Politicizing vulnerability and adaptation: on the need to democratize local responses to climate impacts in developing countries

Abstract

Since entering the global agenda in the mid-1990s, adaptation to climate change has moved from being considered a largely technical and environmental issue to one rooted in more social and economic circumstances of vulnerable populations. However, research into adaptation has been scarce in terms of analysing power and the politics that in conjunction with socio-economic factors often determine how people in local communities in the Global South respond to climate change. In light of these considerations, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the wider effort to politicize adaptation to climate change research and, as a result, democratize adaptation policy and practice. It is argued that any kind of social vulnerability to climate change is, in essence, political. Once understood as a political process, adaptation should be studied critically by interrogating the local power structures and the resulting political inequalities that determine people's ability to benefit from programmes and projects that aim to facilitate local adaptation. This is necessary if such interventions are to avoid benefitting some while leaving others, and particularly the poor and marginalized, behind. Democratization is seen as a process that must occur (1) between communities and interventions, and (2) within local communities, themselves. The paper concludes with reflections on how democratizing adaptation could function in theory and practice.

Assessing differential vulnerability of communities in the agrarian context in two districts of Maharashtra, India

“…While vulnerability stems from climate perturbations, it is sustained and aggravated by social stratification inherent particularly in agrarian economies of developing nations. The framing of societal vulnerability is thus located in the context of socio-ecological processes (Crane, Roncoli, & Hoogenboom, 2011;Mikulewicz, 2017). Even within a region experiencing similar characteristics of climate change, the impacts are likely to vary because some ecosystems, sectors and social groups are more vulnerable than other groups (O'Brien et al, 2004).…”

Policy innovations for pro-poor climate support: social protection, small-scale infrastructure, and active citizenship under India’s MGNREGA

“…Still, the analysis also shows that a decentralized planning architecture is by itself not enough; much depends upon the nature of local political practice. While some scholars have cautioned that local power asymmetries risk marginalizing the poor in community-based climate planning (Dodman & Mitlin, 2013;Nagoda & Nightingale, 2017), to date relatively little is known about the conditions that can support long-term transformations in local political practice in order to bring about more democratic and equitable decisionmaking processes (Engle & Lemos, 2010;Mikulewicz, 2018). At the very least, the paper suggests that the decentralized architecture of the MGNREGA has opened up new avenues for citizens to claim benefits from the state, while more dynamic political engagement is associated with greater responsiveness of local leaders toward a broad cross-section of citizens' needs.…”

Access and allocation in climate change adaptation

“…Much research has understood this capacity or propensity in terms of exposure to hazards and risks and accordingly focused on technical solutions. This hazards approach has been criticised, and the notion of vulnerability expanded (Bassett and Fogelman 2013; Barrowman and Kumar 2018;Mikulewicz 2018).…”