Understanding Adaptation: Origins, Concepts ...

Understanding Adaptation: Origins, Concepts, Practice and Policy E Lisa Schipper & Ian Burton 1. Re-Enter Adaptation Before 1992 the word ‘adaptation’ was infrequently used in relation to climate change or other environmental risks. As explained in the first paper in this collection (Burton, 1994) ‘adaptation’ as a scientific concept was largely associated with the Darwinian theory of evolution and the process of natural selection. Adaptation occurred as environmental forces worked on random genetic variations and those individuals in a population with characteristics of greater survival value were ‘selected for’. The word ‘adaptation’ has also been long used in a social context but tended to acquire controversial or negative connotations. For this reason, social scientists have generally preferred to avoid using it. In his well-known pioneering book Human Adjustment to Floods, Gilbert White (White, 1945) pondered what word to use to accurately capture his message that a better way to cope with floods was not to rely exclusively on flood control engineering, but to consider a broader range of options including land-use regulations, building codes, watershed management, flood forecasting, warnings and evacuation, and relocation. After considering the use of the word ‘adaptation’ he rejected it in favour of ‘human adjustment’. In the years following, the concept of human adjustment was elaborated in various ways and other expressions such as ‘coping’, ‘risk management’, ‘vulnerability reduction’ and ‘resilience’ came into widespread use. In 1992, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee working on the draft of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) went back to the word ‘adaptation’. The text of the Convention as agreed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 established two main categories of response to climate change, namely mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to those actions designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to achieve ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ (UNFCCC Article 2). Adaptation was not defined in the text of the Convention, but it was used in a number of articles and its meaning and interpretation has since been the source of much academic and policy debate. Despite growing scholarship and policy on the subject, however, the search continues for the development of a coherent theory of adaptation. Although adaptation to change has a long history both in ecosystems and human societies, it is only in the last two decades that scientists and a growing number of policymakers have begun to grapple with how humanity can actually adapt in a planned and strategic way as the climate that life depends on changes. Successfully responding to climate variability is as old as humankind – sustainably responding to rapid anthropogenic climate change however presents a new challenge. Although it is conceptually futile to separate the two, climate change is pushing us beyond the limits of existing coping strategies in many places, and additional adaptation, autonomous or otherwise induced, will be necessary. While the questions are becoming more apparent about what adaptation is, how it can be stimulated, and what its limits are, the answers mostly remain unclear. Thus, while adaptation is being promoted by everyone from the development NGOs to the UN Secretary-General, designing adaptation projects or policies and their implementation remain a challenge for policymakers and practitioners worldwide.

The papers in this Reader have been selected to give a flavour of the debates on theory and the relationship to emerging practice and policy. 2. Adaptation Theory In an early paper on the subject (Smithers and Smit, 1997), the authors trace more of the history of adaptation in an eclectic body of scholarship, which they show has created an incomplete and ‘at times inconsistent understanding of human adaptation to environmental variations’ (p. 129). They propose a framework for the dimensions of adaptation and a classification scheme for differentiating adaptation strategies. This paper and others of similar genre represent the beginnings of an explosion of the scientific literature about the meaning of the word ‘adaptation’ and how it should be used and defined in the climate debates. A select sample of this largely theoretical literature is included in Section I: Adaptation Theory. Prominent among this literature is the paper by Pittock and Jones (2000) that elaborates on the nature of the climate change threat and explains why adaptation is necessary. The paper also suggests some priorities for adaptation (developing countries and tropical regions) and begins to map out an agenda for future research on adaptation (identify the limits of adaptation or the point beyond which adaptation becomes impractical or prohibitively expensive). While this question has a theoretical ring to it, the authors are driven by very practical considerations. As the authors suggest, the paper is a contribution to the development of an adaptation science that can underpin and guide future policy. Barry Smit et al’s 2000 paper is complementary to Barrie Pittock and Roger Jones’ contribution. It adopts a broader view of adaptation and extends the debate into considerations of the actual process of adaptation: How does adaptation occur? Where and by whom are adaptation decisions made? How are adaptation choices evaluated? And what adaptation is actually likely to take place and can this be foreseen? The paper has been hugely influential and many of its ideas reappear in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II’s contribution to the 2001 Third Assessment Report (Chapter 18), which has had an even broader sphere of influence. These theoretical elaborations of adaptation have continued to expand. The concept is now larger and more complex than in its early formulations. On one level, this expansion of understanding is satisfying, but on another level the actual practice of adaptation has been slow to take off, and the international policy negotiations on adaptation still remain far short of a satisfactory agreement in terms of practical steps. The last paper in Section I (Burton, 2004) attempts to establish a bridge between theory and practice. It argues that the level of adaptation to current climate is in deficit. There is an immediate and urgent task to address the growing losses from atmospheric extremes. The adaptation deficit continues to grow while theory expands and negotiations on the development of a coherent adaptation regime with adequate funding under the UNFCCC proceed at an distressingly slow pace. 3. Adaptation, Coping, Vulnerability and Resilience. As the concept of adaptation has grown in richness and complexity it has come to be closely associated with the ideas of vulnerability and resilience. Hence, any discussion about adaptation theory must also include exploration of the related concepts coping, vulnerability and resilience, included in Section II: Adaptation, Coping, Vulnerability and Resilience. Each of these concepts has its own unique community of practice and research, which have

