What Are the Potential Pitfalls of Community-Based Adaptation

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are on the front line of climate change-related perturbations due to their small land masses located in areas prone to natural disasters and extreme weather events. Their exposure is exacerbated still further by factors such as a reliance on natural resources for subsistence and livelihoods, inadequate infrastructure, high population growth, and limited health, education, disaster response systems, and adaptive capacity. This entails challenges regarding freshwater availability, agricultural production, safe housing conditions, food security, and health.

Due to their vulnerability, SIDS is front and center of climate change adaptation projects. However, in the context of top-down approaches, a lot of the development gains from foreign aid fail to reach the communities that need it the most. In the field of adaptation, this observation has resulted in the advance of bottom-up approaches, such as community-based adaptation (CBA). The central tenet of CBA is that local communities should be the main actors in determining and prioritizing responses to climate change. Under the CBA framework, local individuals and community organizations take charge of their own adaptation processes, facilitated (but not directed) by donors and project implementers.

The dual aim of CBA is to empower communities to make their own adaptation decisions regarding their lives or their livelihoods, while also addressing underlying social, cultural, and political challenges. In theory, CBA accommodates the local knowledge, capabilities, priorities, and context of the community.

The community approach is increasingly touted as the panacea for climate change adaptation, particularly in SIDS. However, ‘community’ is too often posited as a homogenous, unified entity that is able and willing to take the lead in combatting a labyrinth of environmental problems. The reality is far more complex and it is important to be aware of the potential pitfalls of the community approach. This paper will examine three key factors that can influence the success or failure of community-based adaptation:

Power imbalances
Community ownership
Continuity beyond the project lifecycle

1. Power imbalances

1.1 The problem

It is well-documented that in the context of CBA in SIDS, human dimensions such as social dynamics and power imbalances within communities are the most common causes of project failure. Many are concerned that CBA tends to romanticize and oversimplify the concept of ‘community’, thereby not taking into account power imbalances and marginalization issues based on age, gender, and socio-economic position. The misconception of ‘community’ as a unified and harmonious whole ignores the fact that certain individuals or groups have different socio-political characteristics, including different degrees of control over (or access to) resources, decision-making, influence, and services such as education. This complex matrix of inequality means that some actors will be less articulate, outspoken, and influential in the context of adaptation projects. Their concerns are therefore less likely to be integrated into the project design if inclusion measures are not taken.

Political and social influence within a community is rarely distributed uniformly. If CBA does not actively seek to engineer equal representation, it can result in just a few elite or powerful members of the community having decision-making power within the project. This in turn can limit the number of people involved in and benefit from projects, and can also exclude women from information and decision-making due to traditional gender roles. If these dynamics are not given due consideration in CBA design, inequalities can often be exacerbated and elitism entrenched, thereby undermining two of the cornerstone principles of CBA: democracy and fairness.

In their study of CBA in Vanuatu, Buggy, and McNamara pointed to the rise of ‘elite capture’, whereby project benefits were ‘captured’ by certain people or groups in the community to the disadvantage of others. This phenomenon can be exacerbated by the influence of Western capitalist systems, for example when CBA projects offer financial rewards and individual economic gain.

In the context of adaptation projects, the poor management of intra-communal relations translates into disputes and a lack of community support and appreciation of adaptation projects.

1.2 The countermeasures

a. Understanding the community

First and foremost, it is recommended for CBA planners conduct a preliminary analysis of the socio-cultural-political dynamics of the community in question. Practitioners should avoid conceptualizing ‘community’ in a way that ignores the diversity of actors. Analysis should strive to identify not only sources of unity but also of division and intra-communal differences arising from gender, class, ethnicity, and resources. Recognizing difference also entails recognizing power. Existing social configurations cannot be wished away and so should instead be built into projects, to ensure that all those concerned can contribute to the formulation of adaptation strategies, while at the same time avoiding reinforcing existing inequalities. Once planners have established an understanding of local social dynamics, they can also use that knowledge to instigate change around governance and power, particularly in terms of land tenure, gender, control of natural resources, and representation within community forums.

b. Ensuring an inclusive approach

Enhanced inclusiveness and democracy are key to CBA approaches, supporting equal access both to decision-making forums and the benefits of projects. Planners must use mechanisms that facilitate the expression of multiple (and possibly divergent) perspectives, ensuring that participation is not limited to the inputs of a few ‘elites’. Indeed, the World Bank encourages participatory approaches to adapt existing power structures to ensure that the most disadvantaged are in fact, central contributors.

