11  National level policies versus local level realities – can the two be reconciled to promote sustainable adaptation?

Katharine Vincent, Lars Otto Naess and Marisa Goulden

Introduction

Climate change poses multiple threats to economic growth, poverty reduction, food security and, crucially, the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in developing countries (Agrawala, 2005; DFID; 2006, Parry et al., 2007a; Stern, 2007). The need for adaptation to reduce the potential adverse impacts of climate change is now widely recognized. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence pointing to the range of adaptation strategies to climate impacts being employed by households and communities. However, there is so far little evidence of whether and how these agendas are linked, in particular to what extent national policies are supporting poor and vulnerable groups’ ability to adapt. We investigate this issue using three case studies in Africa: South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

The next section outlines the background literature around adaptation definitions and approaches to adaptation in practice at national and local levels; then the third section describes the methods. The fourth and fifth sections outline the results of research, concentrating first on case study evidence for local level adaptation, and then documentary analysis around national level adaptation priorities. The sixth section discusses the implications of the discord between these two levels, and the chapter finishes with some conclusions on next steps.

Adaptation at national and local levels

Within the academic community, adaptation is variously defined and classified: such as the distinction between planned adaptation, where purposive actions are taken in advance of a climatic event, and autonomous adaptation, where actions after a climatic event serve to reduce future vulnerability (Parry et al., 2007b). The development community tends to define it more generally, for example: “adaptation is about reducing the risks posed by climate change to people’s lives and livelihoods” (DFID, 2006: 97–98).

Whilst autonomous adaptation can be observed – in terms of responses to past climatic events, planned adaptation is more problematic as it involves prior responses to a potential future event. As climate change also refers to an increase in variability, as well as gradual change, how this will unfold in reality is often unknown, particularly since climate models are unable to project anticipated exposures to changing variability and extreme climate events at high resolution. There are many case studies that document local level adaptations (e.g. Seo et al., 2008; the UNFCCC database on local coping strategies¹) and the contribution of local knowledge and skills to understandings of vulnerability and adaptation is increasingly acknowledged (Ford et al., 2006; Parry et al., 2007a; Naess, 2013). At the same time, there is a growing call for an “upscaling” of lessons from individual studies to make them more relevant for national level policy (Burton et al., 2008), with suggestions that adaptation responses must be integrated into national development priorities, whilst being flexible enough to build local level resilience (Prowse et al., 2009).

At the time of research in our case study countries, national level policies for adaptation were enshrined in National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) (in the case of Tanzania and Uganda), and/or in other policies and frameworks (South Africa²).³ At the time that NAPAs were proposed, case study evidence from Bangladesh showed that in order to ensure equity of outcome, and promote sustainable adaptation, assessment of immediate needs and concerns of the most affected communities at the local level would be required (Huq and Khan, 2006). In reality, however, despite UNFCCC guidelines and best practice promoting the inclusion of local consultation in the process of designing NAPAs, the degree to which this has happened in practice has varied.⁴ Osman-Elasha and Downing (2007) identified a number of constraints faced by NAPA teams in east and southern African countries including unhelpful bureaucracy, communication problems, lack of technical capacity and inadequate finance.

As a result of the difficulty of assessing the evidence at the local level, national level policies on adaptation to climate change tend to prioritize large-scale infrastructural projects and interventions. A review of 18 NAPAs showed that the majority of prioritized adaptation projects were on sector-based natural resources activities and the development of infrastructure and disaster relief (Agrawal and Perrin, 2009). They also found that the priority projects were more aimed at capacity building of national governments and agencies than strengthening adaptation capacities of local actors and institutions, and that there was little engagement with local experiences.

We take the notion that adaptation refers to considered long-term changes to livelihood activities that reduce the vulnerability to future climate change exposure, and distinguish this from short-term coping strategies that help to ensure survival through adversity (after Smit and Skinner, 2002). The question remains, do national policies on adaptation take into account local level realities, and is it possible to balance the two? In the next sections we present our observations from three case studies in Africa to highlight the differences in the above approaches.

Methods

We compare findings from research on coping and adaptation responses made by households in five communities; one located in South Africa, two in Tanzania and two in Uganda. Data collection methods included surveys of households (85 in South Africa, 140 in Tanzania and 80 in Uganda), semi-structured interviews and participatory-style group exercises conducted from 2003 to 2006 (Goulden, 2006; Vincent, 2007; Naess, 2008), combined with document and literature analysis of policies and NAPAs.

