'Autonomous Adaptation': Have We Logframed Ourselves into a Corner?
It’s full speed ahead on building capacity for resilience to
climate change and other shocks like earthquakes and droughts and flooding.
It’s the thing that everyone (ie: the development community and donors) wants
to be good at, known for. Because of course. Of course no one in a country
vulnerable to climate change, on the forefront of climate change like small
island states (SIDS), could possibly build resilience on their own, or have a
concept of what it means. Of course not, because they haven’t projectized it,
aren’t carrying a logframe full of indicators of their success and targets for
themselves, their family, their community in their back pocket.
In an effort to appear less like they are coming to ‘save’ the
most vulnerable, in recognition that the general population actually knows
stuff - actually possesses skills and the capacity to reason and problem solve
- there’s a new term out there in the academic world slowly infiltrating
development discourse: autonomous adaptation. You can read a full article by
Tim Forsyth and Natalie Evans here, but the concept boils down to this: it
is a spontaneous acts to reduce risks posed by resource scarcity and climate
change.
So, basically, adaptation. It’s ‘spontaneous’ because it wasn’t
programmed into a wider development intervention that someone is getting paid
to implement.
Ok, at this point I’m coming off as unbelievable critical and
cynical. Why? Because reading some of the arguments surrounding the discussion
on whether or not autonomous adaptation is a good thing or a bad thing (how
could it be a bad thing, you ask? Wait, I’ll get there) I felt like I was
living a subplot of Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ or some kind of colonial
handbook on ‘living with the natives.’
Critics of the idea of autonomous adaptation argue that it is
‘inefficient’ and might ‘reduce attention to necessary planned interventions.’
They want more evidence to demonstrate how it can connect with ‘planned’
adaptation to, effectively, demonstrate its worthiness.
Fortunately Forsyth and Evans presented the bigger picture,
although they are weak when it comes to demonstrating what the theory of
autonomous adaptation means in practice. They talk about how adaptation can be
a ‘reflection of pre-existing societal practices’ which just a fancy way of
saying ‘traditional knowledge.’ Autonomous adaptation implies that individuals
or communities can undertake adaptation independently of outside intervention -
principally because they are aware of the risks facing them and react
accordingly.
For example, in countries or communities where there is little
prospect of government help, such as in unplanned settlements in urban areas in
Africa and Asia, or remote island communities in the Pacific, neighbours tend
to get together to sort out problems based on what’s worked for them in the
past, and the resources they have at their disposal. There is a good article here if you want to follow up.
In my experience, the most vulnerable are the most aware of their
vulnerabilities, and have a sense of what to do when a crisis or ‘shock’ hits.
There was a recent comment on a Facebook page that certainly resonates:
“Resilience is acquired over time after being exposed to extreme situations and
you are able to adapt and continue to live a normal life in a short period of
time. That is exactly how Pacific islanders live their lives, especially after
a severe event hits them, they will still be smiling and serenading the island
way while they slowly replant their foods and rebuild their houses. I am proud
to be a Pacific Islander.” (Noa Tokavou, Fiji).
Our challenge, as development practitioners, is, at times, not
only to think outside the box but to see
outside the box. We understand adaptation as something that is planned, based
on assessments and deliberation of data. In development, we rely so heavily on
what is planned that we often fail to account for anything that happens that is
not. We’ve effectively logframed ourselves into a corner, and when something
doesn’t fit precisely but is happening anyway, we are hell-bent to define it
and name it.
We need to take more time to see outside of the box (or the
logframe). Neither development interventions nor government reach everyone.
Case in point is the fact that so much of what we do in terms of building
resilience to climate change relies on data. Unsurprisingly, there are big gaps
in data and scientific models, particularly for Central Africa, Central
America, the Himalayas and the Pacific (with the exception of knowing the risk
of sea level rise). Here are the most vulnerable places, with the most
vulnerable people and they can’t just sit around and wait for scientists and
development organizations to collect data, distill it and formalize an
intervention to increase their resilience. They have to get on with it. As Dana
Lepofsky of Simon Fraser University noted, traditional knowledge is ‘people data,’ and it fills
gaps and is extremely important. When farmers and others with close ties to the
land and sea witness climate changes, because of disruptions to ancestral
farming, fishing or cultural practices, “they begin diversifying crops, doing
all kinds of things to adjust and adapt… and it works.”
Thus, when Forsyth and Evans note that autonomous adaptation
implies that individuals or communities can undertake adaptation independently
of outside intervention, it’s because they can, they always have and, most
importantly, ‘adaptation’ isn’t a concept that is owned by academics and the
development community. It is a practice going back millennia, and is what has
ensured the continued existence of the most vulnerable communities.
The appropriation of the concept of adaptation by the development
community has resulted in our tendency to limit the definition of what that
means. We look at it through a development lens, where everything needs to be
planned and accounted for. Some things, like the processes of resilience and
adaptation, are beyond our direct control and influence and things like
traditional knowledge and practice don’t fit neatly into our theories and
logframes. And so we come up with ways to harness it (new terminology!) and
marginalize it (‘unplanned, uncoordinated, inefficient’) so that our
traditional approaches to development (the planning, the logframe, the
standards of ‘efficiency and effectiveness’) will take precedent.
It’s a bit demoralizing. Development interventions are only a
small part of the larger picture of human existence and the complicated process
of ‘living.’ When we fail to appreciate that which we didn’t create -
traditional knowledge and practice - we are limiting ourselves. We should not
expect that those communities and individuals who are ‘adapting autonomously’
should fit themselves to our box. We should be fitting ourselves to theirs,
whether a box, a circle, a line or a simple progression from one day to the
next. It is not about them making us look bad because they are acting outside
of prescribed development practice (ie: the planned, efficient intervention),
but about us learning from them, documenting and scaling up practices that
work, and not belittling them as actions that distract from the work you are
doing. Honestly, the most vulnerable probably don’t even know what you’re doing
and care even less.
Comments
Post a Comment