As COP29 in Baku wraps up this week, it’s not just the planet that’s on the line, it’s also the bottom line. COP-style hectic negotiations are on to determine how much financial support tight-fisted wealthy nations will commit to developing countries for climate mitigation and adaptation.
From the beginning, the mood of the ‘finance COP’ in Azerbaijan has been far from optimistic. In the first week, Adaptation Fund head Mikko Ollikainen spoke about the ‘great paradox’ at the heart of the latest UNFCCC meet – the urgent calls of world leaders to safeguard vulnerable populations from worsening climate impacts, and the lack of funds to make that a reality.
The UN’s Adaptation Gap Report 2024: Come Hell and High Water, released on Nov 7, estimates that the adaptation finance gap stands between $187-359 bn a year. Much larger numbers are floating around in Baku. The report stresses another aspect: need to improve the design and modalities of adaptation projects to ensure that projects enhance resilience of vulnerable communities.
However, planning for adaptation to climate uncertainties is inherently uncertain, due to incomplete data, wrong projections, bad planning and corruption. This uncertainty can lead to failures, with some strategies even exacerbating vulnerabilities, a phenomenon known as ‘maladaptation’. IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report (AR6), released in 2022, pointed to growing evidence of maladaptation across various sectors and regions.
Farm trouble This may be surprising to many, but Shiv Nadar University agricultural economist Rajeswari S Raina argues that India’s irrigation-centric farming policies since the 1960s have undermined the resilience of traditional rain-fed agriculture that accounts for 60% of India’s arable land and supports over half its farmers. Rain-fed offers sustainable, adaptive solutions crucial for survival in a changing climate. However, government policies have often steered farmers towards water-intensive and chemically-dependent crops, weakening their ability to withstand dry spells and droughts.
This maladaptive approach has led to groundwater depletion, pollution and ecosystem degradation in rain-fed districts, which are home to 70% of India’s poorest communities. The resulting farmer distress and social conflicts over dwindling water resources only serve to increase vulnerabilities, rather than reduce them.
To address this, public investments should be redirected towards watershed development, soil moisture management and use of localised data to strengthen resilience. Measuring metrics, such as rainfall-use efficiency and yield per hectare per millimetre of rainfall could help decision-makers better assess adaptation success.
Urban maladies In Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, planners implemented extensive flood-mitigation infra based on the best available data and climate predictions. However, recent studies suggest that urbanisation and climate change have progressed faster than expected, surpassing the maximum thresholds considered during the project’s design. Ironically, the infra intended to protect against flooding may now lower resilience and increase vulnerability, illustrating the challenges of planning adaptation in the face of such uncertainties.
Review hard infra Concretisation of roads and embankments, along rivers like the Kosi (both lead to flooding) and coastal embankments, which disrupts natural water flow, is cost-intensive and locks areas into specific development pathways, can be disastrous. According to Abinash Mohanty, sector head for climate change and sustainability, IPE Global, these policies must be reviewed before further irreversible damage is done.
Identifying maladaptation, however, is a complex task. Success is often subjective, depending on when and how adaptation strategies are assessed. Gautam Menon of Ashoka University stresses that data is key. ‘India’s climate vulnerabilities are diverse, but not all of them are equally urgent. Unbiased assessments of risks are essential in developing targeted strategies,’ he says.
Despite the growing interest in maladaptation, knowledge remains limited. This could hamper developing nations’ ability to secure crucial funding, write E L F Schipper and Aditi Mukherji in their November 2024 paper published in Science, ‘Misguided Negative Adaptation Narratives Are Hurting the Poor’. They caution that the notion that ‘what cannot be measured cannot be funded’ should not be used as a reason to stall adaptation activities, leaving vulnerable communities exposed to the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
While the developing world is justified in demanding adequate adaptation funds and resisting attempts to weaponise maladaptation, it’s also incumbent upon policymakers to ensure that adaptation plans are designed as effectively as possible.
This involves harnessing data, setting clear guidelines for donors and implementing agencies, leveraging traditional and local knowledge, and focusing on the effectiveness of spending to ensure that investments deliver real, long-term benefits.
Policymakers must prioritise fresh thinking in adaptation and reduce the tendency to retrofit old projects with limited relevance to current climate realities. The adaptation agenda must translate into real, life-saving action.