Crop and livestock farming are common livelihood activities in all of the case studies, and in the Tanzanian case forest resources are also important, whilst in Uganda lakes provide fishing-related livelihood opportunities. Non-natural resource-based activities, such as formal sector employment and informal trading of packaged goods, have become more important in the South African village. All of the villages have suffered droughts in recent years, and the villages in South Africa and Uganda have also experienced floods. In the following sections the results of the research are presented, with special focus on the evidence for local level adaptation, and then national adaptation support through NAPAs and policy.

Evidence for local level adaptation

A range of local level coping strategies and adaptations were observed in South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda, where all communities showed evidence of including their perceptions of climate risks in their livelihood decisions. We classified these local realities into three main types: livelihood diversification, local knowledge of traditional resource management, and the use of social networks (see Table 11.1). Livelihood diversification ensures that in case of risk exposure affecting one source of income, others may still be maintained (Ellis, 1998). Local knowledge of traditional resource management has often been passed down through generations orally and is not otherwise documented. Households use their social networks by capitalizing on their relationships with others, in order to adapt to risks and cope with shocks (Goulden et al., 2009).

Livelihood diversification can further be divided into three main types: concurrent, temporal and spatial (Goulden, 2006; Goulden et al., 2013). Concurrent diversification refers to multiple activities taking place at any one time: for example many households in the South African case study farmed maize at a subsistence level, but would also try to engage in formal sector labor participation, including piece jobs, in order to diversify their livelihoods. Temporal diversity refers to swapping activities over time, often as a response to the failure of a livelihood activity, for example crop failure following a drought, and is evident in all three case studies. When this no longer becomes tenable they may then have to decide whether it is worth a household member migrating to the town in search of paid employment. Spatial diversity refers to exactly this type of relocation: where the areal extent over which livelihoods are gained must change/be expanded in order to reduce livelihood risk.

Also notable in the identification of local level realities was the fact that access to various adaptation strategies differs between households, depending on their human and financial capital, and often involves trade-offs and hard choices to overcome barriers (Goulden et al., 2009). Furthermore, national level policy interventions designed for purposes other than climate adaptation can hinder the immediate resilience of households to climate impacts. For example, strengthening of fisheries management institutions and harsher enforcement of fishing regulations in the Ugandan case study caused a shock to household incomes and a reduction in assets and livelihood diversity (Goulden, 2006).

National adaptation support through NAPAS and policy

Tanzania’s NAPA prioritizes agriculture, water and energy among key sectors. It has been heralded as one of the better NAPAs, with linkages to the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP)⁵ (Prowse et al., 2009). However, the NAPA document does not specify in any detail how the priority areas were arrived at (e.g. number of consultations, with whom, and where), beyond noting that ranking exercises were done by NAPA teams in consultation with stakeholders, and that “consultations were done at the community level, especially with farmers” (United Republic of Tanzania, 2007: 2). Dietz (2009) argues that participation in the Tanzanian NAPA formulation process was largely limited to a small number of elite actors, with only token local consultations. The NAPA does make reference to local coping strategies and indigenous knowledge, but there is a notable absence of recognition of local people’s agency in the selected priority projects, and little sense of whether and how local skills, capacities and knowledge may contribute in either project design or implementation.

Uganda’s NAPA also has a strong focus on natural resource management. Indigenous knowledge creation and awareness was given top priority by participating communities but reduced to sixth priority after the NAPA team reviewed national development goals. Many local coping strategies were documented, some of which are specific to certain locations and others that are more widely used. However, they were separated into two categories: those that should be encouraged; and those that should be discouraged. The document also advises that “unplanned coping strategies should be discouraged” (Government of Uganda, 2007: 44), which implies a desire to control local level adaptation rather than leaving people the flexibility to adapt in the most appropriate way for them.

South Africa launched its National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS) in 2004. It was aimed mainly at government departments who were meant to use it to integrate consideration of climate change (related to energy, agriculture, water and waste management) into their programs and policies. However, it has subsequently been shown that there is poor institutional understanding of the implications of adaptation for government departments’ own roles and responsibilities (Koch et al., 2006).

