See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266375247

The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, Agrarian

Change and the Conflicts of Development

Book · November 2014

DOI: 10.4324/9780203762486

CITATIONS READS

381 8,054

1 author:

Marcus Taylor
Queen's University
53 PUBLICATIONS 2,810 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcus Taylor on 02 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Routledge Explorations in Development Studies

THE POLITICAL
ECOLOGY OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION
Livelihoods, Agrarian Change
and the Conflicts of Development

MARCUS TAYLOR
  
 
The  Political  Ecology  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation:  
Livelihoods,  Agrarian  Change  and  the  Conflicts  of  Development  
(Routledge  Press,  2014)  
 
 
 
Marcus  Taylor,  
Associate  Professor,  
Department  of  Global  Development  Studies,  
School  of  Environmental  Studies  
Queen’s  University,  Kingston,  Canada  
[email protected]  
 
 
Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  
1. Climate  Change  and  the  Frontiers  of  Political  Ecology    
2. Socialising  Climate  
3. Making  a  World  of  Adaptation  
4. Power,  Inequality  and  Relational  Vulnerability  
5. Climate,  Capital  and  Agrarian  Transformations  
6. Pakistan  –  Historicising  Adaptation  in  the  Indus  Watershed  
7. India  –  Water,  Debt  and  Distress  in  the  Deccan  Plateau  
8. Mongolia  –  Pastoralists,  Resilience  and  the  Empowerment  of  Climate  
Conclusion:  Adapting  to  a  World  of  Adaptation  
“Embedding  his  narrative  in  powerful  empirical  studies  of  extreme-­‐weather  events  in  India,  Pakistan,  
and  the  Mongolian  steppes,  Taylor  produces  the  most  incisive  and  sustained  interrogation  to  date  of  
the  society/climate  binary  inherent  in  much  that  is  written  on  climate-­‐change  adaptation.  His  own  
strategy  of  reading  climate  from  a  materialist  point  of  view  will  no  doubt  provoke  and  enrich  
debates.”  

Dipesh  Chakrabarty,  University  of  Chicago,  USA  

“For  those  suspicious  of  global  calls  for  “adapting”  to  climate  change,  Marcus  Taylor  provides  
ammunition  and  logic:  an  avalanche  of  detailed,  intuitive,  radical  and  compelling  arguments  and  
cases  from  around  the  world.  For  advocates  of  adaptation,  he  offers  a  grim  and  sobering  reminder  of  
the  politically-­‐loaded  and  careless  violence  of  the  international  development  machine.”  

Paul  Robbins,  University  of  Wisconsin-­‐Madison,  USA  

“Taylor’s  brilliant  and  pathbreaking  new  book  explores  the  genealogy  and  construction  of  adaptation  
as  a  complex  new  field  of  knowledge  and  practice.  It  demonstrates  how  power,  political  economy  
and  the  production  of  vulnerability  must  be  the  foundations  upon  which  new  and  radically  
transformative  ideas  and  policies  to  combat  climate  change  are  constructed.  A  brave  and  important  
book.”  

Michael  Watts,  University  of  California  Berkeley,  USA  

“This  book  provides  a  compelling  answer  for  why  it  is  that,  although  we  know  that  climate  change  is  
a  real  and  pressing  issue,  preciously  little  real  change  is  taking  place.  It  offers  an  incisive  analysis  of  
adaptation  and  what  might  be  wrong  with  it.”  

Erik  Swyngedouw,  University  of  Manchester,  UK  

 
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

Preface  
The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  
 
This   book   interrogates   the   emergence   of   climate   change   adaptation   as   a   new   and  
complex   field   of   knowledge   production   and   development   practice.   With   a   specific  
focus   on   agrarian   regions,   my   entrance   point   into   the   issue   is   through   a   close  
analysis   of   the   discourses   and   policies   associated   with   national   governments   and  
international   development   agencies   whose   actions   are   commonly   packaged   under  
the   rubric   of   development.   Climate   change,   it   is   roundly   acknowledged,   greatly  
complicates   both   present   practices   and   future   expectations   within   this   field.   The  
United  Nations  Development  Programme,  for  example,  labels  climate  change  as  the  
“defining  human  development  issue  of  our  generation”  and  one  that  challenges  the  
enlightenment  aspiration  of  a  collective  journey  of  humanity  towards  a  better  future  
(UNDP   2007:   1).   Such   concerns   stem   from   the   overwhelming   consensus   within  
scientific   and   development   organisations   that   global   climate   change   is   triggering  
profound  transformations  in  social  and  ecological  systems  that  will  cause  significant  
dislocations   and   stress   among   affected   populations   (IPCC   2007).   The   most   severe  
impacts,  moreover,  are  commonly  projected  to  be  concentrated  among  the  world’s  
poor   and   particularly   those   living   in   rural   areas   of   the   global   South   (World   Bank  
2010b).    
 
