: stand-alone adaptation, as inter-

preted under the UNFCCC; and then from

the development community, adaptation plus

development, where development is climate

proofed; and adaptation as development,

where development is the basis for, and in some

cases synonymous with, adaptation, as is the

case with CBA. However, there is a danger of

going too far: not all adaptation is development,and not all development contributes towards

adaptation. Long term adaptation priorities may

conflict with near-term development priorities.

For example, economic development strategies

which do not take into account the long term

implications of climate change could increase

dependency on climate sensitive resources

and ultimately prove maladaptive.4Likewise,

climate proofing development interventions

may give rise to a conflict of interest between

external donors wishing to ensure the longerterm resilience of investments, and recipient

countries wishing to maintain ownership

over their development priorities and control

over national development budgets. While for

either process to work, each must reinforce the

other (Huqet al., 2002), greater attention is

needed to resolving tradeoffs between adap-

tation and development when they arise.


6/9



2 Doing adaptation

These varying perspectives are giving rise to

confusion over how to do adaptation, in some

cases resulting in maladaptive practices that fail

to bring essential adaptation and development

perspectives together in a productive way.

Stand-alone interpretations adopted by the

UNFCCC are proving problematic, as can

be demonstrated by LDC Fund finance for

projects identified under National Adaptation

Programmes of Action (NAPAs). To give a

recent example, one of the projects identified

by the NAPA of Tuvalu is coastal infrastructure

to protect the shoreline from erosion, a prob-

lem regardless of climate change (and so an

existing development need), but one exacer-

bated by climate change (so also an additionalcost). The LDC Fund will only fund the ad-

ditional cost of adaptation. However, not

only has distinguishing between additional

and baseline adaptation needs on the ground

proved extremely difficult, but, being a poor

country, Tuvalu cannot afford to meet the

costs of baseline infrastructure. Thus, the

offer to fund, as it were, the top section

of the infrastructure required to respond

to additional impacts of climate change, is

absurd in light of the fact that co-financing topay for the lower section cannot be found. The

project is currently in limbo while co-financing

is sought (Ayers and Huq, 2009).

On the other hand, the development first

approach frequently fails to give sufficient (if

any) weight to the longer term climate impli-

cations on project areas, thereby affecting

the ultimate sustainability of the adaptation

intervention. While development studies has

helped to prove the contextual nature of risk

and the need to address the underlying driversof vulnerability, debates around adaptation

cannot be reduced to the technology versus

development dichotomy applied to disaster

risk reduction in the past (see Wisner et al.,

1994). Adaptation to climate change extends

beyond understanding current vulnerability

and must also encompass assessments of

future climatic trends. Therefore, while it is

essential to retain an understanding of the

local nature of vulnerability and its relationship

with the broader development context, there

is also a fundamental need to bring in external

technological expertise (in the form of climate

science and new technologies) to adaptation or adaptation activities may themselves not be

climate proof .

The failure of some CBA activities to incor-

porate climate change data in a systematic

way not only threatens the long term viabil-

ity of these projects, but also alienates them

from larger climate change frameworks. And

although some literature has begun to emerge

which deals with local adaptation case studies

(see, for example, Mosset al.,2001; Morduch

and Sharma, 2002), there is a lack of attentionto scaling up of these examples, and assessing

how they can contribute to larger scale, more

technical approaches (Smit and Wandel,

2006). The result is that:

Local initiatives, to enhanceadaptive cap-

acity, may be constrained or even nullified by

broader social, economic and political forces

that effectively shape local vulnerabilities

(ibid: 289).