In terms of adaptation priorities, the NCCS recognizes that the sectors with the highest vulnerability to climate change in South Africa are: health, maize production, plant and animal diversity, water resources, and rangelands (DEAT, 2004). Whilst outline plans for adaptation in these sectors often go down to the local level, they still reflect top-down priorities. With regard to water resources, for example, the proposed adaptation strategies center on water resource management and contingency planning at the national level, with no recognition of existing local level water conservation/ management measures that may be functioning as effective adaptation strategies. The NCCS does mention “creation of sustainable and adaptable livelihoods” as an objective (DEAT, 2004: 17), but contains no reference to the use of local knowledge or explicit guidelines on incorporating local adaptation strategies. A National Climate Change Summit was held in 2009 with the purpose of formally launching a stakeholder-inclusive policy process that would translate Cabinet’s climate change policy decisions and directives into fiscal, regulatory and legislative packages as well as sectoral implementation plans (DEAT, 2008). Although adaptation is included here as one of six themes, it is currently poorly elucidated. This reflects the fact that adaptation has received far less attention at the national level than mitigation (although there is recognition that more research and work are required, and that this should include recognition of local coping and adaptation mechanisms).

Discussion

It is clear from the evidence presented here that for the most part, local level adaptation strategies observed in South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda are not recognized in the national policies for adaptation outlined in NAPAs and other relevant policy frameworks. This is expressed in different ways; for South Africa, there is recognition that local adaptation strategies exist, but as yet they have not been systematically charted and thus do not (yet) inform national level adaptation policy. In Tanzania, the selection of priorities implies a focus on transfer of technology and local communities as recipients, not agents. Finally, in Uganda, a number of local coping strategies are documented, but the government wishes to define what is desirable and undesirable adaptation and this may lead to the hindrance of valuable local adaptation strategies.

At the local level, various adaptation realities are observed, including concurrent, temporal and spatial diversification, local knowledge and traditional resource management, and the use of social networks. National policies, however, tend to focus on macro level and sector-based projects with very little recognition of the existence and further potential for local adaptation. Whilst it is not necessarily a problem per se for the approaches to differ, it does raise questions about the nature of interactions between the two, and in particular whether a focus on large national adaptation projects might inadvertently undermine existing local strategies.

Thus, despite the intentions in processes such as the development of the NAPAs, the Nairobi Work Program⁶ and the diverse funding mechanisms now being set up, it is unclear whether the lessons from local realities will be taken up in nationally-driven adaptation efforts. Already potential conflicts between national level strategies and local level realities are visible. In Tanzania, forest regulations are impeding community-level management of natural resources. Furthermore, drought-resistant crop varieties supported by national programs require labor and capital inputs that put extra burdens on the poorest households (Naess, 2008). At best, people on the ground may adapt to regulations, but derive little benefit from them, and they may in fact promote maladaptation, thus reducing the resilience of communities. In South Africa, for example, national policies that enshrine the right to water mean that people in water-stressed areas are cushioned from variability as government funds the installation of boreholes. As well as being environmentally unsustainable in the long run, it also discourages traditional resource management and conservation practices, which should rather be encouraged as a form of local adaptation.

Similarly in both Tanzania and South Africa there are structural constraints from institutions that actually provide little support to those that need it the most. In South Africa, for example, the national Department of Agriculture provides drought and flood assistance to affected parties, but in reality access to it is scanty (Vincent, 2007). Fisheries management in Uganda has been undergoing changes since 2003 with attempts to introduce co-management institutions at multiple levels of governance. However, lack of financial resources from central government, inadequate local capacity and a difference in interests between national government and fishing communities has meant that the ability of the co-management institutions to contribute to resilience to climate impacts and other stresses is substantially weakened (Goulden, 2006; Goulden et al., 2013).⁷ Thus rather than having a neutral or positive effect on local level reality, national level decisions can actively obstruct the development of climate-resilient livelihoods.

In light of this evidence, we suggest that critical questions are raised by the discord between the national level focus on large-scale adaptation projects and sectoral policy interventions, and the local reality, which shows a promising array of adaptation responses that need to be supported rather than hindered by government interventions. When moving from practice to policy, there is a need to activate local level adaptive capacity, and design adaptation interventions that take account of this reality, whilst ensuring adaptation is sustainable so that it provides resilience to climate change impacts.

Conclusion

We suggest that there is a definite discord between evidence from case studies in South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda, which show that at the community level a number of adaptation strategies are being employed; and the focus at the national level which, whilst paying lip service to the existence of such strategies, tends to favor technical interventions by sectors. What needs to be considered in adaptation policy, therefore, is an explicit recognition that local level adaptation is occurring, and that it is the responsibility of each country to compile the research outlining such local level adaptation in their countries. Whilst there is a place for macro scale adaptation projects and sectoral policy interventions, special attention must be paid to ensure that national adaptation policies do not inadvertently inhibit the development of local climate-resilient livelihoods. In reality, this means that policy frameworks need to be flexible and supportive of local mechanisms that are conducive to adaptation. In terms of practice, this means that new and innovative ways of supporting adaptation are needed that facilitate adaptation whilst leaving the final choice over which adaptation actions are most appropriate to those who are affected.

