A critical review of

1. Group 4.
Climate Change and Adaptation
Adaptation: “adjustments in ecological, social, or economic
systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and
their effects or impacts” (Smit & Pilifosova 2001)
Some key concepts
Adaptation and adaptive capacity
Climate change and sustainable development
Mainstreaming of adaptation
Karina Azar, Ida Carlsson, Céline Hélias, Nemadire Svongwa, Yang Xiang

2. Article 1. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of
Sustainable Development and Equity
(Barry Smit & Olga Pilifosova (IPCC) 2001)
Main points
• Two forms of adaptation are presented: autonomous and planned. The first is
traditional and reactive and often performed by private actors, while the second is
public and maintained in human systems over longer time.
• Adaptation is more difficult for extreme and varying climate change, than for
average changes over time. It is also for this type of climate change that adaptation
is mostly needed.
• Sustainable development is dependent on the adaptive capacity of the relevant
system, since the implementation of development projects is more successful when
it contains an adaptation perspective.
Weak points
• The text is strongly focused on a top-down approach. The authors also focus mostly
on the traditional form of adaptation, without taking the implementation and local
factors much into account.
• Both papers only consider climate change adaptation of systems for the benefit of
human beings.

3. Article 2. Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of
adaptation to climate change into development assistance
(Richard J. T. Klein et. al. 2007)
Main points
• A mainstreamed approach to climate change and adapation is suggested, as
opposed to the traditional form. This means that an adaptation perspective should
be integrated in development projects overall, as i.e. gender awareness has been.
• However, this can be problematic, since both climate change and adaptation are
rather broad concepts. Feedbacks between different factors can also occur, i.e.
between poverty reduction and climate change vulnerability reduction.
• Focus is put on adaptation being a mainly local process. Attention needs to be paid
to the local implementation of projects, since adaptation measures are context
and region dependent.
Weak points
• The portfolio screening method used is carried out differently for all the
investigated six development agencies, which makes the result difficult to
generalize.
• Same as for the previous article, this one is also too focused on the top-down
approach. The authors state that adaptation is a local process, but they do not
acknowledge that in their research.