Given   the   severity   and   unequal   distribution   of   projected   climate   change   impacts,  
international   institutions   and   national   governments   have   advanced   the   pressing  
need   for   rapid   and   far-­‐reaching   processes   of   climate   change   adaptation.   In  
normative   terms,   climate   change   adaptation   is   described   as   a   process   of  
transformation   in   social   and   environmental   systems   that   can   safeguard   against  
current   and   future   adverse   impacts   of   climatic   change.   Simultaneously,   it   is   also  
envisioned   as   a   process   that   facilitates   societies   to   take   advantage   of   any   new  
opportunities  provided  by  a  changing  environment  (IPCC  2007;  World  Bank  2010b).  
In  practice,  while  the  goal  of  adaptation  might  be  realised  through  the  spontaneous  
and   unstructured   behavioural   alterations   by   individuals   and   social   groups  –   such   as  
farmers   changing   crops,   households   diversifying   livelihoods,   families   migrating  
from   exposed   regions   –   such   ‘autonomous   adaptation’   is   imagined   to   be  
insufficiently  encompassing  to  deal  with  the  gravity  of  projected  threats.  Adaptation,  
therefore,  is  viewed  predominantly  as  a  process  of  co-­‐ordinated  transition  to  meet  
the   demands   and   challenges   of   a   changing   external   environment   directed   by  
appropriate   governmental   institutions   (United   Nations   Framework   Convention   on  
Climate   Change   2007).   It   is   on   this   basis   that   measures   to   address   climate   change  
are  argued  to  require  immediate  mainstreaming  within  both  national  policymaking  
and  international  development  initiatives.  Facilitating  climate  change  adaptation,  it  
seems,  has  become  a  litmus  test  for  the  project  of  development.  
 
In  response,  a  burgeoning  academic  and  policy  literature  has  emerged  to  help  meet  
this  aim.  This  literature  is  broad  and,  as  is  set  out  in  the  following  chapters,  different  
perspectives  within  the  field  debate  the  appropriate  sites  and  scales  of  adaptation,  

  2  
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

the   rights   and   responsibilities   of   affected   and   contributor   groups,   and   the   necessary  
mechanisms  and  goals  of  adjustment  (Pelling  2011).  Although  this  body  of  work  is  
diverse,  and  occasionally  fractious,  it  is  bound  together  by  the  shared  assumption  of  
a   common   and   collective   need   to   adapt.   “Adaptation   now!”   has   become   a   shared  
refrain   of   international   institutions,   national   governments,   non-­‐governmental  
organisations  and  scholars  working  in  the  field   (e.g.  Adger  et  al.  2009;  Leary  and  al.  
2010).   The   idea   of   adaptation   has   therefore   become   a   touchstone   concept   that  
provides   both   a   normative   goal   and   a   framework   within   which   practical  
interventions  are  planned,  organised  and  legitimised.  Rapidly  incorporated  into  the  
governmental   lexicon   of   development,   the   idea   of   adaptation   circulates   as   the  
accepted   rubric   for   conceptualising   social   transformations   under   anthropogenic  
climate   change.   From   the   paddy   fields   of   Uttar   Pradesh   to   the   growing   shantytowns  
of  Ulaanbaatar,  the  collective  threat  stemming  from  climatic  change  has  seemingly  
propelled  us  into  a  common  yet  uneven  world  of  adaptation.  
 
