Avoiding the danger of maladaptation

Just as a cold bath can actually intensify a fever, even the most well-meaning methods to cope with the impact of rising global temperatures in South Asia can have unintentional negative consequences.

For example, countries adapting to more frequent and prolonged droughts by turning to groundwater for crop irrigation are at risk of solving one problem by creating another, and exhausting water supplies before they can be replenished.

This kind of “whack-a-mole” approach to climate adaptation can result in “maladaptation”, which is not only ineffective but also harmful, undermining climate action with adverse impacts, from groundwater depletion and soil erosion to new forms of inequality. A recent study found a third of climate adaptation solutions came with both benefits and drawbacks, often because climate strategies tried to retrofit existing practices, rather than addressing underlying vulnerabilities.

One critical risk posed by maladaptation is the threat to farmers’ ability to sustainably feed a growing population. This is where agricultural science and research plays a vital role by providing decision-makers with accurate and extensive information about the ripple effects of climate adaptation and how they connect to food, land and water systems.

For example, at sites across India, Nepal and Bangladesh, researchers developed a model for “climate-smart villages”, which featured a whole suite of interlinked climate solutions that addressed weather, water, crop, environment and market factors. These experimental villages allowed researchers and community members to test multiple innovations in parallel to better understand and navigate trade-offs for different aspects of food systems and avoid maladaptation. By incorporating complementary tools and techniques such as nutrient management and no-till farming, rice and wheat yields in Haryana rose by 60% while emissions fell by 88% and water efficiency improved by 30%.

Similarly, researchers in Bangladesh worked closely at multiple levels with farmers, technical experts and water management groups to address the intricate climate risks affecting the delicate ecosystem of polders, or embankments, in low-lying coastal areas. The adaptation measures, which included using high-yielding varieties of rice and improved drainage, were developed with different actors and factors in mind to reduce the risk of maladaptation.

These examples are good first steps at a local level. But truly successful adaptation and navigation of climate trade-offs needs science organisations to work more closely with governments, regional authorities and the private sector to provide policymakers with comprehensive and useful evidence about the risks and benefits of different solutions in every aspect of life.

For example, the mega-deltas found across the region are incredibly complex and exposed ecosystems, where the futures of 100 million smallholder farmers are at stake. Models of coastal elevation show that the Asian mega-deltas are much lower than previously assumed and will be severely affected by more frequent and more intense floods, sea-level rise and salinization of freshwater and soil. An added layer of complexity is the cross-border nature of the deltas, which means climate adaptation policies in one country could counteract those in another, negatively impacting equally vulnerable populations elsewhere.

By developing a matrix-based approach to agricultural systems across five countries, including India and Bangladesh, governments can weigh the pros and cons of various policy options to pinpoint the most appropriate strategy.

And more systematic engagement between scientists and policy-makers can help governments to assess and articulate their foresight needs, identify plausible and desired futures, and create the appropriate metrics for decision-making. The benefits of this approach have already helped Bangladesh to clarify its climate policies under its national five-year plan by incorporating modelling and scenario planning to help anticipate and minimise unintended consequences. Finally, amassing the necessary data for scientists to analyse can be made cost-effective and scalable by harnessing digital technologies.

Not only can advances in artificial intelligence, remote sensing and climate modelling help equip smallholder farmers to pre-empt climate extremes, but farm-level data can also be used to inform climate policy decisions, creating a positive feedback loop. By prioritising policies and investments that support more digital infrastructure and training across food systems, scientists, policymakers, and farmers and can all be better placed to anticipate changes in climate, policy, and market conditions.

As the IPCC has reiterated, the window for successful adaptation to climate change is fast closing and narrows further with every degree of warming. Time is running out to experiment with different climate coping mechanisms; avoiding maladaptation is now as important as adaptation itself.

Optimising science and research across interconnected systems is critical to better shape climate innovation, policy and practice in a way that allows governments, farmers and communities to survive the global fever of climate change.

(The writer is Regional Director, South Asia, CGIAR, an agricultural research network)