**2. Climate change interventions amidst evolving rural development approaches**

Approaches to rural development programming are always in transition. Such dynamism can be attributed to several factors including the continuous shift in development paradigms or thinking; the need for donor effectiveness; continuous learning and knowledge generation from rural development practice; and continuous shifts in global and local socio-economic, socio-cultural, and political factors affecting rural livelihoods. A synopsis of the rural development programming trajectory identifies several phases and shifts in development paradigms from the 1950s to the present that influenced praxis. These include development as economic growth and modernization in the 1950s; state intervention in the 1960s; market liberalisation in the 1980s; poverty reduction, participation, and empowerment in the 1990s; environment, climate change concerns, sustainable livelihoods, and millennium development goals (MDGs) in the early 2000 and more recently sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the focus on resilience [11–13]. These development paradigms shape worldviews, beliefs, and perceptions on appropriate programming approaches.

Although a detailed account on the evolution and progression of programming approaches is beyond the scope of this paper, a few approaches are highlighted here to give a context. A review of literature highlights varying nomenclature in classifying rural development programming approaches.1 Westoby and Dowling [14] identify several of these approaches. These include community driven development (CDD);

<sup>1</sup> The approaches outlined here are not necessarily the most effective but are perceived as commonly applied in the African community development context.

#### *A Framework for Facilitating Holistic Interventions for Building Community Resilience… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102977*

rights-based community development (RBCD); asset-based community development (ABCD); sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA), people-centred capacity building approach (PCCBA); comprehensive community initiatives, and most recently, community resilience approaches which are the focus of this paper and are detailed in proceeding sections. CDD is associated with investments by the World Bank although its origins are linked to post-colonial years in India and Bangladesh during the 1940s and 1960s ([15], p. 27). Such a scenario has been linked to huge investments by the World Bank<sup>2</sup> into CCD projects in the last decade. It is an approach that empowers the community by giving control of decision-making and resources. Communities are given the power to plan, execute and monitor projects. It places emphasis on improving governance capacity of the community and local development institutions.

Rights-based community development sets the achievement of human rights as a development objective and utilizes international human accountability to support development [17]. Its tenets are linked to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1986 United Nations Declaration of the Rights to Development (UNDRD). According to Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi [18], the rights-based approach calls for existing resources to be shared more equally and for assisting the marginalised people to assert their rights to those resources. Its origins are highly contested with some scholars arguing linkages with gender and human rights struggles [19]. Other scholars link it with rights of the disabled [20] and civil, political, economic, social, environmental, and cultural rights [21].

ABCD is based on the assertion that communities can organise and drive their own development through the identification and mobilisation of existing resources at their disposal [22]. The SLA links socio-economic and environmental development concerns within communities and focuses on people's strengths. It looks at five types of household assets; natural, social, financial, physical, and human capital and how they sustain livelihoods. The approach is premised on livelihoods, which are regarded as means of gaining a living through capabilities or livelihood strategies (e.g., agricultural intensification, livelihood diversification) and assets (both tangible and intangible). Livelihoods are taken as sustainable through the ability to recover from stress, and shocks to maintain and enhance capabilities and assets without undermining the natural resource base [23]. The approach emphasizes the importance of contexts, institutions, and supportive policies in enhancing livelihoods.

Related to SLA is community capitals framework (CCF) which is a systems approach to analysis of communities for holistic interventions. It emphasises seven different forms of capital; natural, human, social, financial, built, cultural and political, types of assets found in each capital, and how capitals are converted and coordinated. It provides tools for identifying capabilities for change of vulnerability situations. The CCF is related to the SL framework, with five capitals (human, social, financial, natural, and physical) being part of the assets in SLA framework. CCF adds cultural and political capital; the former brings dimensions of values, norms, and world views while the latter caters to influencing power dynamics, laws, policies, and strategies that affect livelihoods. Another approach within the African development discourse is the comprehensive rural development program (CRDP) or integrated rural development program or approach which cuts across all sectors and comprehensive approach whose components include agrarian reform, rural development, and land reform [24].

<sup>2</sup> Over the period 2000–2010, the World Bank has invested an average of USD 2 Billion a year for its CDD portfolio. In 2003, CDD represented \$7 Billion of the World Bank commitments [16].

In the last two decades, there has been a proliferation of comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs). These are multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder approaches to rural development [25]. They aim at a system-wide approach to community empowerment. They provide communities with leadership skills, youth, and women empowerment, aim at improving health systems and entrepreneurial skills, and enhance the utilisation of information communication technologies within communities. Comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs) present a shift from projectspecific interventions toward a multi-faceted approach that aims at community-wide socio-economic transformation. They cover multiple development sectors (health, social services, leadership development, information communication technologies, youth development, institutional strengthening, women empowerment, and entrepreneurial development). CCIs engage multiple stakeholders including government departments, community-based organisations, private sector companies, research, and academic institutions. They are the shift from developmental approaches that view communities as recipients of aid and empower communities through decisionmaking and financial control. Communities are viewed as partners in developing community-led local development solutions. The following section explores the concept of community resilience which is at the core of this paper and is currently a core theme in rural development programming in the context of climate change.

