Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
-
Upload
aldo-realized-garcia -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
1/9
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
2/9
162 Climate change adaptation and development I
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
(ecosystem, household, community, group,
sector, region, country) that helps the system
to better cope with, manage or adjust to the
changing conditions, stresses, hazards, risks
or opportunities associated with climate
change (Smit and Wandel, 2006). Althoughthe entire world will be affected by climate
change, adaptation is most necessary in low-
and middle-income countries whose vulner-
ability is compounded by limited resources,
inadequate physical infrastructure and weak
and ineffective systems of governance. This
reflects profound global inequalities: those
countries that have contributed least to the
problem of climate change will be worst af-
fected by it, while those who have profited
from high levels of greenhouse gas emissionsare the least threatened by the consequences
(Dodmanet al.,2009).
The aim of this set of three progress re-
ports onAdaptation and Developmentis to re-
view debates on the linkages between climate
change adaptation and development from
both theoretical and empirical standpoints,
and to relate these to climate policy. This
first report explores the evolution of the cli-
mate change adaptation and development
discourse and describes its relevance to thefield of development studies. The second
report will take a more practical empirical
focus on the relationship between adaptation
and vulnerability, and, acknowledging that a
significant amount of the overlap between
adaptation and development is methodo-
logical (see McGrayet al.,2007), will consider
how methodologies in development studies
can be applied to adaptation to advance
knowledge on how to do adaptation and re-
duce vulnerability in the context of climatechange. The third and final report will focus on
climate change and development institutions,
particularly the role of financing adaptation
in the most vulnerable developing countries.1
This issue is of increasing importance follow-
ing the recognition of the substantial finan-
cial commitments required for adaptation at
COP-15 in Copenhagen (Dcember 2009) and
the ongoing discussions about the sources and
disbursement mechanisms for these funds.2
II How development entered theclimate change adaptation agenda
When climate change was first addressedby the UN General Assembly in 1988, it was
considered in a similar vein to the issues of
acid rain and the ozone layer: as a cross-border,
systemic, essentially environmental issue that
should be managed by international cooperation
to mitigate the causes of pollution upstream
(Ayers and Huq, 2008; Schipper, 2006). This
global and environmental discourse on climate
change initially shied away from adaptation,
on the basis that adaptation was local and
conflicted with the global good of mitigation.The fear was that some countries might con-
sider their national costs of adaptation to be
so much lower than the costs of mitigation
that no mitigation action could be seen as
a tempting prospect (Kjellen, 2006: iv). Such
a line of argument has been taken in the past
by Al Gore, currently one of the most visible
political advocates of taking action on climate
change, who has argued that believing that
we can adapt to just about anything is ultimately
a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our abilityto react in time to save our skin (Gore, 1992,
cited Pielke, 1999: 162). Development in cli-
mate change terms was therefore initially
associated with emissions trajectories and
mitigation responsibilities.
Since then, adaptation has gradually gained
prominence in climate change science and
policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) was formed by the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
and World Meteorological Organisation(WMO) to evaluate the risk of climate change,
and published its first report in 1990 that
established climate change as a global, long-
term environmental problem requiring action.
This stimulated the creation of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992 at the
Earth Summit. Although both mitigation and
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
3/9
Jessica Ayers and David Dodman 163
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
adaptation were set out in the Convention,the focus remained on mitigation.
