A Unified Approach to Adaptation and Development Assistance

All adaptation must be underpinned by development that addresses the underlying causes of vulnerability to climate change.

As U.S. policymakers grapple with how to address the effects of climate change in poor countries, they may find it tempting to redirect development assistance to cover the costs of helping these countries adapt to climate change. But development assistance and adaptation must not be cast as competitors for the same pool of resources. Adapting to climate change is an additional burden imposed on the developing world, so the means for dealing with that burden should also be additional.

In practice, “stand-alone” adaptation does not really exist. The futility of trying to differentiate adaptation from development is illustrated by the case of Tuvalu in the South Pacific, where shoreline erosion is a problem regardless of climate change and thus a development need.¹ The incremental work to address the effects of climate change cannot be undertaken unless basic development is undertaken as well. Other examples of how development and adaptation are intertwined include salt-water intrusion in Bangladesh (already a problem due to upstream water diversions), coping with drought in the Sahel, and, in Haiti, the increased risk of catastrophic hurricane damage due to deforestation.

It is reasonable to think in terms of a continuum of responses to climate change, ranging from specific measures to address the broad “drivers of vulnerability” (e.g. literacy, a means of livelihood, women’s rights) to actions that focus almost exclusively on addressing impacts associated with climate change (e.g. relocating communities in response to sea-level rise). The point is that in almost every case, development must occur either before adaptation or in conjunction with it. Rarely do adaptation efforts entail activities not already found in the development ‘toolbox.’²

So, in one sense, defining adaptation as separate from and additional to development is impractical or even pointless. However, defining them as separate helps ensure that developed countries understand and accept their obligations to meet the costs of the additional stress that climate change puts on already vulnerable developing countries. Funding for adaptation should be additional to Official Development Assistance (ODA), such as using a portion of revenues generated from a cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

Various financing mechanisms specifically to help developing countries adapt to climate change have been proposed. These are all designed to distinguish carefully between “normal” development activities and the “additional” activities needed to adapt to climate change, and therein we find a built-in conceptual limitation. There are other drawbacks as well. For one thing, the amount of resources committed thus far is nowhere near the estimated requirements, which are between $30 and $90 billion annually (less than one-fifth of one percent of global Gross Domestic Product).

There are also major unresolved issues on governance (e.g. the respective roles of developed and developing countries) and on procedures for accessing the funds. Ayers and Huq identify two main ways in which non-adaptation resources can be used to meet adaptation needs.³ One is through specific bilateral or multilateral Climate Investment Funds. Administration of these new funds tends to be heavily donor-driven, and most of the funding is provided as loans and counted in ODA—thus violating the principle that resources should be additional.

The other approach is through “mainstreaming” adaptation into development. This could take the form of “climate-proofing” development investments. Going beyond individual climate-proofing projects, “mainstreaming” could involve building up institutions needed to respond to climate change (for example, relevant scientific disciplines, economic analysis, broad public education, and local initiatives). Climate change expertise needs to be integrated into policy, planning, and public and private investment decisions, at both the local and national levels.

Just as adaptation and development share many of the same methodologies, they also share accountability and management issues. There is just as much potential for waste and mismanagement with adaptation funds as with regular ODA. Absent assurances of transparency, developed countries are unlikely to offer anywhere near the amount of resources needed. Discussion thus far has focused primarily on governance mechanisms (e.g. who sits on the governing boards for the funds, what the procedures for accessing the funds will be), not on providing assurances regarding accountability and effectiveness.

The impacts of climate change present serious challenges to the effectiveness and sustainability of U.S. development assistance, and to the overall course of development. In terms of finance, climate change adaptation and development must be differentiated. Operationally, however, they need to be viewed and addressed together. All adaptation must be underpinned by development that addresses the underlying causes of vulnerability to climate change, and this needs to be a priority of all future development planning.

Charles Uphaus works with the U.S. Agency for International Development in its office of agriculture. From 2005-2009, he was a senior analyst with Bread for the World Institute.

Issues