“Allegations of maladaptation harm the poor”

Countries continue to debate adaptation to climate change: How should such strategies be financed? Who pays for them? How should the success of these measures be measured and their failure avoided? “If political decision-makers claim that it is impossible to measure the success of adaptation measures due to their complexity, this can have an impact on the financing of such measures,” warns Prof. Dr. Lisa Schipper from the Department of Geographical Development Research at the University of Bonn.

Adequate funding is linked to progress in adaptation. Many countries in the Global North support a view that questions the usefulness and accuracy of adaptation indicators. “Without such indicators, however, the countries of the Global South fear that their arguments for funding will come to nothing,” says Schipper.

Plenty of examples of improvements

Maladaptation – when adaptation measures backfire and make people worse off in the face of climate change – are most often the result of poor planning and implementation, the two researchers write. It is also problematic when external donors lack an understanding of the context. However, considerable investments have been made in adaptation measures worldwide over the last ten years and these have also been implemented. “There are enough examples available for evaluation and improvement,” says Schipper.

As an example, the scientists cite the fact that irrigation is often generally referred to as maladaptation because this can lead to an unequal distribution of this resource and promote water-intensive cultivation systems. “However, this is not a problem if appropriate crops suited to overall ecology and water endowments are grown using irrigation, problem arises when water intensive crops are grown in water scarce regions using irrigation,” according to Aditi Mukherji from CGIAR, who works on irrigation in the Global South. Furthermore, irrigation in poor agricultural areas can provide the population with necessary food. If labeled as maladaptation in advance, the benefits of irrigation may be ignored and this could remove an important mechanism for improving development and well-being for many people around the world.

What makes people vulnerable to climate change?

The discussion rarely addresses what makes people vulnerable to climate change in the first place. Factors such as the exclusion of certain social groups due to their ethnicity, religion or political beliefs are often ignored. However, those affected are forced to live in areas that are more frequently affected by flooding. Instead of avoiding these areas for settlements, early warning systems would be installed.

“Maladaptation should be understood as a cautionary tail and a roadmap for adaptation improvements,” the two authors conclude. A climate reparations agenda would provide funding for those most affected by climate change without imposing strict conditions on funding. After all, those who most urgently need adaptation funding bear the least responsibility for climate change.

“The UNEP estimates that hundreds of billions US dollar need to be raised annually for such adaptation measures,” says Aditi Mukherji referring to the recently published ‘Adaptation Gap Report 2024’ by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “We are still a long way from this sum.”

“The task now is to ensure that the money that is spent is used effectively and carefully aligns with development needs and agendas to avoid maladaptive outcomes,” adds Schipper.

Publication: E.L.F. Schipper and A. Mukherji: Misguided negative adaptation narratives are hurting the poor, Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.adq7821, URL: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq7821

Contacts for the media:

Prof. Dr. Lisa Schipper
Geographical Development Research
University of Bonn
Phone +49 228 73-7896
E-mail: lschipper@uni-bonn.de

Dr. Aditi Mukherji
Director, Climate Change Impact Area Platform
CGIAR, Nairobi/Kenya
E-mail: A.Mukherji@cgiar.org