By the time of the third IPCC report in 2001,it had become evident that mitigation effortswould not prevent climate change impacts,and that these would be felt particularlystrongly in low- and middle-income countries.Adaptation began to be associated with theinterests of developing countries, and it wasrecognised that adaptive capacity was depen-dent on development contexts. This wastranslated into policy in the Marrakech Accords,established at the seventh Conference of theParties to the UNFCCC (COP7) in 2001,which created three new funds to assist ad-aptation in developing countries: the LeastDeveloped Countries Fund to support the49 least developed countries to adapt to climatechange, and initially used to fund the design ofNational Adaptation Programmes of Action(NAPAs); the Special Climate Change Fund tosupport a number of climate change activitiesincluding mitigation and technology transfer,but intended to prioritise adaptation; and theKyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund, financedthrough a levy on the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM)3and intended to supportconcrete adaptation projects in developing
countries.The IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report
in 2007 showed that climate change impactswere observable, and gave rise to the messagethat action on adaptation, particularly in de-veloping countries, was an urgent priority.This has penetrated the global rhetoric onclimate change, and adaptation is now seen asa legitimate policy option alongside mitigation:even Al Gore was recently reported in the
Economist(11/9/08) as saying I used to think
adaptation subtracted from our efforts onprevention. But Ive changed my mind Poorcountries are vulnerable and need our help.The outcomes with regard to policy have seenCOP13 in Bali in 2007 bringing adaptation onto equal footing with mitigation, highlightingit as one of four building blocks required inresponse to climate change: alongside miti-
gation, technology cooperation and finance
(Ayers and Huq, 2008). As adaptation
gained prominence in the negotiations and
policy, it has become increasingly branded as
a developing country issue, and supporting
adaptation is often seen as tantamount to sup-
porting development.
III How climate change entered thedevelopment arenaThe link between climate change and develop-
ment was drawn in the development arena as
early as 1987, when the Brundtland Report
Our Common Futurecited climate change as
a major environmental challenge facing de-
velopment (World Commission on Environ-
ment and Development, 1987). In 1992, the
United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development produced the Rio Declaration
and Agenda 21, both of which made explicit
connections between environment and de-
velopment (UN, 1992). These themes were
taken up by the research community, who began
to apply theories of vulnerability to climate
change adaptation. Development was seen as
making an important contribution to climate
change adaptation through strengthening en-
titlements and boosting the resilience of in-
dividuals and communities (see Adger, 1999;Cohen, 1998; Sen, 1999; Smit, 1993).
However, the dominance of the mitigation
agenda in the climate change discourse of the
1990s meant that development practitioners
were initially slow to adopt climate change in
practice, perceiving it as an issue of scienti-
fic constructiona global scale environmental
problem caused by the universal physical pro-
perties of greenhouse gases (Demeritt, 2001:
307), with little relevance for poverty alleviation,
poor communities, and development. Thisis reflected by the absence of any clear re-
ference to climate change in the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) drafted in 2001.
However, a 2002 report released by 10 leading
development funding agencies Poverty and
climate change: Reducing the vulnerability
of the poor through adaptation stated that
climate change was a threat to development
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
4/9
164 Climate change adaptation and development I
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
efforts and poverty reduction, including the
achievement of the Millennium Development
Goals, and that pro-poor development was key
to successful adaptation. The report reflects
many of the themes emerging in the academic
literature on vulnerability at the time (for ex-ample, Huq et al., 2002; Kates, 2000; Smit
et al., 2000), including recommendations
to support sustainable livelihoods, improve
governance, and make institutions more ac-
countable and participatory (Klein, 2008;
Sperling, 2003).
Since 2002, research and NGO communities
have increasingly incorporated climate change
within their development work, believing they
have the skills, experience, local knowledge and
networks to undertake locally appropriate vul-nerability reduction activities that increase
resilience to a range of factors including climate
change. This is particularly evident through
the recently emerging discourse of Community-
Based Adaptation (CBA). CBA claims to
identify, assist, and implement community-
based development activities, research and
policy in regions where adaptive capacity is
as dependent on livelihood indicators as cli-
matic changes. In practice, CBA is often not
dissimilar to development (Polak, 2007); the
difference lying less with the intervention
itself than the inputs to and motivations for
the intervention.
The risks that climate change presents
to development interventions have also
been recognised by many major donors who
are taking steps to mainstream adaptation
into development policies and programmes.