In   this   rush   to   marry   climate   change   adaptation   and   development,   however,   there  
remains   relatively   little   critical   enquiry   into   the   idea   of   adaptation   that   underpins  
such  governmental   energies.   In   part,   this   is   because   adaptation   is   commonly   cast   as  
a  natural  moment  of  transformation  that  reflects  a  process  common  to  all  forms  of  
life.   From   its   roots   in   evolutionary   biology,   adaptation   projects   the   necessity   for  
organisms   to   constantly   adjust   to   changes   in   their   external   environment   as   a   means  
to  bring  themselves  in  line  with  new  constraints  and  opportunities.  Extracted  from  
its  roots  in  biology  and  transposed  into  the  context  of  contemporary  climate  change,  
adaptation  is  now  held  to  represent  an  equally  innate  process  of  social  adjustments  
to   external   climatic   stimuli.   Facing   the   assuredly   grave   consequences   of   global  
climatic  change,  the  pressing  need  for  immediate  and  comprehensive  adaptation  is  
seemingly   self-­‐evident.   As   Adger,   O’Brien   and   Lorenzo   put   it,   “we   already   know   that  
adaptation  is  necessary”  (Adger,  Lorenzoni  and  O'Brien  2010:  2).    
   
Over   the   following   chapters,   however,   I   set   out   the   argument   that   we   should   be  
exceedingly  wary  of  such  representations.  To  this  end,  the  book  interrogates  climate  
change   adaptation   not   as   a   self-­‐evident   analytical   framework   and   normative   goal,  
but   as   an   array   of   discursive   coordinates   and   institutional   practices   that   themselves  
form   the   object   of   analysis.   To   do   so,   I   pay   close   attention   to   the   ways   that   the  
concept   of   adaptation   fashions   a   relatively   cohesive   body   of   ideas   around   the  
relationship  between  climate  change  and  society  into  which  issues  of  social  change,  
power   and   environmental   flux   are   placed   and   solutions   drawn.   At   its   core,   the  
adaptation   framework   is   predicated   upon   an   inherent   dichotomy   between   climate  
and   society   in   which   the   former   represented   as   a   cohesive   external   system   that  
generates   threats,   stresses   and   disturbances;   and   the   latter   is   portrayed   as   a  
separate   domain   of   social   structures   that   are   unevenly   vulnerable   to   climatic  
change.   Through   this   representational   regime   the   discourse   produces   its   ‘world   of  
adaptation’   in   which   all   social   units   can   be   understood   and   acted   upon   in   terms   of   a  
universal  schematic  of  exposure  to  external  climatic  threats.  The  idea  of  adaptation  
thereby   consolidates   a   social   imaginary   of   individuals,   households,   communities,  
regions,   economic   sectors   and   nations   with   different   vulnerabilities   and   adaptive  

  3  
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

capacities   in   the   face   of   an   external   climate   that,   tipped   off   balance   by   the  
unintended  actions  of  humans,  is  dangerously  off-­‐kilter.    
 
Through   this   imagery   of   climate   as   an   external   threat   that   renders   regions   and  
people  vulnerable  to  its  capricious  nature,  the  adaptation  framework  is  remarkably  
successful   in   creating   a   new   object   for   development   interventions.   A   world   of  
adaptation  can  be  mapped  out  in  terms  of  a  social  cartography  of  vulnerabilities  to  
be   ameliorated   by   building   adaptive   capacity   and   forging   resilience.   This  
intrinsically   biopolitical   impetus   to   make   climate   change   governable,   however,  
comes   at   the   expense   of   obscuring   crucial   political   questions   about   power   and  
sustainability  within  the  ongoing  production  of  our  lived  environments.  The  idea  of  
adaptation,   I   argue,   intrinsically   lends   itself   to   a   technocratic   politics   that   seeks   to  
contain  the  perceived  threats  posed  by  climate  change  within  existing  institutional  
parameters.   On   this   basis,   I   argue   that   the   seeming   naturalness   of   adaptation   stands  
as   a   considerable   barrier   to   critical   thinking   about   climatic   change   and   social  
transformation.    
 