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was supported by PhD studentships funded by NERC and ESRC in the UK and the Research Council of Norway. We thank our colleagues at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UEA and our research assistants and participants in South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

References

Agrawala, S. (2005) ‘Putting climate change in the development mainstream: introduction and framework’, in S. Agrawala (ed.) Bridge over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and Development, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. (2009) ‘Climate adaptation, local institutions and rural livelihoods’, in W.N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K.L. O’Brien (eds) Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burton, I., Dickinson, T. and Howard, Y. (2008) ‘Upscaling adaptation studies to inform policy at the global level’, The Integrated Assessment Journal, 8 (2): 25–37.

DEAT (2004) A National Climate Change Response Strategy for South Africa, Pretoria: Department for Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

DEAT (2008) ‘Government’s vision, strategic direction and framework for climate policy’, Presentation made at the launch of the LTMS, August 2008. Online. Available HTTP: http://www.environment.gov.za/HotIssues/2008/LTMS/Media%20LTMS%2029July2008.ppt (accessed 19 December 2009).

DFID (2006) Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor, White Paper on International Development, London: Department for International Development.

Dietz, K. (2009) ‘Prima Klima in den Nord-Süd-Beziehungen? Die Antinomien globaler Klimapolitik: Diskurse, Politiken und Prozesse’, in H.-J. Burchardt (ed.) Nord-Süd-Beziehungen im Umbruch: Neue Perspektiven auf Staat und Demokratie in der Weltpolitik, Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 183–218.

Ellis, F. (1998) ‘Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification’, Journal of Development Studies, 35 (1): 1–38.

Ford, J.D., Smit, B. and Wandel, J. (2006) ‘Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay, Canada’, Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 16 (2): 145–160.

Goulden, M. (2006) ‘Livelihood diversification, social capital and resilience to climate variability amongst natural resource dependent societies in Uganda’, PhD thesis, Norwich, UK: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.

Goulden, M., Naess, L.O., Vincent, K. and Adger, N. (2009) ‘Diversification, networks and traditional resource management as adaptations to climate extremes in rural Africa: opportunities and barriers’, in W.N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. O’Brien (eds) Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goulden, M.C., Adger, W.N., Allison, E.H. and Conway, D. (2013) ‘Limits to resilience from livelihood diversification and social capital in lake social-ecological systems in Uganda’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, DOI:10.1080/00045608.2013.765771.

Government of Uganda (2007) Climate Change: Uganda National Adaptation Programmes of Action, Kampala, Uganda. Online. Available HTTP: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/uga01.pdf (accessed 10 October 2012).

Huq, S. and Khan, M.R. (2006) ‘Equity in national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs): the case of Bangladesh’, in W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M.J. Mace (eds) Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Koch, I., Vogel, C. and Patel, Z. (2006) ‘Institutional dynamics and climate change adaptation in South Africa’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12 (8): 1323–1329.

Naess, L.O. (2008) ‘Local knowledge, institutions and climate adaptation in Tanzania’, PhD thesis, Norwich: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.

Naess, L.O. (2013) ‘The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4 (2): 99–106.

Osman-Elasha, B. and Downing, T. (2007) ‘Lessons learned in preparing National Adaptation Programmes of Action in Eastern and Southern Africa’, unpublished paper, Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute. Online. Available HTTP: http://www.eurocapacity.net/downloads/ecbi_NAPA_PA_Project_2007.pdf (accessed 10 October 2012).

Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (eds) (2007a) ‘Cross-chapter case study’, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (eds) (2007b) ‘Appendix 1: glossary’, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prowse, M., Grist, N. and Sourang, C. (2009) Closing the Gap between Climate Adaptation and Poverty Reduction Frameworks, ODI Project Briefing 29, June 2009.

Seo, N., Mendelsohn, R., Kurukulasuriya, P., Dinar, A. and Hassan, R. (2008) Differential Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in African Cropland by Agro-ecological Zones, Policy Research Working Paper 4600, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Smit, B. and Skinner, M.W. (2002) ‘Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7: 85–114.

Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United Republic of Tanzania (2007) National Adaptation Programme of Action, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Online. Available HTTP: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/tza01.pdf (accessed 10 October 2012).

Vincent, K. (2007) ‘Gendered vulnerability to climate change in Limpopo Province, South Africa’, PhD thesis, Norwich: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.