Abstract
Climate change adaptation presents a paradox: climate change is a global risk, yet vulnerability is locally experienced. Effective adaptation therefore depends on understanding the local context of vulnerability, which requires deliberative and participatory approaches to adaptation policy-making. But, how can local inclusiveness be achieved in the context of global environmental risk, and what sorts of institutions are needed? This article examines one avenue for the participation of vulnerable groups in adaptation policy-making: National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs). Drawing on the case study of Bangladesh, this article shows that the “adaptation paradox” creates a tension between local and global definitions of climate change risk, affecting the legitimacy of participatory processes under the NAPA. I propose that early analysis and engagement of existing local institutional frameworks as a starting point for national adaptation planning is one possible entry point for meaningful local deliberation in global climate change policy-making processes.
Author notes
I am indebted to all those who generously gave their time to be interviewed and engaged in this research, particularly the community respondents in Noakhali district. I would also like to acknowledge the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), Dhaka, the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), London and the Socio-economic Development Programme, Noakhali, for their assistance in facilitating fieldwork, and the excellent field research assistance of Mohammad Ashraful Haque, Rabeya Ferdausy, and Monira Akhter. Many thanks to the following for discussions and comments that have informed and improved this article: Dr. Tim Forsyth and Dr David Lewis (LSE); Dr. Saleemul Huq and Dr. Simon Anderson (IIED); Dr. Atiq Rahman and Dr. Mozaharul Alam (BCAS); William Brett (UCL), and also to the organizers and participants of the ICARUS Workshop, February 2010, for their feedback on an earlier draft. I would also like to acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was funded by the UK Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC).