CHAPTER 3: EXPLORING TRANSFORMATION AND TRANSFORMATIVE ADAPTATION
3.2 Contemporary ideas on transformation in environmental governance
In a context of environmental and social thresholds, a number of responses are possible in order to respond to environmental change. Walker et al (2004) for example, argue that the future path of social-ecological systems will largely be determined by their “resilience”, “adaptability” and
“transformability”. In this section, broad definitions are first outlined for each of these concepts, before exploring the way in which these concepts are being continually moulded in a way that makes them less individually distinct and more like “place-holders” along a continuum of change responses.
An understanding of these terms is important in order to be able to understand what distinguishes transformation within this continuum, since this is the focus of the thesis.
The change response continuum: resilience, adaptation and transformation
Pelling (2011) describes “resilience” as the tendency towards functional persistence, in other words the ability of a system to absorb a disturbance, adjust and remain relatively unchanged in its function, structure and identity. This is reflected in the definition of urban resilience provided by the “100 Resilient Cities Programme9“ as being “the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” (www.100resilientcities.org, 02/08/2016). “Adaptation10” is described by Folke et al (2010) as a process of adjustment in response to external drivers, that allows for continued development along the same trajectory and that is facilitated by learning, combining knowledge and experience and adjusting to the changes that emerge as drivers. As O’Brien and Selboe (2015a, p. 3) point out, such responses can be autonomous or planned, reactive or anticipatory, but fundamentally involve a recognition of the reality of change and the need to adapt to “suit different conditions, whether these are political, social, cultural, technological or psychological”. With regards to climate change specifically, the IPCC defines adaptation as the process of adjustment to actual or
9 “100 Resilient Cities” is a programme pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation and is dedicated to helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social and economic challenges that are a growing part of the 21st century.
The programme provides selected cities with the resources to develop a Resilience Strategy.
10 In the social-ecological systems theory literature, ‘adaptation’ is used in its broader sense of adapting to environmental change. Climate change adaptation represents a specific response to the changing climate. This distinction is made in the text where relevant.
expected climate and its effects, and emphasises that in human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities arising from these external changes (Field et al., 2014).
However, in the face of accelerating environmental change, there is growing critique that resilience and adaptation responses do not adequately address the type of change that is required to respond to the escalating global environmental crisis. O’Brien (2011) for example, suggests that adaptation to global environmental change is not enough and questions whether adaptation is a form of
“environmental determinism” that focuses more on accepting the need to respond, rather than looking to proactively alter or challenge the underlying systems that create the problems currently facing the world. In so doing, O’Brien (2011) suggests that a new science on non-linear and deliberate transformation needs to complement and supplement the current adaptation research, as an alternative response to environmental change. Transformation goes beyond resilience and adaptation and acknowledges that when the status quo is no longer acceptable, or when change is seen to be needed in anticipation of a systems failure, it may be necessary to completely alter the existing system (Folke et al., 2010). What emerges in the literature is therefore a continuum of responses to change:
at one end of the continuum lie those responses that seek to retain absolute system stability (of the type reflected in the more traditional definitions of resilience), while responses that seek to fundamentally alter systems, lie at the transformative end of the continuum.
Understanding transformation
Transformation is distinct from resilience and adaptation responses, in that it seeks to challenge the structural causes of risk that lie within and are reproduced by dominant development practices and pathways, and results in a change in the fundamental attributes of a system, often based on altered paradigms, goals, or values ( Revi et al., 2014a; Solecki et al., 2015; Pelling et al., 2015). At the level of systems change, transformation requires an understanding of the systems that create environmental challenges and human vulnerability and seeks to change these, regardless of whether these systems are technical, economic, social or political (O’Brien and Sygna, 2013). The term suggests a capacity to construct new development trajectories that can involve radical shifts, directional turns (Pelling et al., 2015), shifts in patterns of interaction among actors including leadership and political and power relations, and associated organisational and institutional arrangements (Folke et al., 2010). Solecki et al (2015) point out that transformation can open new policy options once resilience meets its limits and can extend from personal level to systems level change (Pelling, 2011; O'Brien and Sygna, 2013).
Although not all transformations are positive, their focus on fundamental system change can open up opportunities for greater social and economic equality, public participation, rights and sustainable development. Such transformation is seen to be facilitated by factors such as reflection, deliberation, innovation, learning, and leadership (University of Oslo, 2013).