Mainstreaming involves integrating climate
change adaptation into social, institutionaland infrastructural development planning, and
has been adopted in a variety of forms in de-
velopment policy and practice. Most major
donor agencies including the World Bank,
regional development banks and national
donors, are climate proofing their development
investments by screening them for climate
change vulnerabilities and then taking action
to address them (Burton et al., 2006; Klein
et al., 2007; Schipper, 2006). However, al-
though mainstreaming does link climate change
and development and is seen by many as a
win-win opportunity for development organ-
isations, this approach depicts adaptation assomething external to be tacked onto de-
velopment rather than being an integral part
of it. In other words, mainstreaming can be
depicted as adaptationplusdevelopment, in
contrast to a CBA approach which adopts an
adaptationasdevelopment approach.
IV Unresolved tensions betweenadaptation and developmentThe ways in which the adaptation agenda has
evolved within climate change and develop-ment discourses has resulted in confusion both
within and between the development and
climate change arenas on several issues: what
adaptation actually is; the distinction between
adaptation and development (indeed, whether
there is a distinction at all); and differing per-
spectives of how to do good adaptation.
1 Understanding adaptation
Smit et al.,(2000) suggest that variations in
interpretations of adaptation include adap-tation to what? which can refer to climate,
climate variability, or climate change and
who or what adapts? which might refer to
people, social or economic sectors, processes,
or system structures. Within the international
climate change frameworks of the UNFCCC,
adaptation to what? is interpreted as adap-
tation specifically to climate change, rather
than to broader climate variability (including
climate change), and without taking into
account underlying drivers of vulnerabilitystemming from development needs. This
has given rise to a policy context that is sci-
entific, technical, and environmental, and a
technology based view of adaptation that
has placed priority on adaptation measures
such as dams, early-warning systems, seeds
and irrigation schemes based on specific know-
ledge of future climate change conditions
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
5/9
Jessica Ayers and David Dodman 165
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
(Klein, 2008). Correspondingly, the UNFCCC
treats adaptation in the narrowest sense, as
an issue of climate change, with adaptation
actions limited to changes that are proven to
be anthropogenic and distinct from climatic
variability. Adaptation interventions are there-fore stand-alone and additional to baseline
development needs.
However, development practitioners, parti-
cularly those engaged with the CBA agenda,
argue that this interpretation of adaptation
limits the extent to which adaptation can
contribute to broader and more sustainable
vulnerability reduction. This has been re-
peatedly demonstrated through debates in
development studies in relation to disaster risk
reduction (see for example Janssenet al.,2006;Smit and Wandel, 2006; Wisneret al.,2004)
which connect the risks people face with the
specific and contextual reasons behind their
vulnerability in the first place (Wisner et al.,
2004). Accordingly, technology-based meas-
ures can only be partially effective if they do
not also address non-climatic factors that are
the underlying drivers of vulnerability. Klein
(2008) provides the example of improving a
water-supply system where climate change
is associated with increased drought, which
can only be effective in so far as everyone has
equal access to that system; if the unequal
distribution of water rights or the price of
water excludes certain users from the system,
people will remain vulnerable to drought. The
definition of adaptation as an issue of climate
change has created policy frameworks that
do not fit with defining adaptation in terms of
sustainable development.
From a development viewpoint, adaptationand development are often viewed as sy-
nonymous, as stated by Huq and Ayers
(2008a: 52):
Good (or sustainable) development (policies
and practice) can (and often does) lead to
building adaptive capacity. Doing adaptation
to climate change often also means doing
good (or sustainable) development.
Any adaptation intervention cannot
be stand alone but must go hand in hand
with development, as with mainstreaming
(adaptation plus development), or even be
synonymous with development (adaptation
as development). Adaptation as developmentwould involve making progress against the
development indicators in light of climate
change, including reducing poverty, providing
general education and health benefits, im-
proving living conditions and providing access
to financial markets and technologies, which
will all improve the livelihood of individuals,
households and communities, increasing their
ability to engage in adaptive action (Ayers and
Huq, 2009).
In terms of understanding adaptation, then,we see three types of adaptation emerging
from the climate change and development com-
munities: stand-alone adaptation, as inter-
preted under the UNFCCC; and then from
the development community, adaptation plus
development, where development is climate
proofed; and adaptation as development,
where development is the basis for, and in some
cases synonymous with, adaptation, as is the
case with CBA. However, there is a danger of
going too far: not all adaptation is development,and not all development contributes towards
adaptation. Long term adaptation priorities may
conflict with near-term development priorities.
For example, economic development strategies
which do not take into account the long term
implications of climate change could increase
dependency on climate sensitive resources
and ultimately prove maladaptive.4Likewise,
climate proofing development interventions
may give rise to a conflict of interest between
external donors wishing to ensure the longerterm resilience of investments, and recipient
countries wishing to maintain ownership
over their development priorities and control
over national development budgets. While for
either process to work, each must reinforce the
other (Huqet al., 2002), greater attention is
needed to resolving tradeoffs between adap-
tation and development when they arise.
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
6/9
166 Climate change adaptation and development I
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
2 Doing adaptation
These varying perspectives are giving rise to
confusion over how to do adaptation, in some
cases resulting in maladaptive practices that fail
to bring essential adaptation and development
perspectives together in a productive way.
Stand-alone interpretations adopted by the
UNFCCC are proving problematic, as can
be demonstrated by LDC Fund finance for
projects identified under National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPAs). To give a
recent example, one of the projects identified
by the NAPA of Tuvalu is coastal infrastructure
to protect the shoreline from erosion, a prob-
lem regardless of climate change (and so an
existing development need), but one exacer-
bated by climate change (so also an additionalcost). The LDC Fund will only fund the ad-
ditional cost of adaptation. However, not
only has distinguishing between additional
and baseline adaptation needs on the ground
proved extremely difficult, but, being a poor
country, Tuvalu cannot afford to meet the
costs of baseline infrastructure. Thus, the
offer to fund, as it were, the top section
of the infrastructure required to respond
to additional impacts of climate change, is
absurd in light of the fact that co-financing topay for the lower section cannot be found. The
project is currently in limbo while co-financing
is sought (Ayers and Huq, 2009).
On the other hand, the development first
approach frequently fails to give sufficient (if
any) weight to the longer term climate impli-
cations on project areas, thereby affecting
the ultimate sustainability of the adaptation
intervention. While development studies has
helped to prove the contextual nature of risk
and the need to address the underlying driversof vulnerability, debates around adaptation
cannot be reduced to the technology versus
development dichotomy applied to disaster
risk reduction in the past (see Wisner et al.,
1994). Adaptation to climate change extends
beyond understanding current vulnerability
and must also encompass assessments of
future climatic trends. Therefore, while it is
essential to retain an understanding of the
local nature of vulnerability and its relationship
with the broader development context, there
is also a fundamental need to bring in external
technological expertise (in the form of climate
science and new technologies) to adaptation or adaptation activities may themselves not be
climate proof .
The failure of some CBA activities to incor-
porate climate change data in a systematic
way not only threatens the long term viabil-
ity of these projects, but also alienates them
from larger climate change frameworks. And
although some literature has begun to emerge
which deals with local adaptation case studies
(see, for example, Mosset al.,2001; Morduch
and Sharma, 2002), there is a lack of attentionto scaling up of these examples, and assessing
how they can contribute to larger scale, more
technical approaches (Smit and Wandel,
2006). The result is that:
Local initiatives, to enhanceadaptive cap-
acity, may be constrained or even nullified by
broader social, economic and political forces
that effectively shape local vulnerabilities
(ibid: 289).