all contributed to the development of an adaptation science. The selected papers have important perspectives for adaptation scientists, each describing the related concepts in relation to adaptation. Susanna Davies’ 1993 paper still carries important messages: coping strategies are not the same as adaptation; too much coping implies that livelihoods are not sustainable; and shortterm responses can ultimately lead to depletion of assets, which can lead to increased vulnerability to hazards. If people are forced to continuously cope, then they are dealing with chronic problems. Davies says this should be a warning that there needs to be a radical re-appraisal of the requirements of people’s livelihoods in marginal areas. This message is important for those seeking to build adaptation onto existing coping responses in marginal areas, where the limits to adaptation may instead be met. The piece by Jesse Ribot, Adil Najam and Gabrielle Watson dates from 1996, and is excerpted from a book based on contributions to the International Conference on Impacts of Climate Variability and Sustainable Development in Semi-Arid Regions held in Brazil in 1992. The chapter introduces the concept of vulnerability and places it in a context of climate variability, marginal livelihoods and development. The authors unpack vulnerability, noting that acting to reduce vulnerability now will be valuable regardless how climate changes in the future. In this regard, they point out the importance of understanding and addressing the socio-economic and political factors that determine vulnerability, and underscore the need to address these factors, rather than just their symptoms. The paper is also useful in discussing the distinction between climate variability and change, the important conceptual differences, and builds on the discussion from Davies (1993) regarding responses to normal variability vis-à-vis responses to changed variability (i.e. climate change). Following on this discussion, Mick Kelly and Neil Adger’s 2000 paper highlights a number of the same issues, but emphasises more explicitly the relationship between vulnerability and adaptation. They underline the important point that ‘adaptation is facilitated by reducing vulnerability’ (p. 348), which is frequently, and detrimentally, inverted in modern discourse. In the reversed view that ‘adaptation reduces vulnerability’ is the implication that vulnerability is something superficial that is related only to the impacts of climate variability or change. This problematic understanding is unfortunately reinforced by a statement in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which notes that adaptation can reduce vulnerability. However, this shows that the terms of the relationship continue to be of relevance, and thus Kelly and Adger’s paper remains apt. Further, contrary to other papers which seek solutions through international agreements and help to poor countries through their national governments, Kelly and Adger’s paper targets people faced with climate events that threaten their daily lives and livelihoods. In their 1996 paper on resilience, John Handmer and Stephen Dovers contribute not only a solid discussion about the concept, but also set out a three-class typology of resilience. While they do not specifically apply their analysis to climate change it is clear that from the perspectives of ecology and risk, institutional change is needed to facilitate the required flexibility to cope with uncertainties and unanticipated situations that are common to climate change and other environmental threats. Their typology demonstrates a spectrum of possible responses to hazards and shifts in states: resist change; change marginally; or adapt. They argue that the range of responses is necessary, but suggest that institutions often do not look beyond one type. A discussion about the role that resilience plays in ecological risk highlights the historical development of the concept, which has been so important to the adaptation discourse. Further, the paper discusses the role of risk

