Fortunately, the tide has recently begun to turn, as the scope of political and public discourse on climate change is expanding to encompass not only the impact of our global economy on climate change, but the impact of climate change on our economy (and society at large) as well. This is evidenced by the recently launched “Race to Resilience” campaign at COP26 and the EU’s “Mission Adaptation” initiative (to name just two examples). However, climate adaptation needs to be approached on a wider systemic level, as adaptation interventions that deliver resilience for one group, country or organisation, could exacerbate the vulnerability of another. In fact, a recent study showed that many adaptations projects are making people more, rather than less, vulnerable to climate change, through so-called maladaptation. Maladaptation can take place when adaptation measures reinforce existing inequalities and thus vulnerabilities, creates new vulnerabilities, or redistributes existing vulnerabilities to other stakeholders.

For instance, export bans imposed by governments during the 2007-2008 global food crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, and more recently during the heatwave in India this summer, could compound existing food insecurities for low-income households in countries around the world. At the same time, global supply chain networks often rely on inputs of crops, goods and services from countries and regions that are vulnerable to climate impacts, and responsive measures by governments and businesses – to divest or restrict market access – could prove maladaptive if they fail to account for the lives and livelihoods of such small-scale producers and traders. For these reasons, climate adaptation across international trade channels and supply chain networks must be considered within the context of broader social and development objectives and co-developed in consultation with affected communities.