V Where are we now?Much progress has been made in bringing to-
gether adaptation and development: the im-
plications of climate change for developing
countries are now well documented, and
adaptation has risen up the international
climate change policy agenda. Development
practitioners have also begun to incorporate
adaptation into their work, highlighting the
need to address the underlying causes of vul-
nerability in building adaptive capacity to cli-
mate change.However, stand-alone notions of adap-
tation still persist under the UNFCCC that
fail to incorporate many of the lessons learned
by development practitioners in recent years:
for example about the unexpected and un-
intended consequences of large scale tech-
nical solutions; the depth and breadth of
local knowledge; and the vital importance of
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
7/9
Jessica Ayers and David Dodman 167
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
community participation. At the same time,
good development practice also needs to
take climate change adaptation into account
at every stage in order to avoid wasting re-
sources, ensure long-term sustainability and
prevent mal-adaptations. Within both cli-mate change and development arenas there
is a need for greater acceptance of broader
definitions of adaptation that incorporate
development priorities in the context of a
changing climate.
Some steps have been taken to bring to-
gether technology based and development
based adaptation, and everything in between.
For example, a recent report from the World
Resources Institute, Weathering the Storm,
reviewed more than 100 initiatives labelledas adaptation in developing countries, and
found that adaptation and development are
not discrete activities but instead lie along a
continuum from development orientated to
climate change orientated. At the develop-
ment end, efforts overlap almost completely
with traditional development practice (for
example, much CBA), where activities take
very little account of specific climate change im-
pacts and instead increase general resilience.
Examples include projects that seek to improvelivelihoods, literacy, or womens rights. At
the opposite end, highly specialized activities
exclusively target distinct climate change
impacts, for example funding the climate
change element of coastal infrastructure in-
vestment discussed in the example of Tuvalu
above (McGrayet al.,2007).
However, such a continuum is difficult
to integrate into existing policy frameworks,
where a development based versus climate
change based dichotomy persists. While therecent widespread recognition of the impli-
cations of climate change for developing
countries has resulted in an increased ur-
gency in the implementation of actions that
contribute to resilience, this has often resulted
in a dysfunctional adaptation discourse that
excludes rather than incorporates funda-
mental underlying development objectives.
This need for sharing of lessons between the
two communities will be explored with amore empirical focus in the next article in
this series.
Notes1. Taken here to be the Least Developed Countries, Small
Island Developing States, and Africa (Huq and Ayers,
2007).
2. The Kyoto Protocol of 1992 was the first international
agreement requiring signatory countries to monitor
and control their greenhouse gas emissions; it expires
in 2012. Subsequent agreements made under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change have incorporated a focus on adaptation, but
the post-2012 agreement will mark a significant point in
defining the global framework within which mitigation
and adaptation take in the following years.
3. The CDM is a carbon trading mechanism under the
Kyoto protocol that allows countries with GHG re-duction targets to generate emissions reductions by
investing in clean development in low- and middle-
income countries.
4. Maladaptations are actions or investments that
enhance rather than reduce vulnerability to impacts
of climate change. This can include the shifting of
vulnerability from one social group or place to an-
other; it also includes shifting risk to future genera-
tions and/or to ecosystems and ecosystem services
(Ayers, 2009).
References
Ayers, J. and Huq, S. 2008: The value of linkingmitigation and adaptation: A case study of Bangladesh.
Environmental Management. Unpublished.
Ayers, J. and Huq, S. 2009: Supporting adaptation
through development: What role for ODA?Develop-
ment Policy Review27, 67592.
Adger, W.N.1999: Social vulnerability to climate change
and extremes in coastal Vietnam.World Development
27, 24969.
Burton, I.and van Aalst, M.2004:Look before you leap:
A risk management approach for incorporating climate
change adaptation into World Bank operations.Review
prepared for the World Banks Global Climate Change
Team. The World Bank, Washington, DC.Burton, I., Diringer, E.and Smith, J.2006:,Adaptation
to climate change: International policy options. PEW
Centre on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.
Cohen, S.1998: Climate change and sustainable devel-
opment: Towards dialogue. Global Environmental
Change8, 34171.
Demeritt, D.2001: The construction of global warming
and the politics of science.Annals of the Association
of Amer ican Geographers 9, 30737. Blackwell
Publishers.
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
8/9
168 Climate change adaptation and development I
Progress in Development Studies10, 2 (2010) pp. 16168
Dodman, D., Ayers, J.M.and Huq, S.2009: Building
resilience. In Worldwatch Institute, State of the world
2009: Into a warming world. Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, DC.
