Participation without Power : Why Locally Led Adaptation Still Falls Short in Bangladesh
Bangladesh is globally recognized as one of the most climate- vulnerable countries, which are exposed to cyclones, floods, salinity intrusion, drought and erratic rainfall. Over the past two decades, the country has made notable progress in disaster preparedness and climate-resilient infrastructure.
Despite these achievements, there’s a troubling reality: communities most impacted by climate change are often excluded from decisions about adaptation planning, funding, and implementation.
The concept of Locally Led Adaptation (LLA) has emerged globally as a response to this challenge. LLA advocates for decentralizing decision-making, resources, and accountability to the lowest suitable level, while tackling structural inequalities that contribute to vulnerability.
Bangladesh has formally included this narrative through policies such as the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and National Determinate Contribution (NDC). However, evidence from the ground suggests that locally led adaptation remains more aspirational than operational.
A comparative study in a coastal ward of Shyamnagar, Satkhira, and a drought-prone ward of Porsha, Naogaon, shows a significant inconsistency. Communities in both contexts are actively adapting to climate risks, yet they remain passive participants in formal adaptation governance.
Communities are Adapting—But Without Authority
In Shyamnagar, communities face recurring cyclones, salinity intrusion, waterlogging and drinking water scarcity. They have developed practical solutions like rainwater harvesting, saline-tolerant crops, homestead gardening, alternative livelihoods, and community-based disaster preparedness.
In Porsha, facing drought and groundwater depletion, farmers have changed crop schedules, chosen drought-resistant varieties, and expanded mango-based agroforestry for resilience.
These practices showcase remarkable local innovation and the rich depth of indigenous knowledge. However, they are seldom integrated into the plans of Union Parishads, disaster management committees, or budgetary processes.
Instead, adaptation remains largely project-driven, designed by NGOs implementation. Participation is visible but power is not. or government agencies, with communities engaged mainly during
Field evidence shows that communities are often consulted to validate pre-designed interventions, rather than to define priorities or control resources.
Decisions related to project selection, budgeting and monitoring are dominated by Union Parishads, Upazila offices and NGOs. Community input is typically advisory, not decisive.
This trend highlights a more significant issue in governance. Although decentralization is officially recognized, actual control over climate finance and planning continues to be centralized.
As a result, LLA Principle 1—devolving decision-making to the lowest appropriate level—remains weakly implemented. Communities are expected to adapt, but not to decide
The second core principle of LLA—addressing structural inequalities—is also inadequately realized. Women, youth, people with disabilities, displaced individuals, and marginalized ethnic groups often attend meetings and focus groups, but have little influence on decisions.
In coastal areas, women’s participation is relatively higher due to NGO-facilitated groups, particularly around disaster preparedness. However, leadership positions in formal committees remain male-dominated.
In drought-prone areas, women face additional barriers linked to land ownership and limited access to agricultural extension services.
Youth participation in adaptation governance is limited by migration and a lack of institutional support. Additionally, persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities are often overlooked.
This reveals a troubling trend: inclusion is often numeric, not transformative. Without addressing power relations, social norms and political exclusion, participation risks becoming tokenistic.
A key insight from comparing coastal and drought-prone contexts is that despite different climate risks, governance challenges are remarkably similar. Both areas exhibit strong community innovation but weak decision-making power. Barriers to locally led adaptation are more related to institutional design, political economy, and resource control than to technical capacity.
Local institutions such as community-based organizations and farmer groups exist, but they lack financial autonomy and formal authority. Coordination between government agencies, NGOs and community institutions remains fragmented, reinforcing dependency rather than empowerment.
For Bangladesh to effectively support local adaptation, it needs to shift from seeing communities as beneficiaries to recognizing them as decision-makers. This means:
- Decentralizing climate finance to local institutions with transparent accountability mechanisms
Incorporating indigenous practices into the plans of Union Parishads and the Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA) is essential for fostering community resilience and sustainable development.
- Strengthening inclusive local governance, ensuring women, youth and marginalized groups hold leadership roles
- Reframing NGO roles from project implementers to facilitators of community-led processes
Locally led adaptation is not merely a technical approach—it is a question of power, justice and trust. Bangladesh’s communities have already shown they can adapt. The real challenge now is whether the system is willing to let them lead.