There  are,  of  course,  a  number  of  contributions  to  the  adaptation  literature  that  are  
pointedly   critical   of   a   technocratic   reading   of   adaptation.   Karen   O’Brien   and  
collaborators   pointedly   ask   what   is   at   stake   in   different   framings   of   vulnerability  
within   the   adaptation   framework   (O'Brien   et   al.   2007).   They   argue   that,   while  
scientific   framings   produce   a   managerial   discourse   that   privileges   technological  
solutions   to   adaptation,   a   human-­‐security   framing   builds   from   the   question   why  
some   groups   and   regions   are   more   vulnerable   than   others,   therein   facilitating   a  
different   politics   of   adaptation.   The   purpose   of   such   interventions   is   to   make  
adaptation  more  attuned  to  the  needs  of  the  poor  and  marginalised  who  are  faced  
with   the   double   burden   of   existing   inequalities   coupled   to   greater   risks   from  
climatic  change  (Eriksen  and  O'Brien  2007;  St.  Clair  2010;  see  also,  Brown  2011).    
 
There   is   a   considerable   amount   of   important   and   instructive   work   undertaken  
within   this   approach   and   the   following   chapters   undeniably   demonstrate   its   keen  
influence.   It   is   striking,   however,   that   even   this   critical   counterpoint   maintains  
adaptation  as  a  given  and  self-­‐evident  concept.  Although  such  perspectives  rightfully  
emphasise  how  social  marginalisation  and  inequality  unevenly  stratify  the  impacts  
of   climate-­‐related   shocks,   they   continue   to   operate   within   adaptation’s   schematic   of  
external   climatic   threats   and   internal   social   exposures.   As   such,   they   maintain   the  
framework   of   adaptation   but   seek   to   leverage   policy   making   in   a   progressive   and  
transformative   direction   (O'Brien,   St.   Clair   and   Kristoffersen   2010;   Pelling   2011).  
What   they   do   not   offer,   however,   is   a   critique   that   questions   the   very   notion   of  
‘adaptation’   as   a   prima   facie   category   of   analysis   and   practice.   To   do   so   is   to   de-­‐
frame   climate   change   adaptation   to   render   visible   its   embedded   assumptions   and  
contradictions.  Instead  of  accepting  adaptation  as  a  self-­‐evident  concept,  therefore,  
the  present  book  deconstructs  it  as  a  framing  device  that  profoundly  limits  how  we  
conceptualise  climatic  change,  its  impacts  and  our  potential  responses.    
 
The  analytical  core  of  this  intervention  is  set  out  in  the  first  three  chapters  in  which  I    

  4  
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

critique   the   Cartesian   foundations   of   adaptation   that   dichotomise   climate   and  

society   as   two   separate   yet   mutually   influencing   systems   or   domains.   It   is   this  
dichotomy,   I   argue,   that   leads   towards   the   representation   of   climate   change   as   a  
series   of   external   shocks   and   disturbances   to   an   otherwise   coherent   society.  
Through  this  separation,  climate  change  is  parsed  out  and  isolated  from  the  ongoing  
processes   of   social   and   ecological   transformation   that   construct   our   lived  
environments.  The  purpose  of  such  a  separation  is  precisely  to  make  climate  change  
governable   as   a   managed   process   of   adaptation.   What   is   missing   in   such  
representations,  however,  is  that  humans  do  not  stand  outside  their  environments  
but  are  active  protagonists  in  their  ongoing  production.  As  the  presently  fashionable  
concept   of   the   anthropocene   indicates,   this   intrinsically   involves   the   production   of  
climate.   Under   such   conditions,   the   adaptation   framework   of   distinct   yet   interacting  
natural   and   social   systems   seems   curiously   unsuited   to   a   world   in   which   what   we  
term  ‘nature’  has  become  increasingly  produced  through  human  activities.  
 
