Adaptation Planning: The Role of Government and Communities

Understanding the Paris Agreement in the Pacific, Part 2

In part 1 of this series, we discussed the importance of the recognition of the role of local government in the fight against climate change in the Paris Agreement. Not only was this recognition groundbreaking, it is absolutely critical for the effective implementation of climate adaptation activities. While national policies and strategies on adaptation provide a framework for action and allocate financing, the majority of activities take place at the local level on a case by case basis.

What is important about the Paris Agreement is that it is explicit about what needs to take place in order for adaptation to actually work. It notes that adaptation should be ‘country-driven, gender responsive, participatory and fully transparent,’ while ensuring the needs of ‘vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems’ based on science and local knowledge. This last bit is integral - scientific responses are important but the Agreement recognizes that communities have local wisdom and practices that have served them well in the past and grounding current a future adaptation on this knowledge will increase the resilience of communities because the processes will be something that they inherently understand and accept, versus foreign scientific methods which don’t always mesh with local culture and capacities to sustain such processes.

The recognition of the role of local government and of traditional knowledge go hand in hand. It is local governments that must take the lead in planning for adaptation, with the substantial inputs from communities, because communities themselves have the best understanding of the impacts of climate change on their communities (in the Pacific, more than almost anywhere else, the impacts are already a reality of daily life). While the Paris Agreement advocates for National Adaptation Plans, which are important for tying efforts together and linking national activities with local ones, such as national insurance schemes or health care programmes to anticipate the outbreak of diseases such as Zika virus or tuberculosis, a number of the recommendations for adaptation planning laid out in the Paris Agreement are best undertaken at the, local level, and thus should be lead by local government with the active participation of communities: assessing climate change impacts and vulnerabilities; monitoring and learning from ongoing adaptation initiatives in the community, in the country and across the region; and the actual building of resilience not just of individuals but of socio-economic systems and ecosystems (at the local level).

The importance of planning at the local government level, based on the identification of community priorities and needs and local knowledge, means that adaptation won’t simply be a shopping list of ideas. Existing knowledge and practice based on local wisdom can inform the actions to be taken, making them not only effective but efficient. Self-reliance and the use of existing local knowledge is key wherever possible, with priority projects related to areas that need additional scientific input and/or significant financial investment being transmitted to the national level for support. This is perhaps one of the driving factors behind the recognition of the role of local government, communities and local knowledge in adaptation planning. Not everything can be achieved with money and foreign advisors. In fact, more can be achieved using local resources (local knowledge, resources and human capital) than with money alone. It is both more effective and sustainable.

And, admittedly, it is faster and impacts emerge more quickly than waiting for the bureaucratic process that brings foreign development assistance to communities. All that it requires is local leadership. But that’s a topic for another day.