From Local Landscapes to Global Climate Action

Why climate adaptation must begin with the realities of communities

My understanding of climate change has evolved from seeing it primarily as an environmental challenge to understanding it as a question of livelihoods, governance, inequality and justice. Through my academic journey and field experiences, I have come to recognise that climate change is not experienced equally by everyone. While some communities have the resources and institutions to prepare for climate-related risks, others face these risks with limited choices and support. This realisation shapes my COP story and my interest in ensuring that global climate commitments translate into meaningful action on the ground.

I come from Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh, and my academic background in Political Science and History initially drew me towards questions of governance, institutions and development. Pursuing a Master’s in Natural Resources and Governance at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, helped me explore the relationship between society and ecology. I began to understand that environmental challenges cannot be addressed through scientific or technological solutions alone. They also require us to examine who controls resources, whose vulnerabilities are recognised, and who participates in decisions that affect their lives.

My work on district-level climate risk assessments for Raigad and Beed districts in Maharashtra further shaped this understanding. Comparing a coastal district with a semi-arid district helped me appreciate that climate vulnerability is geographically diverse. The risks faced by communities depend not only on climatic hazards but also on their livelihoods, access to water, infrastructure, institutional support and capacity to respond to change. A district experiencing drought and one exposed to coastal hazards may require very different interventions, even though both are confronting the consequences of a changing climate.

This experience made me think about a fundamental question: how can climate policies be designed to reflect the differences between places and the people who inhabit them?

My subsequent field experience with the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), through a community-based climate vulnerability and adaptation study in Bhilwara, Rajasthan, brought another dimension to this question. Engaging with communities across six villages in Shahpura and Asind blocks through focus group discussions and participatory research helped me appreciate the importance of understanding local realities. Discussions with women, farmers and other stakeholders offered perspectives that cannot always be captured through secondary datasets or vulnerability indices alone. People’s relationships with land, water, agriculture and other natural resources are central to understanding their capacity to respond to environmental change.

These experiences taught me that climate vulnerability is not simply a geographical condition; it is also shaped by social and economic circumstances. A climate hazard may affect an entire region, but its consequences can be significantly different for a farmer dependent on rainfall, a woman responsible for managing household water, or a household with limited financial resources to recover from a shock. Consequently, adaptation must go beyond responding to disasters. It must strengthen the social, economic and ecological systems that enable communities to cope with uncertainty.

This is where the Conference of the Parties (COP) becomes important to me.

Before engaging more deeply with the Youth for COP programme, international climate negotiations seemed distant from the everyday realities I was interested in understanding. Through the programme’s modules on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), mitigation, adaptation, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), I began to see how international negotiations establish the frameworks within which countries articulate their climate ambitions and responsibilities.

However, understanding these frameworks also made me more conscious of the distance that can exist between commitments and implementation. An ambitious climate target matters, but so does the ability of institutions to implement it. A well-designed adaptation plan matters, but only if it responds to local vulnerabilities, reaches those who need it and is supported by adequate finance, knowledge and institutional capacity.

For me, one of the most important questions for COP is therefore not simply how ambitious countries are willing to be, but how effectively that ambition can be translated into action.

I believe adaptation deserves particular attention in this conversation. Mitigation is essential to limiting future warming, but communities are already dealing with climate-related risks and need support to prepare for them. Adaptation planning must be locally informed, socially inclusive and sensitive to the diversity of livelihoods and ecosystems. It should recognise women’s knowledge, the experiences of small and marginal farmers, the importance of traditional practices, and the role of healthy ecosystems in reducing vulnerability.

National commitments and adaptation plans should also be connected to district and local planning processes. Climate risk assessments can help identify where vulnerabilities are concentrated, but they must be complemented by community knowledge and participation. Local institutions need the capacity and resources to turn assessments into practical measures, whether through improved water governance, resilient agricultural practices, ecosystem restoration or livelihood diversification. Adaptation should not become another policy exercise that produces documents without changing the conditions that make people vulnerable.

Climate finance is equally important. Communities cannot be expected to build resilience through their own efforts alone, particularly when they have contributed relatively little to the historical accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions. International climate cooperation must therefore address not only the availability of finance but also its accessibility, adequacy and effectiveness. Climate justice requires recognising unequal responsibilities and ensuring that vulnerable communities are not left to bear the costs of a crisis they did little to create.

As a young professional working at the intersection of natural resource governance and climate vulnerability, I see my role as helping bridge the gap between evidence, policy and people. I want to contribute to climate research and planning that makes vulnerabilities visible, strengthens local institutions and supports adaptation strategies grounded in the realities of communities. I also want to understand how young people can participate more meaningfully in climate negotiations and hold decision-makers accountable for their commitments.

My message to COP would be simple: global climate action must be measured not only by the commitments announced at international conferences, but also by the changes experienced by people and ecosystems on the ground. The voices of communities facing climate risks must inform the decisions made in negotiating rooms, and young people must have opportunities to contribute to shaping those decisions.

Youth for COP has helped me understand that the COP process is not separate from the work happening in villages, districts and landscapes. The two are connected by questions of responsibility, resources and the kind of future we choose to build.

My COP story is still unfolding. I may not yet be at the negotiating table, but my academic and field experiences have given me a perspective I hope to carry into climate conversations: one that connects global ambition with local realities. Ultimately, climate action will be meaningful when it moves beyond commitments on paper and enables communities to live with greater security, dignity and resilience in a changing climate.