CBA projects, therefore, require adequate consultation with all community members, improved gender equality in decision-making, and the establishment of a project committee. Structures such as committees should be open to all and representative of all community groups, rather than just the individuals that traditionally yield power. In her study of CBA in the Pacific Islands, McNamara highlights the importance of equitable modes of information transfer for those with low literacy and disabilities, including the use of video, images, and presentations.

c. Implementing conflict resolution mechanisms

Given the disparate actors involved in CBA approaches, projects require the integration of conflict resolution and mediation processes that actively facilitate an open process of debate in which any conflicting claims are subject to critical review.

External actors can also create opportunities for introspection and critical analysis by community members, through surveys or consultation, for example. Carefully considered engagement may help diffuse social frustrations and identify the need for change. Such processes may help empower local people to deal with challenging situations, conflicts, or injustices by encouraging them to articulate problems and reflect on their causes.

2. Community ownership

2.1 The problem

a. Persistence of top-down mechanisms

The fundamental principle of CBA is that projects are fully owned by the community. This means that initiatives should be based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, empowering them to cope independently with the impacts of climate change. CBA goes beyond simply being rolled out at the community level, and must instead be defined and driven by the community itself. However, there are numerous cases where initiatives under the guise of CBA are still inherently top-down, in that communities are consulted but projects are nonetheless formulated by externally-defined priorities and objectives. McNamara theorizes that such approaches create a fundamental barrier to local approval and ownership in CBA because they disregard contextual factors and result in poor alignment with community desires and cultural norms. For example, a project for self-composting toilets and using human waste as fertilizer failed to garner community support in Vanuatu because the ‘idea was not welcome’ and ‘people were not comfortable’. Community members ended up resenting the project, resulting in a lack of motivation to implement and maintain the initiative.

b. Poor communication

Lack of ownership is also associated with information flow. In the absence of regular meetings to report on progress, respect for projects declines. Likewise, failure to adapt communication language and style to the communities in question also tends to result in poor ownership.

c. Religious and spiritual factors

As Smith revealed in her study of adaptive responses in St. Vincent, religious values can also present a barrier to community ownership. This can be due to a sense of powerlessness in the face of God and the belief that God will protect them. Many interventions do not account for such views when planning activities, even though spiritual and religious factors often hold much sway over local decision-making processes.

d. Insufficient or slow generation of results

The insufficient or slow generation of results can also impede community ownership and may result in people returning to previous practices. Similarly, if results fail to cater to both climatic pressures and other more immediate needs, such as health, safety, or access to markets, it can be difficult for communities to prioritize adaptation projects. After all, climate change is often perceived as just one of many adversities.

e. Resistance to unfamiliar tools and techniques

Finally, there can be a reluctance to make use of new unknown technology or methods in the context of adaptation projects. Community members may feel skeptical of new techniques, or even unqualified to implement them. This requires project staff to work with community members to build the capacity and skills required for the project tasks. However, this has pitfalls of its own, because often project staff are unable to carry out tasks themselves, or are not available to support community members. This can result in a failure to promote self-sufficiency and a dependence on external skills.

2.1 The countermeasures

a. Creating structures for ongoing participation and information flow

There is widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining participatory processes throughout the project lifecycle. Local ownership is enhanced by project committees, regular meetings, reporting, and informing, all of which allow community members to provide input, ideas, and feedback. Projects should also allow all community members to provide hands-on support and assistance.

Furthermore, successful projects tend to be those that respond to direct requests from communities and that integrate local environmental knowledge.

b. Integrating local beliefs and cultural norms in project design

The integration of local realities and socio-cultural norms increases the likelihood of success. It is therefore crucial for planners to understand local culture, priorities, resources, knowledge, and livelihoods to ensure that activities are compatible, thereby helping avoid local resistance.

Regarding religious and spiritual barriers, project planners might consider working with spiritual leaders to disseminate information and mobilize community members.

c. Making capacity-building a central focus

The main aim of CBA is to prepare and support communities to lead their own adaptation and resilience strategies. A crucial enabling factor for success, therefore, is the integration of capacity-building and technical learning as a primary objective. To be able to manage environmental problems effectively, significant collective learning at the local level is required to develop new knowledge, insights, perspectives, and capacities. For example, building climate change awareness and knowledge tends to enhance the ability of community members to interpret the changes they experience in their daily lives, thereby fostering proactive responses and supporting disaster preparedness. Similarly, developing local management capacity and providing skills training have been linked to community mobilization.

