Powering and puzzling: climate change adaptation policies in Bangladesh and India

Abstract

South Asia is a region uniquely vulnerable to climate-related impacts. Climate change adaptation in India and Bangladesh evolves using powering and puzzling approaches by policy actors. We seek to answer the question: how do powering and puzzling approaches influence the climate change adaptation policy design and implementation processes in Bangladesh and India? We adopted two strategies to collect and analyze data: semistructured interviews and discourse analysis. We found that adaptation policymaking is largely top-down, amenable to techno-managerial solutions, and not inclusive of marginalized actors. In Bangladesh, power interplays among ministerial agencies impair the policy implementation process and undermine the success of puzzling. Local-scale agencies do not have enough authority or power to influence the overall implementation processes occurring at higher scales of governance. The powering of different actors in Bangladesh is visible through a duality of mandates and a lack of integration of climate adaptation strategies in different government ministries. The powering aspect of India's various adaptation policies is the lack of collective puzzling around the question of differentiated vulnerability by axes of social difference. Paradoxically, India has a puzzling approach of hiding behind the poor in international negotiations. Moving forward, both countries should strive to have more inclusive and equitable adaptation policymaking processes that enable the participation of marginalized populations and represent their anxieties and aspirations. Identifying policy-relevant insights from South Asia using the powering and puzzling approaches can foster adaptation policy processes that facilitate empowerment, the missing piece of the adaptation policymaking puzzle.

Beyond the barriers: An overview of mechanisms driving barriers to adaptation in Bangladesh

“…Araos et al (2017) and Haque et al (2017) found that certain organizations encapsulate decision‐making power which leads to less collaborative efforts. Because of historical trends of preference for technical solutions over more integrated ones, the engineering or technical organizations do not feel compelled to cooperate with other organizations (Stock, Vij, & Ishtiaque, 2020). For instance, in an adaptation project in northeastern Bangladesh, the water board decided to construct river embankments for flooding ( I : interactions among national level actors ) without consulting with organizations involved in socio‐economic aspects of the area ( M : enclosure and exclusion ).…”

“…Bangladesh deals with a variety of climate adaptation issues, yet explanations of the causal mechanisms of barriers to adaptation are limited. For instance, various scholars such as Bhuiyan (2015), Paprocki and Huq (2018), Sovacool, Tan‐Mullins, Ockwell, and Newell (2017), Stock et al (2020), Sultana (2014), and Vij, Warner, Biesbroek, and Groot (2019) discuss the role power dynamics and interplay in Bangladeshi adaptation governance but there is a little to no explanation of how these power‐related issues become barriers. Our study advances the knowledge on barriers and their mechanisms in Bangladesh by providing a typology of common barrier mechanisms to climate adaptation.…”

Climate change: the missing discourse in the Indian Parliament

“…PQs on mitigation seemed to be more techno-managerial in focus, seeking to understand energy and agricultural policies, for instance-part of a larger trend that has been noted by other researchers in South Asia (Stock et al 2021).…”

Intersectional subjectivities and climate change adaptation: An attentive analytical approach for examining power, emancipatory processes, and transformation

“…Mikulewicz (2020) argues that successful alliances hinge on shared political indignations and deliberate attempts to undo constructed boundaries between state modalities, institutions, and those relegated to the peripheries of adaptation processes. Through commitment to robust partnerships that harness determination, radical approaches to (re)negotiating power can be ignited and sustained (Stock et al, 2020; Tschakert et al, 2016; Ziervogel, 2019).…”