Stakeholder engagement in adaptation interventions: an evaluation of projects in developing nations

Abstract

Institution-oriented, top-down and community-oriented, bottom-up stakeholder approaches are evaluated for their ability to enable or constrain the implementation of adaptation in developing nations. A systematic review approach is used evaluate the project performance of 18 adaptation projects by three of the Global Environment Facility's (GEF) adaptation programmes (the Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA)) according to effectiveness, efficiency, equity, legitimacy, flexibility, sustainability, and replicability. The ten SPA projects reviewed performed highest overall, especially with regards to efficiency, legitimacy, and replicability. The five SCCF projects performed the highest in equity, flexibility, and sustainability, and the three NAPA-related projects were the highestperforming projects with regards to effectiveness. A comparison of top-down and bottom-up approaches revealed that community stakeholder engagement in project design and implementation led to higher effectiveness, efficiency, equity, flexibility, legitimacy, sustainability, and replicability. Although low institutional capacity constrained both project success and effective community participation, projects that hired international staff to assist in implementation experienced higher overall performance. These case studies also illustrate how participatory methods can fail to genuinely empower or involve communities in adaptation interventions in both top-down and bottom-up approaches. It is thus crucial to carefully consider stakeholder engagement strategies in adaptation interventions. Policy relevanceWhile adaptation is now firmly on the policy and research agenda, actual interventions to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience remain in their infancy, and there is limited information on the factors that influence the successful implementation of adaptation in developing areas. Engaging stakeholders in assessing vulnerability and implementing adaptation interventions is widely regarded to be an important factor for adaptation implementation and success. However, no study has evaluated the effects of stakeholder engagement in the actual implementation of adaptation initiatives. Effective stakeholder engagement is challenging, especially in a developing nation setting, due to high levels of poverty, inadequate knowledge on adaptation options, weak institutions, and competing interests to address more immediate problems related to poverty and underdevelopment. In this context, this article documents and characterizes stakeholder engagement in adaptation interventions supported through the GEF, examining how top-down or bottom-up stakeholder approaches enable or constrain project performance.

The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice

“…Wamsler (2017) demonstrated that the types of stakeholders engaged influence the outcomes of the process and went further to highlight that the power constellation and the broader governance context shape the stakeholder engagement process. Sherman and Ford (2014) recommended careful consideration of the inclusion and detail of stakeholder engagement strategies in climate change adaptation projects.…”

Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptations in Canadian Arctic Communities

“…Once each group has finished discussing each adaptation option, each mediator would then share the results of his/her group to the rest of the audience and the focus group discussion would continue in a plenary session until a consensus is reached on the results [37]. It is important to note that building consensus may be difficult if stakeholders have different political interests and internal power dynamics; therefore, we stress the need for a sensitivity analysis and that more time is spent on training volunteer stakeholders in order for them to anticipate the complexities of participatory processes [54,68]. Next, we detail the application of each method of the framework as well as the sensitivity analysis.…”

“…Definitions of short-, mid-and long-term will vary amongst communities, decision makers, and community representatives, and need to be defined in partnership before conducting MCDA. Further, clear communication with knowledge users regarding the expected timescale of the adaptation option is important in order to manage expectations and maintain the legitimacy of the adaptation intervention [54].…”

Creating Community-Inclusive Organizations: Managerial Accountability Framework

“…To date, community engagement/empowering research within the developing regional context is limited to validating the importance of community driven approach. A number of scholars have criticized a narrowness of managerial approach in addressing multiple issues related to developing regional contexts such as weak institutions, high level of poverty and competing interests of stakeholders (e.g., Head, 2007;Sherman & Ford, 2014). We develop an organizational framework of inclusion for integrating business and disenfranchised community for community growth that illustrates the need for four types of managerial accountabilities, taking into account the unique contextual issues of developing regions -weak institutions, high level of poverty and competing interests of stakeholders.…”