What works in agrarian adaptation: a systematic assessment of CGIAR climate research evidence

Edward R Carr , Aditi Mukherji

Effective climate adaptation in agrarian settings is critical for the billions of people whose livelihoods depend on agriculture, yet evidence on what adaptation actions actually reduce climate risk remains fragmented and difficult to generalize. In this study we assess the effectiveness of agrarian adaptation using 403 empirical case studies published by CGIAR scientists and partners in peer-reviewed journals between 2012 and 2023. We constructed adaptation rationales connecting climate stressors to adaptation actions and resulting benefits, classifying benefits as reductions in exposure, reductions in sensitivity, or increases in adaptive capacity, consistent with the IPCC framework for climate risk reduction. We further distinguished between indigenous and local agrarian adaptation (ILAA) and planned adaptation, depending on who initiates and designs the action. Both categories addressed drought, flooding, and extreme weather as primary stressors. ILAA actions centered on crop selection, farming techniques, and land and water management, delivering roughly equal sensitivity and adaptive capacity benefits, with livelihood diversification producing the highest benefits per action despite being relatively infrequently implemented. Planned adaptation was dominated by climate-smart agriculture, land and water management, and education and behavioral change, and generated substantially more adaptive capacity benefits than sensitivity benefits. Neither adaptation type delivered meaningful exposure benefits. These patterns reflect a fundamental divergence in adaptation rationales: ILAA prioritizes near-term reduction of sensitivity within existing livelihoods structures, while planned adaptation emphasizes longer-term capacity building. This divergence carries practical risks, as planned interventions focused on adaptive capacity may undermine the short-term sensitivity benefits communities depend on and face limited uptake when they challenge existing social arrangements. Bridging these divergent rationales by aligning planned adaptation with local livelihoods goals before pursuing transformative change offers a pathway toward more effective, locally led, and co-produced agrarian adaptation.