### **3. Building community resilience**

Resilience focuses on how a community or individual can deal with disturbance, surprise, and change. It entails framing a sustainable future in an environment of growing risk and uncertainty. The concept was originally coined from ecology but currently borrows from various disciplines including ecosystems stability, complex adaptive systems, engineering infrastructure, psychology, behavioral sciences, and disaster risk management [26, 27]. The concept of resilience does not have a common definition and its building blocks are highly contested. However, it is generally formulated around the continued ability of a person, group, or system to adapt to shocks and stress and continue to function, or quickly recover its ability to function, during and after stress [28].

In the rural development context, it focuses on how communities can recover after a hazard, to their reference state of livelihood status or improve for the batter. It is the ability to withstand (absorb) shocks and stresses, as well as the ability to adapt to dynamic conditions and put in place mechanisms that enable longer-term, systemic responses to the underlying causes of vulnerability [29]. The need for building community resilience to the impacts of climate change has become central to rural development programming [26, 30–32]. Effort has been put into developing theories of change that build/strengthen household and community resilience. This requires helping people cope with current change, adapt their livelihoods, and improve governance systems and ecosystem health so they are better able to avoid problems in the future. It requires an integrated approach and a long-term commitment to improving three critical capacities (absorptive, adaptive, and transformative), which are interconnected, mutually reinforcing, and exist at multiple levels, i.e., individual, household, community, national, and ecosystem levels [26, 32]. Absorptive capacity leads to persistence, adaptive capacity leads to incremental adjustments/changes and adaptation, while transformative capacity leads to transformational responses [26].

According to Frankenberger [29], most NGO work on resilience programming has focused on five fundamental variables in developing theories of change. These

#### *A Framework for Facilitating Holistic Interventions for Building Community Resilience… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102977*

variables a focus on shock dynamics, a multidimensional capacity, resilience functions, outcome-indexed capacities, and a multilevel and systems-based approach. Shock dynamics focus on understanding the type of shock(s) and the effects of the shock(s). A multidimensional approach draws on human, social, economic, physical, ecological, and programmatic (for example, safety nets) resources, the optimal configuration of which varies by type of shock, level of aggregation, context, and community. Resilience functions prepare for and respond to a particular type of disturbance or configuration of disturbances. They may require different types of absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. Outcome indexed capacities stipulate that resilience should be indexed to a given well-being outcome. The specific capacities drawn upon may vary depending on the outcome of interest (for example, health, food security, poverty. Multilevel, systems-based approach argues that resilience is observed at a given level (such as household or community) but is understood as a multilevel construct. Interventions should be sensitive to nested dependencies between levels (for instance, households and communities, communities, and regions).

Absorptive capacity is the ability to minimize exposure to shocks and stresses through preventative measures and appropriate coping strategies to recover quickly and avoid permanent, negative impacts [26]. It is built through various incremental changes and adaptations that people undergo to continue functioning in response to a shock or growing stress, without making major qualitative changes to the way they operate. These adjustments can take many forms. In the context of rural households affected by food insecurity, examples include the adoption of new farming techniques, the diversification or adjustment of household's livelihood activities, and the decision of taking out loans or connecting to new social networks. Disaster risk reduction/management (DRR/DRM) supports improved absorptive capacity by helping households and communities reduce risk and absorb the impacts of shocks without permanent, negative impacts on their livelihoods [32].

Adaptive capacity is the ability to make proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood strategies based on an understanding of changing conditions. It is the capacity to learn, combine experience and knowledge, adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes, and continues operating ([33], p. 13). According to Brooks [34]; Smit and Wandel [35] adaptation refers to adjustments in a systems' (household, community, group, sector, region, country) behavior, characteristics, actions, or outcomes that enhance its ability to cope with, manage or adjust to some changing condition, stress, hazard, risk or opportunity in order for the system to improve livelihoods. The rural development discourse derives knowledge of adaptation mostly from studying vulnerability to natural hazards and impacts on food insecurity [36]. Adaptation strategies realise that communities can take concrete steps to minimise net losses from climate change including taking advantage of opportunities for gains. Improved adaptive capacity results from adjustments that include livelihoods diversification, asset accumulation, and improved social and human capital.

Transformative capacity refers to system-level changes that enable more lasting resilience at the household and community levels. In recent years, resilience programming has shifted the balance of effort and resources from short-term humanitarian assistance efforts toward a combination of disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, livelihood diversification, social protection programs, and longer-term institutional development and systemic change [32]. Transformative capacity enables more lasting resilience at the household and community levels through altering permanently and

drastically the system's functioning or its structure to ensure the immediate "survival" of the household/system. It encompasses the governance mechanisms, policies/regulations, infrastructure, community networks, and formal and informal social protection mechanisms that constitute the enabling environment necessary for systemic change [32].