research and risk management, two elements that have also been important in shaping adaptation science. 4. Adaptation and Disaster Risk One of the reasons that climate change is a concern is its role in increasing disaster risk. Disasters are far more visible than incremental changes in climate, which may develop so slowly that they are scarcely detectible within one generation. Thus, disasters have played an important role in bringing climate change to the general public. From a practitioner and policy perspective, it has been argued that adaptation to climate change should include adaptation to climate variability and extremes. This has generated a recognition of a commonality of interests among those specialists and those agencies concerned with adaptation to climate change and those charged with the reduction of disaster risk. However, there are a number of challenges facing the building of such a bridge. Section III: Adaptation and Disaster Risk captures aspects of the linkages between adaptation science and scholarship and practice on disaster risk reduction. The dialogue between the two has been limited but is growing, with a number of dedicated researchers and practitioners who are driving enhanced communication, collaboration and conceptual synergies. A conference organised in 2002 by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) on ‘Integrating Disaster Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change’ also attempted to bridge the gap between adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Numerous constructive papers were contributed, and more interest was raised. But the growing number of voices has not been able to offset the slow movement from talk to action on creating stronger linkages. Further efforts are underway, and the next years should see further elaborations on ways to operationalise the relationship. Identifying papers for this section was less intuitive as for the other sections, and reflects the dearth of literature specific to these linkages. John Handmer’s chapter from the 2003 volume Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, edited by Joel Smith, Richard Klein and Saleemul Huq, makes the point that the field of natural hazards has much to offer the emerging adaptation science in terms of policy experience and research output. Hazards policy has previously put the predominant emphasis on the hazard as the cause of risk, rather than on vulnerability as the main driver of risk. Handmer suggests that this attitude has been echoed in adaptation efforts, where emphasis needs to be placed on addressing the factors that determine vulnerability to climate change, rather than putting blame on climate change and avoiding responsibility for our lifestyles, political choices and poor governance. Although the political importance of climate change has grown significantly since the publication of the chapter in 2003, the discussion about the relative (un)importance of both climate change and disaster risk in developing countries serves as an important reminder that other priorities lie before adaptation and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in most of the world. The summary of the UNDP meeting in Havana (UNDP, 2002) provides a good overview of the areas for possible integration of adaptation and disaster risk reduction and some explanation as to why integration has not been successful to date. The conference brought together some of the most influential thinkers on hazards who had also worked on adaptation, and resulted in a powerful statement about the needs for greater linkages between the two approaches to risk management. This document is reproduced here in part because we feel as editors that the messages are extremely relevant and did not get sufficient attention.

Marcus Moench (2007) provides us with another perspective on the linkages between adaptation and disaster risk reduction in his rich chapter on how to move from concepts to action on adaptation and hazards. This practical piece focuses on points of entry to ‘respond to the underlying systemic factors limiting adaptive capacity or causing vulnerability’ (p.32). Rather than looking at the differences between disaster risk reduction and adaptation climate change, Moench suggests a pathway for integrating adaptation and disaster risk reduction under one common approach. 5. Adaptation and Development There is a wide range of views about where action on adaptation should be situated for management purposes. One view is that adaptation should be addressed exclusively within the context of the climate change issue and managed and supported through the processes of the UNFCCC. An alternative view is that adaptation requires a much broader approach. This is couched in the conviction that adapting to climate change and other environmental, social and economic threats is or should be an integral part of the development process. In policy terms this translates into a debate between those who favour a focus on the impacts of climate change as a responsibility of those countries who have historically contributed most to the present concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as opposed to those who are less concerned with the matter of responsibility and would prefer to focus on human development, the support for development and the mainstreaming of adaptation into development planning. Section IV: Adaptation and Development, brings together some thoughts on the implications of adaptation for developing countries. Adaptation will in all likelihood continue to be addressed both through the provision of financial and technology as set out in the Convention process and the usual channels of bilateral and multilateral development assistance. The effectiveness of such programmes depends upon the capacity of donors and national governments and others to reach the places and communities where adaptive capacity is low and help is most needed. In a broad assessment of experience of rural development in response to extreme weather, drought, and the Green Revolution, Robert Kates (2000) offers some cautionary tales about the processes of adaptation, adaptation to adaptation, and failure to adapt. He argues that adaptation is often beneficial for some but can introduce new inequities. It is commonly the poor who are adversely affected or least helped by development, suffering displacement, division of their resources and degradation of their environments. Kates concludes that if the global poor are to adapt to global change it is critical to focus on poor people and not on poor countries. This argument is taken a step further by Neil Adger et al. (2003), who focus on the need to develop and strengthen adaptive capacity. Enhanced capacity is needed to cope with climate change both at the local scale of natural resource management and at the scale of international agreements and both have to compete with other priorities and other sustainable development objectives. This highlights an important aspect of adaptation, namely the trade-offs and choices that society and individuals will have to confront in preparing for a changing climate. Changing crops now in anticipation of a changing climate may help adapt for a drier climate, but it may also reduce short-term productivity, income and food security. This is a reality that adaptation policies, projects and strategies have to face. An answer to this problem according to Saleemul Huq and Hannah Reid (2004) is to mainstream climate change adaptation into all aspects of development. An important

