Climate change aggravates the already existing vulnerability of poor rural people. In order to make livelihoods more resilient to climate change, both social and environmental dimensions of vulnerability must be addressed. Therefore, pro-poor adaptation to climate change can imply changes in how natural resources are governed, in other words, who accesses and benefits from these resources and under which conditions.
These were the main conclusions drawn in the final workshop of the joint research project between IASS and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) “Pro-Poor Resource Governance under Changing Climates”. With the objective of bringing empirical evidence for the discussion of pro-poor adaptation, IASS and IFAD have collaborated since 2012 with seven Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) from six different countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and India.
The final workshop of this research initiative took place at IFAD headquarters in Rome, during 23-25 September, with the objective of presenting to IFAD officials the core results of seven case studies elaborated by the CSOs in collaboration with IASS. Besides the staff of IFAD, IASS and representatives from all seven CSOs, the discussions were joined by representatives of the International Land Coalition (ILC), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the German Ministry of German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ).
The participants discussed how vulnerability to climate change is not only a matter of environmental factors, such as susceptibility to floods or droughts, but also social factors related to the governance of natural resources. Technological solutions adapted to smallholder farmers can surely improve the livelihood of poor rural people – as demonstrated by the experience of small scale water harvesting technologies in Brazil and agroforestry production systems in Alto Beni in Bolivia – , but the up scaling of these technologies may face significant barriers at the governance level. Also institutional innovations such as the recognition of community rights can provide an avenue for reducing the vulnerability of poor rural populations, although they may not be sufficient for ensuring to the communities a sustainable and dynamic economic insertion. Hence, pro-poor adaptation can imply the redefinition of who has rights over natural resources and under which conditions, processes normally marked by struggles and formation of alliances to counter the existing social structures.