From   this   perspective,   the   Cartesian   dichotomy   between   climate   and   society   as  
separate   and   external   domains   that   undergirds   the   adaptation   framework   is  
rendered   problematic.   Instead   of   conceptualising   climate   and   society   as   bounded  
entities,  wherein  one  influences,  impacts  or  threatens  the  other,  the  book  develops  
the  concept  of  ‘material  climates’  in  which  social  and  meteorological  dynamics  are  
seen   as   fundamentally   intertwined,   co-­‐productive,   constantly   refashioned   and  
changing.  Rethinking  the  concept  of  climate  impels  us  to  explore  climatic  change  in  
terms   of  the  shifting  couplings  of  human  and  meteorological  forces  through  which  
our  lived  environments  are  actively  formed.  Political  ecology  is  central  to  this  task  
because   its   analytical   tools   help   us   capture   how   meteorological   processes   are  
embedded   within   hierarchically   ordered   social   relationships   in   ways   that   produce  
strikingly  uneven  and  often  deeply  fragile  landscapes.  From  this  perspective,  we  can  
approach  climate  change  not  as  a  rupture  between  society  and  a  climate  thrown  out  
of   balance   by   human   actions,   but   as   a   series   of   tensions   in   the   way   that  
meteorological   forces   are   actively   worked   into   the   production   of   our   lived  
environments.  On  this  basis,  climate  change  represents  a  shift  in  the  socio-­‐ecological  
relationships   through   which   our   lived   environments,   with   all   their   engrained  
inequities   and   forms   of   power,   are   actively   produced.   The   political   implication   is  
worth   highlighting:   instead   of   converging   on   the   imperative   to   adapt,   we   must  
instead  focus  on  producing  ourselves  differently.  
 
To   concretise  this  intervention,  I  turn  to  a  close  empirical  examination  of  agrarian  
environments   in   South   and   Central   Asia.   In   these   contexts   I   argue   that   the  
framework   of   climate   change   adaptation   has   emerged   as   a   new   and   intrinsically  
political  domain  of  development  practice  that  operates  within  a  wider  spectrum  of  
governmental  technologies  that  represent,  order  and  reshape  the  agrarian  world.  To  
understand   how   adaptation   operates   as   a   governmental   practice   it   is   necessary   to  
place   the   contemporary   experience   of   climatic   change   within   a   longer   historical  
register  of  social  and  environmental  transformation  in  which  agrarian  spaces  have  
stood   at   the   nexus   of   conflicting   designs   and   agencies.   It   is   only   by   situating  
adaptation   within   this   broader   terrain   of   agrarian   transformation   that   we   can   come  

  5  
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

to   terms   with   the   political   dimensions   of   what   it   means   to   understand   climate  

change  through  the  framework  of  adaptation.  On  this  basis,  the  book  demonstrates  
how   the   rhetoric   and   practices   of   adaptation   operate   within   a   deeply   political  
terrain   that   is   configured   by   contested   normative   visions   of   agrarian   space.   The  
latter  emerge  in  the  context  of  diverse  projects  aimed  at  recalibrating  rural  regions  
driven   by   governments,   institutions,   corporations   and   social   movements.   Climate  
change   adaptation   is   therefore   intrinsically   a   political   process   despite   its  
pretensions  otherwise.  
 
To   this   end,   chapters   four   and   five   read   climatic   change   through   the   lens   of   political  
ecology   to   pose   questions   that   are   rarely   touched   upon   within   the   adaptation  
literature.   They   ask   what   it   entails   to   set   climate   change   impacts   within   agrarian  
regions   in   which   the   production   of   goods   has   been   relentlessly   commodified,  
drawing   both   human   livelihoods   and   their  socio-­‐ecological   foundations   into   circuits  
of  capital  accumulation  that  operate  on  scales  that  far  exceed  the  specific  locality  of  
production.   Simultaneously,   they   ask   how   we   should   understand   the   concepts   of  
vulnerability   and   resilience   in   the   context   of   ongoing   processes   in   which   rural  
labour  forces  are  being  de-­‐composed  and  re-­‐composed  in  new  and  complex  forms.  
To  pose  these  questions  is  to  situate  what  is  termed  ‘adaptation  to  climate  change’  
as   part   of   wider   historical   processes   of   agrarian   transformation   and   forms   of  
governmentality   within   rural   regions   (see,   Davis   2002).   Although   such   concerns   are  
anathema   to   the   adaptation   discourse,   the   book   stresses   the   need   to   understand  
climate   change   in   the   context   of   the   uneven   commercialisation   of   agriculture,  
changing   property   relations,   forms   of   capital   accumulation,   the   dynamics   of   state  
formation,   macro-­‐projects   of   environmental   engineering,   migratory   flows,  
technological   change   and   the   emergence   of   new   rural   subjectivities   and   political  
movements.  
 
