Investigating Climate Compatible Development Outcomes and their Implications for Distributive Justice: Evidence from Malawi

Wood, B. T., et al., 2017. Environmental Management

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Governments and donors are investing in climate compatible development in order to reduce climate and development vulnerabilities. However, the rate at which climate compatible development is being operationalised has outpaced academic enquiry into the concept. Interventions aiming to achieve climate compatible development “wins” (for development, mitigation, adaptation) can also create negative side-effects. Moreover, benefits and negative side-effects may differ across time and space and have diverse consequences for individuals and groups. Assessments of the full range of outcomes created by climate compatible development projects and their implications for distributive justice are scarce. This article develops a framework using a systematic literature review that enables holistic climate compatible development outcome evaluation over seven parameters identified. Thereafter, we explore the outcomes of two donor-funded projects that pursue climate compatible development triple-wins in Malawi using this framework. Household surveys, semi-structured interviews and documentary material are analysed. Results reveal that uneven outcomes are experienced between stakeholder groups and change over time. Although climate compatible development triple-wins can be achieved through projects, they do not represent the full range of outcomes. Ecosystem—and community-based activities are becoming popularised as approaches for achieving climate compatible development goals. However, findings suggest that a strengthened evidence base is required to ensure that these approaches are able to meet climate compatible development goals and further distributive justice.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-088-1
  • Intervention type: Mixed created/non-created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    project - Enhancing Community Resilience Programme, involving two projects (ECRProject, and DISCOVER) update location information - Research was conducted in locations across Malawi – “three ECRP target districts: Kasungu (ECRProject), Dedza (DISCOVER) and Nsanje (both projects)” interventions - forestry activities (described as ecosystem and community based): woodlot regeneration (restoration), boundary planting (habitat creation)

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  No effect qualitative "Dry spells and drought mean tree seedlings do not receive enough waterHeavy rains and floods damage and destroy trees" -> forestry projects were not able to withstand the climate impacts
    Wind damage  Positive qualitative assessment from interviews with relevant stakeholders and community members: Number of reporting households + Mean importance rating of intervention to provide adaptation benefit of "Houses, assets and farmland protected from heavy winds"
    Freshwater flooding  Positive qualitative assessment from interviews with relevant stakeholders and community members: Number of reporting households + Mean importance rating of intervention to provide adaptation benefit of "Houses, assets and farmland protected from heavy rainfall and flooding"
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Research was conducted in locations across Malawi – “three ECRP target districts: Kasungu (ECRProject), Dedza (DISCOVER) and Nsanje (both projects)”

  • Country: Malawi
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest | Tropical and subtropical forests |
  • Issue specific term: Community-based (general)
    Ecosystem-based (general)

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: note, the social and economic outcomes are from the project as a whole. see intervention description study is an original analysis, not conducted by the implementers, but using raw data from the projects (Household surveys, semistructured interviews and documentary material are analysed).
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Positive
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Mixed
  • People measures: Improved firewood access (from qualitative statements) Rights/empowerment - Negative: Increased inequality within target villages was the most frequently reported NSE (by 16 households). Analysis of how project benefits were distributed amongst different household types supports these testimonies….Positive: improved capacities, innovativeness, reputations, access to resources, lobbying influence and organisational cohesion experienced by professional stakeholder organisations  experienced by professional stakeholders at supra-local levels. Conflict - Negative: Three households in one Nsanje village perceived that increased resource wealth resulting from ECRP activities had led to greater instances of theft.
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: