The Transition from Community Based Adaptation (CBA) to Locally Led Adaptation (LLA)

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. In places like coastal Bangladesh, vulnerability becoming more prevalant. Yet one question remains central: who decides how people adapt to these changes? Over the past two decades, the answer has been evolving. What began as community-based adaptation (CBA) is now shifting toward locally led adaptation (LLA), while the shift is not only about improving project outcomes but also it is about redistributing decision-making power.

Community-based adaptation (CBA) emerged in the early 2000s as a response to top-down climate solutions. It is an approach to climate adaptation that focuses on enabling communities to use their local knowledge, capacities, and priorities to respond to climate change. At its core, CBA emphasizes supporting communities to adapt using their own knowledge, priorities, and capacities. This approach gained global recognition in 2005 at the first international CBA conference in Dhaka, organized by institutions such as the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Around the same time, organizations like UNDP, CARE, and Oxfam began investing in community-level adaptation initiatives. It recognized something simple but powerful: local people understand their environment best and should be part of the solution.

By the late 2000s and 2010s, CBA had become a widely accepted approach. Programs like the UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme funded hundreds of local projects around the world. NGOs developed frameworks to guide implementation, such as CARE’s CBA Framework in 2015. CBA also began influencing national adaptation planning. Governments started including community-level actions in their climate plans. The approach helped bridge scientific knowledge with local practices, making adaptation more practical and grounded.

CBA made important contributions. It brought vulnerable communities into the center of climate discussions. It validated indigenous and local knowledge. It also delivered real, on-the-ground solutions tailored to specific contexts. However, over time, important limitations became apparent. Despite its emphasis on participation, many CBA initiatives remained externally driven. Donors, NGOs, and international agencies often retained control over design, funding, and decision-making processes. Communities were consulted, but rarely empowered to lead. Additionally, CBA projects were frequently short-term and small-scale, limiting their sustainability and systemic impact. The concept of “community” was often treated as homogeneous, overlooking internal differences related to gender, power, and access to resources. These gaps raised a critical question: is this participation meaningful without a corresponding shift in power?

Locally led adaptation (LLA) has emerged in response to these concerns. Rather than focusing solely on participation, it also focuses on who holds decision-making power. It gained momentum after 2018, particularly following the work of the Global Commission on Adaptation. In 2021, organizations including IIED, the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the Global Center on Adaptation formalized a set of guiding principles for LLA. At first, the idea felt ambitious, but it is quite simple. Local actors, local communities, local governments, and civil society etc should not only just participate in adaptation but also lead it. This includes deciding priorities, managing funds, and shaping long-term strategies.

This transition is not a rejection of CBA, it is an evolution. Where CBA focused on participation, LLA focuses on authority. CBA operated primarily through discrete projects; LLA focuses on strengthening systems and institutions. CBA often framed people as beneficiaries; LLA positions them as decision-makers. A key distinction is that just because a project happens locally does not mean it is locally led. Genuine local leadership requires meaningful control over both decisions and resources. This distinction is increasingly important as climate challenges grow more complex. Short-term, externally designed interventions are insufficient. Effective adaptation must be long-term, flexible, and embedded within local governance structures.

Today, LLA is gaining global traction. More than one hundred organizations have endorsed its principles, and funding mechanisms such as the Adaptation Fund are beginning to expand direct access for local actors. However, a significant gap remains between rhetoric and practice. Only a small proportion of climate finance reaches local levels in ways that enable genuine leadership. Many critical decisions are still made far from the communities most affected.

The journey from community-based adaptation to locally led adaptation reflects a deeper shift in development thinking. Inclusion alone is no longer enough. The central challenge is ensuring that those most affected by climate change have the authority to shape responses. Ultimately, adaptation will only be effective if local actors are not merely participants but also decision-makers.