requirement to facilitate this is additional financial resources. The several international funds under the Convention and Kyoto Protocol are described together with suggestions for their more effective deployment. As this paper is from 2004, it does not benefit from the new development regarding the Adaptation Fund, which is now operational, with the Global Environment Facility serving as a secretariat and the World Bank as a trustee of the Fund on an interim basis, through an overseeing operational body, the Adaptation Fund Board, composed of members from developing and developed countries. However, the paper provides useful reflections on the important dynamics of funding for developing countries to respond to climate change. The debate about the role of climate change impacts in development is also addressed by Karen O’Brien and Robin Leichenko (2000). They argue that the rapid increase in the processes of globalization in the 1990s contemporaneously with the recognition of the impacts of climate change have created a situation of ‘double exposure’. Their examination of the effects of this double exposure across regions, by sectors, and from the perspective of social groups and ecosystems shows that the distribution of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ can be substantially different from that which might be expected from a consideration climate change impacts alone. 6. Adaptation and Climate Change Policy Throughout the assembled papers in this book one theme persistently appears and reappears, namely the tension between adaptation and mitigation as the focus of response to climate change. In the early years of the UNFCCC, interest in adaptation was overwhelmed by concern about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Proponents of adaptation faced two obstacles that were attributed to adaptation: reducing the apparent need for mitigation; and playing down the urgency for action. For one, ‘adaptationists’ were distrusted because their proposals seemed to undermine the need for mitigation. Critics felt that belief in the potential value of adaptation would soften the resolve of governments to grasp the nettle of mitigation and thus play into the hands of the fossils fuel interests and the climate change sceptics. In addition, because climate change was popularly perceived as a gradual process, adaptation was not considered urgent as there would be time to adapt when climate change and its impacts became manifest. These views dominated in the mid and late 1990s. They have now changed in large part because science has established more firmly that climate change is happening and is accelerating. In the latest round of political negotiations initiated by the Bali Roadmap and Action Plan of December 2007, adaptation is identified as one of the four main pillars on which the new agreement will rest together with mitigation, technology and finance. Some of the consequences of the early misplaced emphasis on mitigation were examined by Roger Pielke Jr (1998). It has been analyses like this that have slowly turned the tables so that now in 2008 adaptation is getting the attention that circumstances necessitate. This paper is particularly useful as it documents the attitudes and perceptions about adaptation prevalent in the 1990s. He underlines that on their own, mitigation responses will not be effective in reducing the expected adverse effects of climate change. Continuing the mitigation-adaptation theme, Lisa Schipper (2006) provides an overview of the conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. The paper responds to calls that adaptation had been the ‘forgotten’ element of climate change policy, as described by Pielke Jr, and digs to the roots of the adaptation-mitigation dichotomy. Even with new

developments, including the UNFCCC Nairobi Work Programme and the Bali Roadmap, the paper’s point stands relevant: the framework set out by the existing climate change treaty does not enable vulnerability reduction, but rather only targets the impacts of climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will thus never be able to adequately support a process of effective and long-term adaptation. One path that adaptation policy is described by Ian Burton et al. (2002). This paper provides a stock-taking of past approaches and research, so-called ‘first-generation’. The paper discusses how information on impacts and adaptation was initially sought to help inform the calculation and the debate about the required amount and rate of mitigation. In other words, adaptation was seen in the climate context and not in the development context. The paper describes the emergence of the development perspective and presents a framework for the development of climate adaptation policy. Funding for adaptation has been another recurring theme throughout both scholarship and policy discussions on adaptation. Recently, there has been recognition of the need for much more information about the exact costs of adaptation. Previous assumptions that adaptation could come into play slowly and as needed have now been replaced by a greater sense of urgency and by recognition that anticipatory adaptation can be more efficient, not only in terms of cost. In 2007 the Secretariat of the UNFCCC commissioned a team of consultants to examine and estimate the future costs on both mitigation and adaptation. An extract from the report (UNFCCC, 2007) presents estimates of the future costs of adaptation to 2030 in five sectors (agriculture, forestry and fisheries; water supply; human health; coastal zones; and infrastructure). While a number of sectors are omitted (adaptation to extreme events and disasters) and estimates for the included sectors are admittedly incomplete, the report provides a sense of the magnitude of costs associated with adaptation, and outlines some of the limitations of estimating adaptation costs. It is concluded that in the year 2030, several tens of billions of dollars of additional investment will be needed for adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change. This information provides policymakers with a sense of the urgency of the problem posed by climate change, and underlines the importance of integrating climate change concerns into all planning, whether it be infrastructure, education or healthcare. References White, G.F. (1945) Human Adjustment to Floods, Department of Geography Research Paper no. 29, University of Chicago: Chicago.