V Where are we now?Much progress has been made in bringing to-

gether adaptation and development: the im-

plications of climate change for developing

countries are now well documented, and

adaptation has risen up the international

climate change policy agenda. Development

practitioners have also begun to incorporate

adaptation into their work, highlighting the

need to address the underlying causes of vul-

nerability in building adaptive capacity to cli-

mate change.However, stand-alone notions of adap-

tation still persist under the UNFCCC that

fail to incorporate many of the lessons learned

by development practitioners in recent years:

for example about the unexpected and un-

intended consequences of large scale tech-

nical solutions; the depth and breadth of

local knowledge; and the vital importance of


7/9



community participation. At the same time,

good development practice also needs to

take climate change adaptation into account

at every stage in order to avoid wasting re-

sources, ensure long-term sustainability and

prevent mal-adaptations. Within both cli-mate change and development arenas there

is a need for greater acceptance of broader

definitions of adaptation that incorporate

development priorities in the context of a

changing climate.

Some steps have been taken to bring to-

gether technology based and development

based adaptation, and everything in between.

For example, a recent report from the World

Resources Institute, Weathering the Storm,

reviewed more than 100 initiatives labelledas adaptation in developing countries, and

found that adaptation and development are

not discrete activities but instead lie along a

continuum from development orientated to

climate change orientated. At the develop-

ment end, efforts overlap almost completely

with traditional development practice (for

example, much CBA), where activities take

very little account of specific climate change im-

pacts and instead increase general resilience.

Examples include projects that seek to improvelivelihoods, literacy, or womens rights. At

the opposite end, highly specialized activities

exclusively target distinct climate change

impacts, for example funding the climate

change element of coastal infrastructure in-

vestment discussed in the example of Tuvalu

above (McGrayet al.,2007).

However, such a continuum is difficult

to integrate into existing policy frameworks,

where a development based versus climate

change based dichotomy persists. While therecent widespread recognition of the impli-

cations of climate change for developing

countries has resulted in an increased ur-

gency in the implementation of actions that

contribute to resilience, this has often resulted

in a dysfunctional adaptation discourse that

excludes rather than incorporates funda-

mental underlying development objectives.

This need for sharing of lessons between the

two communities will be explored with amore empirical focus in the next article in

this series.

Notes1. Taken here to be the Least Developed Countries, Small

Island Developing States, and Africa (Huq and Ayers,

2007).

2. The Kyoto Protocol of 1992 was the first international

agreement requiring signatory countries to monitor

and control their greenhouse gas emissions; it expires

in 2012. Subsequent agreements made under the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change have incorporated a focus on adaptation, but

the post-2012 agreement will mark a significant point in

defining the global framework within which mitigation

and adaptation take in the following years.

3. The CDM is a carbon trading mechanism under the

Kyoto protocol that allows countries with GHG re-duction targets to generate emissions reductions by

investing in clean development in low- and middle-

income countries.

4. Maladaptations are actions or investments that

enhance rather than reduce vulnerability to impacts

of climate change. This can include the shifting of

vulnerability from one social group or place to an-

other; it also includes shifting risk to future genera-

tions and/or to ecosystems and ecosystem services

(Ayers, 2009).

References

Ayers, J. and Huq, S. 2008: The value of linkingmitigation and adaptation: A case study of Bangladesh.

Environmental Management. Unpublished.

Ayers, J. and Huq, S. 2009: Supporting adaptation

through development: What role for ODA?Develop-

ment Policy Review27, 67592.

Adger, W.N.1999: Social vulnerability to climate change

and extremes in coastal Vietnam.World Development

27, 24969.

Burton, I.and van Aalst, M.2004:Look before you leap:

A risk management approach for incorporating climate

change adaptation into World Bank operations.Review

prepared for the World Banks Global Climate Change

Team. The World Bank, Washington, DC.Burton, I., Diringer, E.and Smith, J.2006:,Adaptation

to climate change: International policy options. PEW

Centre on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

Cohen, S.1998: Climate change and sustainable devel-

opment: Towards dialogue. Global Environmental

Change8, 34171.

Demeritt, D.2001: The construction of global warming

and the politics of science.Annals of the Association

of Amer ican Geographers 9, 30737. Blackwell

Publishers.


8/9



Dodman, D., Ayers, J.M.and Huq, S.2009: Building

resilience. In Worldwatch Institute, State of the world

2009: Into a warming world. Worldwatch Institute,

Washington, DC.