However, to truly ensure ownership, it is essential that training be relevant to the culture and society in which projects are implemented, building on the capacities that already exist within communities.

d. Using systems-thinking

Projects should produce co-benefits beyond reducing exposure to climate risks, such as the protection and enhancement of livelihoods, income, and food security. Indeed, overlooking parallel vulnerabilities in adaptation can in fact perpetuate overall vulnerability, irrespective of the climate scenario. Therefore, CBA is far more likely to generate community ownership if activities are perceived as addressing other, more immediate problems, as well as climate-related concerns. Systems thinking also helps foresee any externalities to adaptation projects and can encourage recipients to act of their own volition due to the multiple perceived benefits.

3. Continuity beyond the project lifecycle

3.1 The problem

a. Poor future planning

Poor forward planning fails to factor in the intensification of climate impacts and population growth. This can result in adaptation initiatives focusing on reducing short-term vulnerability, but overlooking the potential for change; an issue that has been identified across most documented adaptation initiatives in SIDS. The lack of ‘future-proofing’ has been found to result in maladaptation, thereby jeopardizing long-term resilience and creating new vulnerabilities.

However, even for adaptation initiatives that do factor in the future, climate change impacts are unpredictable and therefore present a fundamental challenge for planning.

b. Reliance on external resources and skills

CBA is ‘based on the premise that local communities have the skills, experience, local knowledge, and networks to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability’. However, adaptation projects can often feature a built-in dependence on external resources and skills that compromise the sustainability of adaptation beyond the project lifecycle. The reliance on non-local materials and expertise undermines the community’s ability to deal with any emerging difficulties, due to the lack of local technical capacity and funds for costly imported equipment. This means that communities are unable to achieve self-sufficiency in the long run, particularly once funding and external support desist.

Project inadequacies such as this seem to be correlated with the top-down tendencies of CBA, where initiatives are designed and implemented by external actors (using external resources), rather than developed by the community.

c. Path dependency

The risk of path dependency is particularly associated with infrastructural developments, such as sea walls. Path-dependent trajectories are difficult to undo once implemented and tend to ignore the need for flexibility and adaptiveness in the context of an unpredictable climate future.

3.2 The countermeasures

a. Equipping community for self-sufficiency

Ensuring self-sufficiency is fundamental to forward planning and project continuity. Projects should seek to draw primarily upon existing local resources, knowledge, and skills, with donors and implementers acting as facilitators. Planners should ensure that communities are equipped with any additional skills, resources, and knowledge required for long-term self-sufficiency.

b. Integrating flexibility

Due to the unpredictable character of ecosystems in the context of climate change, CBA must be flexible and adaptive to surprise events and shifts. Furthermore, planners must understand that adaptive interventions are themselves potential drivers of unpredictable ecological change. Enhanced flexibility and adaptability can be achieved by establishing more diverse methodologies and goals for adaptation, as well as laying greater emphasis on monitoring ecological change in response to planned interventions.

Conclusion

Community-based approaches have the potential to deal with adaptation in an agile and holistic manner, empowering local communities in SIDS to take the lead in building up their resilience to climate change. However, ‘community’ is no panacea and project planners must factor potential pitfalls into the project design. Primary sources of project failure in SIDS are power imbalances, a lack of community ownership, and poor levels of continuity beyond the project lifespan. Planners can pre-empt these issues by designing projects in a way that

a). ensures the interests of all are represented and accounted for in project management structures;
b). fosters participation and information flow, responding directly to community requests, priorities, and contexts;
c). equips communities for self-sufficiency and allows for flexibility in case of unexpected changes.

Bibliography

Berger, R., and J. Ensor. Introduction: Progress in Adaptation. 2014. In Community-based Adaptation to Climate Change: Emerging Lessons, 1-13. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publisher
Buggy, L., McNamara, K.E., The need to reinterpret ‘community’ for climate change adaptation: a case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. 2016. Climate and Development, 8:3, 270-280, DOI: 10.108017565529.2015.1041445
Catalano, A.S., Lyons-White, J., Mills, M.M., Knight, A.T., Learning from published project failures in conservation. 2019. Journal of Biological Conservation, 10.1016j.biocon.2019.108223
Dodman, D., Mitlin, D., Challenges for community-based adaptation: discovering the potential for transformation. 2013. Journal of International Development, 25, 640-659 DOI: 10.1002jid.1772

Click Here To Order Now!