O’Brien and Sygna (2013) suggest that there are three “spheres of transformation” where fundamental changes can occur: the “practical sphere” of transformation includes implementation, technical solutions and institutional changes; the “political sphere” of transformation represents the economic, political, legal, social and cultural systems that have been established over time, and which define the structures and boundaries within which practical transformation takes place; while the
“personal sphere” of transformation lies at the level of the individual and is argued to be at the core
of any transformation. In the context of climate change for example, O’Brien (2011) emphasises that the need to understand people, their worldviews and values is a critical component in trying to balance the objective systems approach of climate change and its subjective interior (human) dimensions. This changed “sense of self” can result in individuals shifting from being passive subjects in relation to climate change, to becoming active players in determining the future of their community and world (O’Brien and Hochachka, 2010). Including a focus on individual transformative capacity alongside that of broader social, economic and political systems is essential in helping to deal with the increasing levels of environmental and social complexity that face the world (Ziervogel et al., 2016).
Transformation therefore “conveys an occurrence of profound system change, which entails not only structural and behavioural changes but also a realignment of the values and goals espoused by collective and individual actors within a system” (Bartlett et al., 2016, p. 233).
The above descriptions are important in distinguishing a transformative response from one that is focused on resilience or adaptation. In order to make such distinctions clearer, Redman (2016) provides a useful example that distinguishes a transformative response from an adaptive one, related to the case of addressing the urban challenge of traffic congestion, pollution and resource use. He suggests that a “smart cities” approach, aimed at improving the efficiency of existing systems, has a number of benefits, but it is based on the objective of perpetuating existing systems. A transformative approach on the other hand, would consider how to alter the underlying drivers of these urban challenges, for example by promoting changes in residence patterns and urban form so that the movement of people is reduced and changed, or by moving to more distributed energy systems. In another example, Ziervogel et al (2016) argue that in developmental contexts such as those of the global South, where social and environmental injustice are prevalent, transformation would require a contestation of the existing systems that tend to favour elites and undermine environmental, social and economic sustainability. In Durban, South Africa for example, Hordijk et al (2014) explored the post-Apartheid changes in water governance that took place in the city. In this case, the eThekwini Municipality’s Water Services Unit translated national policy goals around basic service provision and water as a human right, into differentiated and innovative service provision that saw the most indigent members of the population receiving a free basic amount of water. The practical shifts in water provision, along with the Unit’s commitment to experimentation and learning, were assessed by the authors to be early signs of transformation in water governance within this context, even though this was developed in a broader context of inequality. Friend et al (2015, p. 6) add to these ideas by emphasising that “achieving urban transformations is first and foremost a challenge of governance;
of reconfiguring state-society relations, and of ensuring wellbeing, social justice and equity for an ecologically viable future”. A challenge however is that it is not always clear what needs to be transformed and why, and in whose interests this will be (O’Brien and Sygna, 2013).
Outcomes of transformation processes
In assessing whether transformation or transformative adaptation has occurred, it is also important to consider the outcomes of the transformation that has taken place and whether this is positive or negative. Transformation is not a neutral process and there are diverse interests and values at stake (University of Oslo, 2013). Like all societal change, it is politically charged, often contested and can involve conflict (Brown et al., 2013) and it is therefore important to give appropriate consideration to the subject of transformation (i.e. who/what is being transformed?), who the main agents for this
transformation are (e.g. the state, civil society or individuals) and whether the equity and ethical dimensions of transformation have been appropriately explored (Denton et al, 2014). In their commentary on the need to explore alternative development pathways within the context of the “safe and just space” for humanity, (Leach et al., 2012, p. 4) emphasise that different pathways will: involve different actors, interests and values; result in “significantly different winners and losers, opportunities and risks”; and may involve choices and trade-offs. They suggest that part of navigating these alternatives is to assess their implications in terms of direction (where will the proposed alternative end up in terms of exceeding the inner social and outer environmental limits of the “safe and just space for humanity”?), diversity (is there a diversity of approaches being tested?) and distribution (who is likely to benefit and/or lose from the proposed pathway and how is this distributed?). In relation to transformative adaptation, Bahadur and Tanner (2014) reinforce these ideas and indicate that transformative adaptation needs to address issues of power imbalances, for example through making processes more deliberative and equitable, addressing the needs of the vulnerable and promoting social cohesion and inclusion. These questions provide a useful starting point to begin to assess which development pathways are most likely to lead to a future that is more sustainable and just, and provide a metric against which to assess whether the climate adaptation outcomes emerging in the eThekwini Municipality case study for this thesis, demonstrate the principles of equity, justice and ecological sustainability that are required, in order for these to be considered as transformative adaptation that leads to broader transformation.
