ABSTRACT

In the past decade, the debate over the inevitability of climate adaptation has moved from academic to policy circles. In less-developed regions, this process of mainstreaming policy-or the integration of adaptation into development-is underway in places as diverse as Bangladesh and Fiji (Agrawala 2004). The IPCC (2007) defines adaptation as the ‘[a]djustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’. As climate adaptation becomes policy, it confronts the opportunities, limitations and capacities of complex processes that go beyond the alternatives science can propose or illuminate (Adger et al. 2009; Eakin and Lemos 2006). One source of complexity is politics-that is, the many ways actors, organizations and institutions seek to guide and influence governmental policy. Broadly, politics influence adaptation at all levels; in this chapter, we focus on how global level politics affect adaptation options at the national and local levels, especially in less-developed countries. We particularly examine how the polical distribution of causes, consequences, costs and benefits of climate change at the global level shape access to adaptation funding both under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), and under multilateral and bilateral overseas development assistance for adaptation. At the root of this dilemma is a mismatch between the causes and con-

sequences of climate change and the making of climate winners and losers. Those likely to be most vulnerable to climate change impact are both the least to blame for its causes and the least capable of responding to and recovering from its impacts. This mismatch has contributed to a political debate that has pitched developed and less-developed countries against each other. Lessdeveloped countries (UNFCCC Annex II countries) argue that since they have not caused the problem, but are likely to be the most affected by it, they should be supported and aided in responding to, coping with and adapting to climate change negative impacts. Developed countries (UNFCCC Annex I

climate change (through historical carbon emissions), but argue that their responsibility in supporting adaptation should be limited to the problem itself, that is, adaptation action in addition to a baseline that developing countries would undertake in the absence of climate change. In principle, there is no contradiction between these two arguments-developed countries caused the climate problem and should pay for the unintended damage to third parties; they should pay only for the damages attributable to the problem. However, in the implementation of adaptation funding, the definition of what is fair and what is desirable/ necessary underline the political struggle between Annex I and Annex II countries in setting the rules for adaptation funding. We argue that some of the rules of access to adaptation funding, specifi-

cally additionality, may not only fail to support less-developed countries to prepare for, cope with and adapt to climate change, but can potentially place extra burden on these countries. First, in order to qualify for funding sources, developing countries, especially those with the least policy and administrative capacities, may have to spend scarce financial, human and technical resources to meet these funds’ additionality requirements. Second, governments may be tempted to prioritize policies that meet the additionality requirement rather than policies that best promote the sustainability and well-being of vulnerable ecosystems and populations. Moreover, in countries where structural inequality and lack of resources critically shape vulnerability, the additionality requirement may obstruct policies that integrate climate adaptation into development policy and create positive synergies between them (Klein et al. 2007; Lemos et al. 2007). For example, in order to meet the additionality requirement, it may be easier for governments to build water storage structures or invest in drought resistant crops than to implement household income diversification policies that increase overall adaptive capacity (Agrawal 2008; Eakin 2000). While the latter may be more resilient in the long run, the former is easier to characterize as meeting the goals of additionality. We suggest that because climate change is one among many stresses that define the vulnerability of people and ecosystems in less-developed regions, it makes little sense to prioritize additionality over the need to integrate across policies to adapt to these multiple stresses (Bizikova et al. 2007; Huq et al. 2005; Jerneck and Olsson 2008; Klein et al. 2007). Through additionality, adaptation policy at the global level divides and circumscribes processes that are indivisible at the local level and, in practice, disables the opportunities for complementarities and synergies in adapting to climate change. Historically, climate change and development have been unavoidably con-

nected since the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere relates directly to development choices (Agrawala 2004). Moreover, adaptation as a policy option intersects with development through the building of adaptive capacity-that is, by increasing the ability of vulnerable systems to respond, cope and recover from the negative impacts of climate change. Indeed many of the determinants of adaptive capacity (income, education, health, technology,

with development goals (Boyd et al. 2008; Lemos et al. 2007). In the following sections, we explore these issues in detail and examine their

political and policy implications and interdependencies. Section two reviews the literature focusing on climate change costs and benefits, and discusses the implications of their distribution to the design of adaptation mechanisms at the global level. Section three briefly describes these mechanisms and their implications for the design of adaptation policy in less-developed countries. Finally, we speculate about the opportunities and limitations of adaptation politics and policy across scales.