By  bringing  such  contested  trajectories  into  the  heart  of  our  analysis,  we  can  begin  
to  understand  how  contemporary  climatic  change  interacts  with  these  dynamics  in  
new   and   complex   ways.   Through   this   analysis,   climate   change   emerges   as   part   of  
ongoing   historical   processes   of   socio-­‐ecological   transformation   predicated   upon  
forms   of   power   operating   at   varied   spatial   scales   that   shape   control   over   land,  
water,  bodies  and  debt.  As  I  map  out  in  chapter  four,  these  socio-­‐ecological  relations  
construct  the  parameters  through  which  households  seek  to  reproduce  themselves  
by   distributing   the   essential   insecurities   of   agrarian   life   in   a   relational   and  
hierarchical  manner.  To  think  of  vulnerability  in  relational  terms  is  to  uncover  the  
socio-­‐ecological   relations   through   which   the   security   of   some   and   the   relative  
insecurity   of   others   are   directly   intertwined.   Although   it   falls   out   of   the   analytical  
purview  of  the  adaptation  framework,  this  relational  focus  forms  a  core  aspect  of  my  
political  ecology  analysis.  It  emphasises  that  what  the  discourse  labels  ‘adaptation  to  
climate  change’  is  fundamentally  rooted  in  questions  of  power  and  production.  
 
This  framework  is  then  used  to  analyse  three  case  studies  that  situate  questions  of  
climatic  change  and  agrarian  transformation  across  distinct  socio-­‐ecological  settings  
and  historical  contexts.  The  first  study  seeks  to  historicise  the  discourse  of  climate  

  6  
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

change  adaptation  arising  within  the  devastating  floods  of  2010-­‐2011  that  impacted  
upon   much   of   rural   Pakistan.   It   does   so   by   demonstrating   how   the   localistic   and  
presentist   frames   that   dominate   the   adaptation   literature   obscure   the   longer  
trajectories  of  agrarian  transformation  in  the  region.  In  tracing  the  socio-­‐ecology  of  
agrarian  relations  from  the  colonial  period  onwards,  the  chapter  explores  the  long-­‐
term  construction  and  reproduction  of  vulnerability  within  the  changing  contours  of  
ecological   change   and   the   shifting   incorporation   of   agricultural   production   into  
world   markets.   It   demonstrates   how   repeated   attempts   to   engineer   the   socio-­‐
ecology   of   the   Indus   watershed   since   colonial   times   are   intrinsic   to   the  
contradictory   dynamics   of   agrarian   transformation   occurring   in   the   present.   This  
provides  the  basis  for  a  close  critique  of  the  technocratic  and  managerial  rendering  
of   adaptation   adopted   by   the   Pakistani   government.   Notably,   the   question   of   land  
redistribution  emerges  as  a  key  strategy  for  transforming  rural  Pakistan  within  the  
context   of   climatic   change,   despite   its   complete   marginalisation   in   both   government  
approaches  to  the  issue  and  the  adaptation  paradigm  in  general.  
 
Moving   to   a   regional   level,   the   second   study   examines   relationships   of   debt   and  
vulnerability  in  the  semi-­‐arid  Deccan  plateau  in  southern  India.  In  the  context  of  the  
increasing   frequency   of   drought,   the   chapter   examines   the   intersection   of   climate  
variability,  enduring  debt  relations  and  uneven  access  to  water  in  conditions  of  an  
agrarian   environment   transformed   by   the   liberalization   of   agricultural   policy.   The  
deleterious   impacts   of   climatic   change   upon   agricultural   production   in   this   region  
are   situated   within   the   context   of   an   agrarian   environment   already   haunted   by  
unprecedented   numbers   of   farmer   suicides.   The   chapter   details   how   the   agrarian  
dynamics   of   contemporary   semi-­‐arid   Andhra   Pradesh   are   strongly   determined   by  
the  tenacious  yet  highly  tenuous  attempt  to  secure  social  reproduction  undertaken  
by   a   large   class   of   marginal   and   smallholder   farmers   that   precariously   struggle   to  
carve   out   livelihoods.   In   this   context,   the   control   over   water   and   credit   form  
inseparable   parts   of   the   socio-­‐ecology   of   agrarian   transformation   under   complex  
capitalist  dynamics.  The  uneven  access  to  credit  for  well  drilling  became  central  to  
gaining   control   over   irrigation   necessary   for   increasingly   specialised   commercial  
agriculture   in   conditions   of   liberalisation   and   new   technologies.   At   the   same   time,  
endemic   debts   drive   on   the   risks   of   agricultural   failure   in   the   context   of   rapidly  
depleted   shallow   aquifers   that   characterise   the   Deccan   regions   of   central   and  
southern   India.   This   intersection   of   climatic   change,   fickle   waters   and   enduring  
debts   not   only   configured   a   new   nexus   of   insecurity   for   smallholders   but   also  
became  integral  to  the  dynamics  of  surplus  extraction  and  the  unequal  distribution  
of   risk   across   the   agrarian   environment.   This   raises   pressing   political   questions  
around   smallholder   agriculture   that  are  entirely  marginalised  within  the  confines   of  
the  adaptation  paradigm.  
 