Huq, S.and Ayers, J.2008a: Streamlining adaptation

to climate change into development projects at the

national and local level. In European Parliament,

2008:Financing climate change policies in developing

countries. European Parliament, Brussels. PE 408.546-

IP/A/CLIP/A/CLIM/ST/2008-13.

Huq, S., Reid. H., and Murray, L.A.2006: Climate

change and development links. Gatekeeper series 123.

IIED, London.

Huq, S., Sokona, Y. and Najam, A. 2002: Climate

change and sustainable development beyond Kyoto.

IIED Opinion Paper. IIED, London.

IPCC.2007: Summary for policymakers. In Parry, M.L.,

Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,

and Hanson, C.E., editors, Climate change 2007:

Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of the

intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge

University Press, 722.

Kates, R.W.2000: Cautionary tales: Adaptation and the

global poor. Climatic Change 45, 517.

Kjellen, B.2006: Forward. In Adger, W.N., Paavola, J.,

Huq, S. and Mace, J., editors,Fairness in adaptation

to climate change. MIT Press.

Klein, N.2008: Mainstreaming climate adaptation into

development policies and programmes: A European

Perspective. In European Parliament (2008),Finan-

cing climate change policies in developing countries.

European Parliament, Brussels. PE 408.546 IP/A/CLIP/A/CLIM/ST/2008-13.

Klein, R .T.J., Eriksen , S.E.H., Na ess, L. O.,

Hammill, A., Tanner, T.M., Robledo, C. and

OBrien, K.L.2007: Portfolio screening to support

the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change

into development assistance. Tyndall Centre Work-

ing Paper 102. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change

research, University of East Anglia, Greenwich.

McGray,H., Hammill, A. and Bradley, R. 2007:

Weathering the storm: Options for framing adaptation

and development. WRI Report. World Resources

Institute, Washington.

Morduch, J. and Sharma, M.2002: Strengtheningpublic safety nets from the bottom up.Development

Policy Review20, 56988.

Moss, S., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Downing, T. 2001:

Agent-based integrated assessment modelling: The

example of climate change. Integrated Assessment

2, 1730.

Polak, E.2007: South Asian voices on climate change:

Investigating the value and contribution of local know-

ledge for community-based adaptation to climate

change.Practical Action. http://www.practicalaction.

org.

Pielke, R.1999: Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change

42, 41338.

Schipper, L. 2006: Conceptual history of adaptation

in the UNFCCC Process. RECIEL 15. ISSN 0962

8797.

Sen, A.K. 1999: Development as freedom. Oxford

University Press.

Smit, B. 1993: Adaptation to climatic variability and

change: Report to the task force on climatic adap-

tation. Occasional Paper, Department of Geography,

University of Guelph, Canadian Climate Change

Program.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.and Wandel, J.2000:

An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and

variability. Climatic Change45, 23351.

Smit, B.and Wandel, J.2006: Adaptation, adaptive

capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental

Change16, 28292.

Sperling, editor. 2003: Pover ty and climate change:

Reducing the vulnerability of the poor through adapta-

tion.The World Bank, Washington.

United Nations (UN).1992: Report on United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf

15126-1annex1.htm.

UNFCCC. 2002: The Delhi Ministerial Declaration

on Climate Change and Sustainable Development.

UNFCCC, Bonn.

Wisner, B., Blackie, P., Cannon, T.and Davis, I.

1994: At risk: Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability,

and disasters.Routledge.

Wisner, B., Blackie, P., Cannon, T.and Davis I.2004:

At risk: Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability, and

disasters,2nd edition.Routledge.

World Commission on Environment and Develop-

ment.1987: Our common future, Report of the World

Commission on Environment and Development.

Published as Annex to General Assembly documentA/42/427,Development and International Co-

operation: Environment, 2 August 1987.


9/9

Reproducedwith permissionof thecopyrightowner.Further reproduction prohibitedwithoutpermission.

Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf