Business unusual: Why agricultural research must embrace a new paradigm for locally led climate adaptation 

As global temperatures rise and weather patterns become increasingly erratic, the quest for climate-resilient food and water systems has never been more urgent. However, a growing chorus of experts warns that current top-down approaches are failing those on the front lines. In a provocative new opinion piece published in PLOS Climate, a team of international researchers argues that to truly address the crisis, agricultural research must embrace a “business unusual” paradigm when it comes to implementing Locally Led Climate Adaptation (LLCA).

The paper, titled “Locally led climate adaptation: Business unusual for agricultural research,” highlights a critical flaw in traditional climate action: adaptation endeavors often bypass the needs and preferences of the communities they intend to work with. In many cases, these efforts not only fail to reach the most vulnerable populations but may inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities.

The shift from tech to transformation

For decades, agricultural research has largely focused on producing innovative technologies and practices to bolster climate resilience. While these remain important, the authors argue that “systems transformation is a process of social change” that requires more than just new seeds or irrigation tools. Instead, it requires deep intervention into social norms, governance, and the power dynamics of decision-making.

The core of LLCA is ensuring that climate action is genuinely led by the communities affected. These local stakeholders are best positioned to understand their own priorities and what is relevant within their specific contexts. To guide this shift, the researchers point to eight principles of LLCA originally developed under the auspices of the Global Commission for Adaptation.

The eight principles are:

• Devolve decision-making: Give local communities and institutions direct power over funding and how adaptation actions are prioritized and managed.
• Address inequalities: Target the social, economic, and political root causes of vulnerability for marginalized groups, including women and youth.
• Provide reliable funding: Ensure financial support is long-term, predictable, and easy for local organizations to access.
• Build local capacity: Invest in local leadership and skills to create a lasting institutional legacy that does not depend on project-based donor funding.
• Understand climate risks: Combine scientific data with local and Indigenous knowledge to better prepare for various future climate scenarios.
• Enable flexible learning: Use adaptive management and flexible programming to handle the inherent uncertainty of climate change.
• Ensure accountability: Make program design and financial processes transparent and answerable to local stakeholders.
• Collaborate for impact: Coordinate across different sectors and funding sources to maximize efficiency and avoid duplicating efforts

A growing movement

The momentum behind this approach is significant. To date, the eight principles have been formally endorsed by more than 130 governments, global institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the World Bank. Despite this political support, a major gap remains between rhetoric and reality.

The paper notes that the principles themselves are currently more of a “political testimony” than a result of a scientific process; they are largely untested and lack a robust evidence base. Furthermore, the operationalization of LLCA is frequently stymied by rigid policy and funding frameworks that remain stuck in traditional hierarchies and short-term thinking.

Researchers identified several persistent knowledge gaps:

• Lack of tools: There are few methodologies or approaches to guide the actual implementation of LLCA.
• Difficult metrics: Measuring climate resilience and vulnerability is notoriously difficult, making it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of local initiatives.
• Competing interests: Local decision-makers with vested interests may sometimes oppose tackling the structural inequalities required by the principles.

Embracing the unusual

To bridge this gap, the authors call for a radical shift in how agricultural research is conducted. This “business unusual” approach requires researchers to move beyond their traditional roles as directors of development and instead embed themselves in transdisciplinary partnerships.

These partnerships must prioritize epistemological diversity, bringing together different social worlds, disciplines, and geographies. Crucially, the authors argue that researchers must practice “intellectual humility,” recognizing the limitations of their own knowledge and being willing to reduce the power asymmetries that often dominate research-for-development projects.

“Researchers should engage with the broader LLCA community with a stronger dose of humility,” the authors write, noting that other local actors are often more vital when it comes to scaling and operationalizing LLCA.

The challenge and the path forward

The challenge for the scientific community is to move from generating technologies to facilitating transformative processes. This includes helping local people create the adaptation metrics and evidence that actually matter to them, a concept described as “resilience from below”.

The paper concludes that while LLCA has the potential to be transformative, it requires researchers to change their own internal culture before they can hope to change the world. As the authors cite from previous literature: “We will need to transform our work before transforming our world”.

By analyzing where LLCA has found fertile ground and where it has struggled, the agricultural research community can begin to build the pathways needed for an equitable and sustainable climate future. In this new era of business unusual, the measure of success will not just be the output of a lab, but the empowerment of a community.