Locally led climate adaptation

Agricultural research has generated no shortage of technologies and practices that contribute to climate resilience. While innovative technological interventions remain relevant, however, systems transformation is a process of social change requiring intervention at multiple layers that address social norms and behavioral change. The sustained transformation of food, land and water systems requires greater attention to governance and enabling social and institutional changes, as well as how decisions are made and whose agenda is being negotiated [4]. The challenge is to scale approaches, like LLCA, that prioritize inclusive, localized learning and innovation with improved technologies and practices.

The Principles for LLCA were developed under the Global Commission for Adaptation via a process that brought together over 50 partners between 2019 and 2020 [5]. The eight principles (Fig 1) have been endorsed by over 130 government and non-government institutions and recognized as part of the Global Goal on Adaptation. The principles set standards for effective climate and development finance and delivery that will have lasting and transformative impact.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Eight principles to guide stakeholders facilitating locally led climate adaptation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000910.g001

Figure adapted from [5] and republished from Petesch, P. Fisher, E., Hellin, J. & Echavez, C. (2025). Emboldening Equitable Climate Adaptation: A Handbook for Field Research Leaders, under a CC BY license, with permission from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), original copyright 2025.

The community that has coalesced around the principles for LLCA lends itself to agricultural researchers engaging with an existing and growing network of LLCA aficionados. It requires different ways of conceptualizing and implementing research, especially in terms of building genuine transdisciplinary partnerships, being more cognizant of the time required to build these collaborations [4] and how success (or otherwise) is assessed [6].

LLCA knowledge gaps and limitations

There are persistent LLCA knowledge gaps and limitations that lend themselves to research. The principles of LLCA are all-encompassing but they are not evidence-based and are largely untested. They are more a political testimony than the outcome of a scientific process. This does diminish their importance but evidence is needed to substantiate the political claims inherent in them. There is a dearth of guidance on how to operationalize LLCA [7] in terms of conceptual tools, methodologies and approaches. There is also little debate about the potential trade-offs between the principles, nor the vested interests likely to oppose the realization of the principles. For example, principle no. 2 addresses structural inequalities faced by often marginalized groups in adaptation decisions and action, and yet there are many cases where tackling structural inequalities will not be supported by local decision makers [8].

A review of 29 LLCA studies identifies power and agency, governance, and motivations for change as the most prominent themes driving LLCA [3]. There is some evidence that locally grounded governance arrangements can support more effective adaptation, but persistent concerns remain regarding scalability, legitimacy, and conceptual clarity. A key empirical gap is that LLCA has rarely been evaluated in terms of building climate resilience largely because it can be difficult to measure vulnerability and resilience, and to understand how it is distributed across space and social groups [9]. Hassan et al. (2026) argue that more emphasis be placed on “resilience from below” where resilience is seen as “emergent, relational and processual” locally defined [10], while [11] Dilling et al. (2019) suggest that greater emphasis be given to empowering local people to create the adaptation metrics and evidence that matters to them. There is also little consensus on the metrics and evidence to judge the effectiveness of LLCA. The lack of documented, context-specific case studies limits learning, replication, scaling and impact assessment of LLCA [12].

Transdisciplinary partnerships

Faced with these knowledge gaps and limitations there is the danger of the LLCA ‘business unusual’ paradigm being misused, over-used and ultimately render it incapable of contributing to the needed transformation of food, land and water systems. To mitigate this danger, researchers need to embed themselves in transdisciplinary partnerships. Diversity in research teams (building on epistemological diversity, different social worlds, team composition and structure transcending disciplines, institutions and geographies) are the pillars for a more collaborative, relevant and impactful research [13]. Over 130 organizations have endorsed the principles for LLCA, and they represent a growing network of LLCA aficionados [14]. There is a huge opportunity for agricultural researchers to embed themselves more readily in this network and collectively foster LLCA.

Many of the organizations that have endorsed the principles of LLCA do not operate through LLCA models and might not have the organizational capacity to do so. There is much potential to explore the types of shifts in organizational structure, funding and power dynamics necessary to make LLCA a reality. This requires a change in the way that many researchers conceptualize and implement research; with far more attention given to partnerships and also recognizing and reflexively taking measures to reduce the power asymmetries that often exist in these partnerships [6]. Too often researchers control research-for-development processes despite the fact that other actors may be more important when it comes to operationalizing and scaling LLCA. [15] Palmer (2023) posited that “being open to the limitations of their knowledge can help researchers to foster interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaborations”. Researchers should engage with the broader LLCA community with a stronger dose of humility.

LLCA can and should be transformative, but its realization requires a radical paradigm shift in how we conceptualize and implement research; in the words of [16] Kehrer et al. (2020:9) “we will need to transform our work before transforming our world”. An immediate step is a change in how LLCA research projects are designed, implemented and assessed. There needs to be a greater emphasis on facilitating transformative processes at multiple institutional levels by working with research colleagues, and others engaged in LLCA, in the realization of pathways to equitable and sustainable climate futures. A careful and honest analysis of why LLCA has struggled to take root, and where and why it has found fertile ground would provide invaluable lessons for future partnerships and scaling efforts, along with the identification of locally defined adaptation metrics and evidence of the effectiveness of LLCA.