The integration of transformation into the resilience and adaptation discourses
Although the broad definitions described above provide a starting point for understanding resilience, adaptation and transformation, these terms are by no means distinct and they are increasingly shaping each other and being used in more integrated and overlapping ways. Figure 3.111 illustrates the connectedness of these concepts along the continuum of responses that is articulated in social- ecological systems theory.Figure 3.1: Transformation is increasingly shaping the resilience and adaptation discourses along a transformation continuum.
11 It should be noted that Figure 3.1 is intended to show the links between the concepts of resilience, adaptation and transformation and not to represent a linear relationship between them. In reality, the relationships are likely to be more complex and less predictable.
Resilience Adaptation Transformation
Three aspects that are central to the dynamics
and development of complex social- ecological systems in
response to change.
The concept of “resilience” for example, has theoretical appeal, but has come under significant critique. One of the reasons for this has been the perception that there are inherent limitations to resilience-based approaches and that resilience does not create enough space for the more significant changes that are needed to move societies to sustainability (Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011).
Resilience efforts therefore need to be accompanied by whatever transformations are required in the social and political conditions to prevent the creation and perpetuation of vulnerabilities (Leichenko et al., 2015). This implies a “bouncing forward”, rather than a “bouncing back” approach (e.g.
Manyena et al., 2011, cited in Leichenko et al., 2015), the latter having significant social justice implications if the conditions that one is bouncing back to, are not favourable for much of society. This consideration of transformation as part of the concept of resilience, is also reflected in the IPCC’s articulation of resilience as “the capacity of a social-ecological system to cope with a hazardous event or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain its essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation” (Fraser et al., 2016, p. 18). Similarly, Bahadur and Tanner (2014) argue that the concept of resilience has conceptual strength, but that a more radical agenda is required that will address underlying system issues, relating for example to issues of people, power and politics. This implies that, for a system to be resilient, fundamental transformation may be needed. Durban’s Preliminary Resilience Assessment (EThekwini Municipality, 2015), compiled as a deliverable for the “100 Resilient Cities Programme”, also acknowledges that when the resilience limits of existing systems have been met, transformation provides a useful framing concept for the state changes that may be needed to move towards a more sustainable and equitable development path. This assessment emphasises that resilience is therefore not a stand-alone concept, but rather is part of a “continuum of responses that cities will have to deploy in negotiating the challenges of the 21st Century” (EThekwini Municipality, 2015, p. 7) and that, in different contexts, the most appropriate response may vary.
In the same way that transformation is increasingly becoming part of how resilience is framed, the adaptation discourse has also seen shifts to incorporate transformation. Solecki et al (2015) for example, suggest that there are a range of development pathways available that lead either to improved adaptation of a system or to its collapse. In their conceptual framework, designed to define the theoretical links between resilience and transformation, Solecki et al (2015) represent resilience and transformation as positions along an adaptation pathway continuum, with a range of drivers contributing to whether the system moves from one state to another. Similarly, Pelling (2011) considers three forms of climate change adaptation that draw on elements of resilience, transition and transformation, and which mark points along a change response continuum. From his perspective, resilience adaptation implies that existing activities are refined to improve performance without changing the assumptions and routines that guide how a system functions. This can result in practices that are not sustainable (Hordijk et al., 2014). Transitional adaptation describes incremental changes that take place within a system to enhance adaptation, but where the overarching norms and systems remain relatively unchanged. Transformational adaptation implies that the “root and proximate causes of risk that lie within and are reproduced by dominant development practices and pathways”
are considered when developing climate adaptation responses (Revi et al., 2014b, p. 27). In such instances, “transformation is effected through adaptive actions that shift existing systems (and the structures, institutions and actor positions that are components of the system) onto alternative development pathways, even before the limits of adaptation are met” (Pelling et al., 2015, p. 114).
Such approaches, that address the underlying failures of development, are seen by Pelling et al (2015)
to have the greatest potential to move beyond the protection of existing systems, so that new climate adaptation possibilities can be opened.
The literature therefore indicates that transformation is increasingly being considered as a critical component of any response to global environmental challenges but that, depending on the context, the exact nature and the extent of change required, may vary. The same is true in the particular context of climate change, where there is growing acknowledgement of the need for transformative adaptation in order to address the systems that perpetuate issues of inequity, injustice and unsustainable practices. This suggests that, although there is a set of transformation principles in the broader context of sustainable development and environmental governance, these principles are increasingly being translated into sector specific discourses. The climate change field is one example.
Transformative adaptation is explored in greater detail in the next section, given that this is the focus of the case study.
For the purpose of this thesis, understanding this transformation continuum (as shown in Figure 3.1) is critical in order to understand what distinguishes transformation from other responses to change, and to more accurately locate the changes that are seen in the eThekwini Municipality climate adaptation case study in relation to this.