Huq, S.and Ayers, J.2008a: Streamlining adaptation
to climate change into development projects at the
national and local level. In European Parliament,
2008:Financing climate change policies in developing
countries. European Parliament, Brussels. PE 408.546-
IP/A/CLIP/A/CLIM/ST/2008-13.
Huq, S., Reid. H., and Murray, L.A.2006: Climate
change and development links. Gatekeeper series 123.
IIED, London.
Huq, S., Sokona, Y. and Najam, A. 2002: Climate
change and sustainable development beyond Kyoto.
IIED Opinion Paper. IIED, London.
IPCC.2007: Summary for policymakers. In Parry, M.L.,
Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,
and Hanson, C.E., editors, Climate change 2007:
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press, 722.
Kates, R.W.2000: Cautionary tales: Adaptation and the
global poor. Climatic Change 45, 517.
Kjellen, B.2006: Forward. In Adger, W.N., Paavola, J.,
Huq, S. and Mace, J., editors,Fairness in adaptation
to climate change. MIT Press.
Klein, N.2008: Mainstreaming climate adaptation into
development policies and programmes: A European
Perspective. In European Parliament (2008),Finan-
cing climate change policies in developing countries.
European Parliament, Brussels. PE 408.546 IP/A/CLIP/A/CLIM/ST/2008-13.
Klein, R .T.J., Eriksen , S.E.H., Na ess, L. O.,
Hammill, A., Tanner, T.M., Robledo, C. and
OBrien, K.L.2007: Portfolio screening to support
the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change
into development assistance. Tyndall Centre Work-
ing Paper 102. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
research, University of East Anglia, Greenwich.
McGray,H., Hammill, A. and Bradley, R. 2007:
Weathering the storm: Options for framing adaptation
and development. WRI Report. World Resources
Institute, Washington.
Morduch, J. and Sharma, M.2002: Strengtheningpublic safety nets from the bottom up.Development
Policy Review20, 56988.
Moss, S., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Downing, T. 2001:
Agent-based integrated assessment modelling: The
example of climate change. Integrated Assessment
2, 1730.
Polak, E.2007: South Asian voices on climate change:
Investigating the value and contribution of local know-
ledge for community-based adaptation to climate
change.Practical Action. http://www.practicalaction.
org.
Pielke, R.1999: Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change
42, 41338.
Schipper, L. 2006: Conceptual history of adaptation
in the UNFCCC Process. RECIEL 15. ISSN 0962
8797.
Sen, A.K. 1999: Development as freedom. Oxford
University Press.
Smit, B. 1993: Adaptation to climatic variability and
change: Report to the task force on climatic adap-
tation. Occasional Paper, Department of Geography,
University of Guelph, Canadian Climate Change
Program.
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.and Wandel, J.2000:
An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and
variability. Climatic Change45, 23351.
Smit, B.and Wandel, J.2006: Adaptation, adaptive
capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change16, 28292.
Sperling, editor. 2003: Pover ty and climate change:
Reducing the vulnerability of the poor through adapta-
tion.The World Bank, Washington.
United Nations (UN).1992: Report on United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf
15126-1annex1.htm.
UNFCCC. 2002: The Delhi Ministerial Declaration
on Climate Change and Sustainable Development.
UNFCCC, Bonn.
Wisner, B., Blackie, P., Cannon, T.and Davis, I.
1994: At risk: Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability,
and disasters.Routledge.
Wisner, B., Blackie, P., Cannon, T.and Davis I.2004:
At risk: Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability, and
disasters,2nd edition.Routledge.
World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment.1987: Our common future, Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development.
Published as Annex to General Assembly documentA/42/427,Development and International Co-
operation: Environment, 2 August 1987.
-
7/21/2019 Climate Change adaptation and development I: the state of the debate- Jessica Ayers.pdf
9/9
Reproducedwith permissionof thecopyrightowner.Further reproduction prohibitedwithoutpermission.