Adaptation Structures, Processes and Conditions

What is also clear is that most studies in Zimbabwe ignore structures, processes and conditions underpinning adaptation particularly from a sociological perspective. This is despite the fact that effective adaptation should be informed by a deeper discernment of the social processes of

158

adaptation (Wolf, 2011). Thus, the focus of existing studies on purposive, material modifications (or adaptive and coping strategies) is appropriate but insufficient alone. In this regard, Chikozho (2010a) admits that the processes of human adaptation to climate change are still poorly understood. Clearly, adaptation cannot be treated as an isolated event divorced from embedded, structural and interactional social imperatives. This is because it takes place in the context of demographic, cultural, environmental, political and economic changes as well as rapid transformations in technological innovations and global policy processes (Adger et. al, 2005;

O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000). MET-CCO (2004) for instance emphasises technology-based adaptation alone and not social adaptation per se, thereby side-lining the social processes of adaptation – yet, as an emergent property of social systems, adaptation to climate change is continually being shaped and reshaped through social relationships. This buttresses the idea that climate change adaptation is an inherently social process, underpinned by socio-cultural characteristics of the society, group or even household that is adapting (Wolf, 2011).

I am not suggesting that a focus on structures, conditions and processes – from a specifically sociological perspective – is non-existent. Rather, these social phenomena are underplayed in the existing literature. Hence, I acknowledge, for example, the research by Shumba et.al (2012) who employed a vulnerability framework in which adaptation strategies are considered as processes conditioned by socio-economic, political and policy environments (as well as by producers’

perceptions and elements of their decision-making). In this case, understanding the relationships between adaptation choices and the existing structures and processes in place, in order to ameliorate the impacts of climate change, is bound to be a central element of any evaluation of adaptation options and of analyses of the likelihood of the implementation of adaptation options (Smit and Skinner, 2002). There is simply no doubt that decisions about adaptation are attained in the context of existing social, cultural and economic conditions, institutional and regulatory arrangements, technology innovations and social norms (Bryant et. al, 2000). Similarly, adaptation processes are enunciated and pursued through the institutional and regulatory mechanisms of prevailing agricultural, socio-economic, financial, management, political and technological systems (Bryant, 1994). Failure to recognise this in full weakens any sociological examination of climate variability and farmer adaptation measures.

159 4.3.6 Adaptation Theory and Practice

Case studies on actually-existing adaptation projects, as found in the Zimbabwean literature, also provide insights on broader adaptation thinking in the country. Visibly, these projects are disconnected and scattered across the country. Few of these projects are founded on any systematic and clear-cut conceptualisation or theory of adaptation. This is not surprising considering the fragmentation of current adaptation studies and the theoretical gaps discussed above. Certainly, the bulk of the case studies and recommendations are anticipatory, directed at building coping capability through behavioural changes (Dodman and Mitlin, 2011). However, apart from these problems, a key strength of these case studies is that they focus on micro-scales.

For example, important projects on coping with drought and climate change in Chiredzi district exist, and these are grounded on three adaptation approaches, namely: addressing vulnerability, building response capacity and managing climate risk (Unganai, 2009). In addition, Lutheran Development Services (LDS) espouses a community-based approach to handling climate variability (Brown et. al, 2012).

Furthermore, so as to integrate climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction at local levels, an NGO called Practical Action has been enforcing an action-learning research and development project which mainstreams livelihood-centered approaches to disaster risk reduction (Brown et.al, 2012). This links livelihood approaches with broader institutional structures, and seeks to raise food and livelihood security among vulnerable communities in drought-prone environments. In addition to this, adaptation projects among people living with HIV and AIDS have been employing a Community Systems Strengthening (CSS) approach in Mutoko and Muzarabani districts. The aim is to build the capability of affected populations and communities and to integrate the public or private sector into community-based processes regarding the conception, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of development (specifically health services) projects (Brown et.al, 2012). Over and above this, some of the adaptive strategies portrayed in these case studies are based on downscaled climate projections and not the appreciation of various structures, processes and conditions actually underpinning adaptation.

160 4.4 Conclusion

In this chapter I examined what existing studies in Zimbabwe on climate change and variability have to offer in understanding adaptation. I elaborated on how adaptation has been framed in research in order to establish my entry point in undertaking this thesis. I started by discussing the legislative, policy and institutional mechanisms existing in the country in relation to responding to climate change. Fundamentally, adaptation is implied in the existing frameworks whilst responses in practice are very limited and isolated. I then expressed my dissatisfaction in various ways regarding how adaptation has been framed and I argue that climate change literature in Zimbabwe does not offer convincing insights in fully understanding adaptation. The use of middle-level theories is evident and commendable but still marginal. At the same time, whilst a number of empirical studies exist, even at localised scales, they are devoid of any major theoretical contributions. Overall, one can neither locate any coherent response framework on climate change nor a systematic body of knowledge on climate change adaptation in the country.

What is abundantly clear is the fragmentation of both response frameworks and scholarship.

What is also clear is the disjuncture between theory and practice.

The urgent need for serious theoretical advances, particularly innovative theorising on climate change adaptation in the country is thus evident. Adaptation in agrarian societies is neither self-evident nor can it be reduced to a list of strategies or responses to identified impacts.

Vulnerability is a useful framework but the overemphasis on sectoral adaptations is problematic.

The SLF is also a valuable approach but it is insufficient to be relied on to make concrete conclusions on what underpins adaptation in agrarian societies. In addition, the marginalisation of sociological theories is not particularly fruitful. Therefore, the understanding driving my thesis is that adaptation is a complex process such that a sociological theory is particularly needed to capture the structures, processes and conditions underpinning it within dynamic socio-economic, ecological and political contexts.

161

CHAPTER 5: TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING CHANGES IN CLIMATE