The   third   case   examines   the   political   ecology   of   the   Mongolian   steppe,   where  
pastoral  livelihoods  are  argued  to  be  uniquely  vulnerable  to  climatic  change.  In  this  
context,   there   have   been   repeated   calls   to   improve   environmental   and   cultural  
conservation   and   build   community   resilience   as   a   means   to   adaptation.   Obscured   in  
such   narratives,   however,   is   how   successive   structural   adjustment   programmes  

  7  
 Preface:  The  Critique  of  Climate  Change  Adaptation  

placed  immense  strain  upon  the  herding  economy  through  de-­‐industrialisation  and  
the   imposition   of   a   changing   property   regime   over   the   grasslands,   leading   to  
increased  herd  sizes  and  a  tendency  towards  overgrazing.  These  dynamics  led  to  a  
crisis   of   the   pastoral   economy   that   was   brutally   exposed   as   a   succession   of  
extremely   cold   winter   storms   (dzuds)   destroyed   herds.   Presently,   the   pastoral  
economy  faces  not  only  these  socio-­‐ecological  contradictions,  but  also  the  dramatic  
expansion   of   mining.   As   part   of   a   new   frontier   of   capital   accumulation   based   on  
intensive   resource   extraction,   Mongolia   is   estimated   to   have   enough   coal   to   fire  
every  power  station  in  China  for  the  next  fifty  years.  The  irony  here  is  that  such  coal-­‐
fired   energy   production   is   precisely   contributing   to   the   climatic   change   at   both  
regional   and   global   scales   that   further   undermines   pastoral   livelihoods.  
Interrogating   these   sharp   tensions   emphasises   how   the   future   of   Mongolian  
pastoralism   is   shaped   within   global   flows   of   finance,   energy,   raw   materials   and  
pollutants  that  are  largely  excluded  from  the  discourse  of  climate  change  adaptation.    
 
These  cases  impel  us  to  address  climate  change  outside  the  terms  of  adaptation  so  
as  to  widen  our  political  horizons.  As  the  book  notes,  confronting  climate  change  is  
not   about   adapting   to   an   external   threat.   Instead,   it   is   fundamentally   about  
producing   ourselves   differently.   In   moving   beyond   the   adaptation   paradigm,   two  
central   political   questions   emerge.   First,   we   need   to   explicitly   foreground   ways   to  
collectively  deleverage  a  global  capitalist  order  that  is  predicated  upon  the  unending  
accumulation   of   productive   forces   and   consumptive   practices   that   give   rise   to   the  
deadly   metabolisms   inherent   to   climatic   change.   This   requires   opening   up   the  
fundamental   premises   of   development   and   its   teleology   of   globalising   boundless  
consumption.   Second,   it   raises   the   need   to   re-­‐imagine   redistribution   as   a   central  
pillar   of   future   equitable   socio-­‐ecological   transformation.   Within   agrarian  
environments,   redistributive   strategies   –   from   land   and   water   rights   through   to  
credit   policies   and   subsidies   –   have   historically   been   a   central   aim   of   many   agrarian  
social   movements.   Despite   their   marginalisation   within   the   framework   of   climate  
change  adaptation,  these  struggles  become  ever  more  important  within  the  context  
of   contemporary   climatic   change.   Indeed,   the   inherent   and   widely   recognised  
inequities   of   climatic   change   potentially   open   a   pathway   towards   revitalising   the  
idea   of   redistribution   across   spatial   scales.   Thinking   beyond   adaptation   will   be  
central  to  turning  such  possibilities  into  practice.  

  8  

View publication stats