Sustainable adaptation under adverse development? - Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices - page 187

that generated vulnerability. In Uwwa, persistent drought and lack of alternative
sources of water and grazing forced people to increase mobility. This in turn
contributed to conflict with the Amhara farmers, and loss of animals and human
lives. Traditionally strong social interactions with neighbouring highlander
groups may be changing as pastoral livelihoods come under pressure (Simonsen
1996; Tesfay and Tafere 2004; Tafere 2006; Lenaerts 2013). An important
response to loss of herds during drought was increase in trade through peaceful
interaction with the Amhara and other neighbouring groups, in both Mille and
Uwwa markets. However, our interviews in Mille revealed that this was not
unproblematic since markets were unreliable, especially during drought. Uwwa
residents also expressed that their economic context was deteriorating: the prices
of consumer goods (food, clothing, etc.) had been rising dramatically more than
sales prices of animal products. In Mille, an important drought response among
some Afar was to allow Amhara to cut trees for charcoal production in return for
a share of the income. Several informants saw this as a major cause of rangeland
degradation and loss of fodder trees critical for pastoralists.
The case of the Afar shows the importance for adaptation of understanding
how various processes at different scales create vulnerability, such as the
processes that act to undermine adaptive capacity for pastoral livelihoods. In the
Afar context, a sustainable adaptation approach would involve measures targeted at
the key drivers of vulnerability, including the underlying causes of conflict and
livestock loss, as well as measures to strengthen the fluidity on which livelihoods
depend, such as access to grazing in time of drought. Careful consideration
of how development interventions, such as constructing a dam, affect local
livelihoods and vulnerability is critical in order to avoid measures that feed
into development pathways that push groups like pastoralists into poverty. The
equity and poverty dimensions of sustainable adaptation cannot be addressed
unless the choices about development futures are also confronted - a dimension
further explored in principle 2 below.
Principle 2: differing values and interests affect adaptation
outcomes
The processes described above have led to a development pathway for the Afar
that is detrimental to adaptive capacity, to the environment (negative effects on
rangelands) and to social relations (e.g. with neighbouring groups): quite the
opposite of the goals of sustainable adaptation. It could be seen as an unintended
outcome of societal changes (contrasting with deliberate transformation)
resulting from conflicting values and interests - between pastoralists who value
their lifestyles and a government that sees cultivation as more 'modern'- as
well as variation and changes in values within and between groups. The second
normative principle of sustainable adaptation focuses on the different values and
interests present in adaptation, and how they are negotiated through social and
power relations.