Drawing the line between adaptation and development: a systematic literature review of planned adaptation in developing countries

Abstract

Climate change adaptation is increasingly considered an urgent priority for policy action. Billions of dollars have been pledged for adaptation finance, with many donor agencies requiring that adaptation is distinct from baseline development. However, practitioners and academics continue to question what adaptation looks like on the ground, especially in a developing country. This study examines the current framing of planned adaptation amidst low socioeconomic development and considers the practical implications of this framing for adaptation planning. Three overarching approaches to planned adaptation in a developing country context emerged in a systematic review of 30 peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2015, including: (1) technocratic risk management, which treats adaptation as additional to development, (2) pro-poor vulnerability reduction, which acknowledges the ability of conventional development to foster and act as adaptation, and (3) sustainable adaptation, which suggests that adaptation should only be integrated into a type of development that is socially and environmentally sustainable. Over half of 'sustainable adaptation' articles in this review took a critical adaptation approach, drawing primarily from political ecology and postdevelopment studies, and emphasizing the malleability of adaptation. The reviewed articles highlight how the different framings of the relationship between adaptation and development result in diverse and sometimes contradictory messages regarding adaptation design, implementation, funding, monitoring, and evaluation. This review illustrates the need to continually interrogate the multiple framings of adaptation and development and to foster a pragmatic and pluralistic dialogue regarding planned adaptation and transformative change in developing countries.

Are local climate adaptation policies credible? A conceptual and operational assessment framework

“…One may conclude, for example, that many of the actions in Quito's adaptation policy may be related to a development deficit. Sherman et al (2016) found that the literature on adaptation in developing countries on the ground offers different interpretations of the integration of adaptation and development. They recognise that this results in different considerations regarding adaptation design, implementation, funding, monitoring and evaluation (Sherman et al 2016).…”

“…Sherman et al (2016) found that the literature on adaptation in developing countries on the ground offers different interpretations of the integration of adaptation and development. They recognise that this results in different considerations regarding adaptation design, implementation, funding, monitoring and evaluation (Sherman et al 2016). In this pilot test, any effort puts into providing more adaptive capacity has been considered an indicator of adaptation progress and thereby provide credibility to the process.…”

“…Further research is required to develop indicators of the relation between adaptation and development, the definition (e.g. how many actions are considered development) and rating (positive or negative) of which will depend on the approach taken (see Sherman et al 2016). Finally, it is important to note that the number of metrics considered in this assessment (53) requires an intensive effort in data collection and no analysis has been performed to study potential overlapping or the risk of double counting.…”

Integrating social protection and climate change adaptation: A review

“…Yet, regardless of whether they are technocratic or “pro‐poor,” there is growing concern that adaptation efforts in the context of development continue to be characterized by time‐bound, donor‐driven projects, which only offer short‐term palliatives to risk (Kates, Travis, & Wilbanks, ; K. O'Brien, ; Pelling, ; Pelling et al, ). They operate within existing social and political contexts, overlooking how these structures themselves can create and perpetuate entrenched inequalities and uneven power relations that are at the root of vulnerability to climate change (Eriksen et al, ; Olsson et al, ; Sherman et al, ; St. Clair, ; Tschakert, van Oort, St. Clair, & LaMadrid, ). Because they avoid disturbing the status quo, these efforts can only facilitate “incremental” adjustments to new risks—and the limits to such incremental adaptation are fast being reached (Kates et al, ; K. O'Brien, ; Pelling, ; Pelling et al, ).…”

The Adaptation Gap Report 2017 – Towards Global Assessment

“…Adaptation can be framed more narrowly as risk management activities in response to climatic drivers, or more widely as ongoing development work that addresses or transforms the underlying socioeconomic drivers of vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and resilience (Lemos et al, 2016;Sherman et al 2016). The complexities surrounding how adaptation is structured as a policy issue, combined with its intrinsic interlinkages with broader development issues -sometimes referred to as the 'fuzziness' of its boundaries -presents challenges for assessing adaptation progress (Robinson, 2017;Sherman et al 2016;Ford et al 2015a;Eakin et al 2014). Making sense of these fuzzy boundaries requires the development of metrics that account for differences in how adaptation activities are framed, without introducing biases into global assessment frameworks that undermine objective, coherent, and consistent analysis .…”