CARE International study examining the effectiveness of community-based adaptation in Dakoro, Niger.
Climate change adaptation is increasingly becoming a priority for developing countries around the world, and given the urgency required it is crucial to build capacity and resilience, and identify which adaptation approaches are most effective in these regards. One key adaptation approach put forward is community-based adaptation, whereby both hard and soft, and short-term and long-term adaptation strategies are examined in partnership with local communities and embedded into community life. This study published by CARE International asks whether community-based adaptation is an efficient and effective strategy for building resilience and adaptive capacity, and if so, to what extent? The study comprises an economic evaluation of community-based adaptation in Dakoro, Niger, opening with some context on climate change and an explanation the methodology of the study, including information on the analytical framework, sample communities, and outcome measurements. Following this, the study’s approach to social cost-benefit analysis is outlined, including scope, forecasting, and results. The findings of the report suggest that there is significant return on investment to be gained through a community-based adaptation approach, ranging from between $4 and almost $10 for every $1 invested. The authors are confident of these findings because the sensitivity analysis indicates that returns are still positive even if considering strict quantitative economic benefits only, and due to the extensive consideration given to counterfactual and external contributions of actors in achieving outcomes identified in the field. The outputs of community-based adaptation do not necessarily differ from non-community-based ones; what matters is how these outputs are generated. In more practical terms, the evaluative social cost-benefit analysis used for this research can be more easily replicated than a forecasting one, and with a relatively standardised framework (the reason for selecting only a handful of key variables) can allow for subsequent comparisons of different strategies. This is important for supporting budgeting decisions for NGOs and local governments in developing countries. Further refinement of this approach would be required to up-scale analysis, including the identification of a common-set of defined outcomes and criteria that move beyond simple economic outcomes, i.e. the environmental impacts of interventions. Given the challenges climate modelling faces, particularly at local scales, it is crucial that historical rainfall and temperature data be used to derive assumptions. Unfortunately, such data is not always available in developing countries, requiring the capacity of authorities to collect this data must be strengthened both for planning purposes and for programme appraisal and evaluation.