In global conversations on climate resilience, two pillars dominate: high-level finance and technical engineering. We speak in “cubic metres of concrete,” “standardized climate indicators,” and “carbon offsets.” Yet a critical third pillar remains largely invisible in professional frameworks, despite being the primary engine of successful local action. That pillar is care .
In this first episode of the SEI Asia miniseries on adaptation action hosted by the Adaptation Research Alliance (ARA), three experienced leaders from the Global South: Sheela Patel (Founder of SPARC and Slum Dwellers International), Shehnaaz Moosa (Director at South South North and CEO of CDKN), and Victoria Matusevich (Programme Manager at Fundación Avina) explain why prioritising care is not a “soft” social preference, but a rigorous necessity for effective Locally Led Adaptation (LLA).
For climate practitioners, researchers, and donors, the shift towards a care-based model demands a fundamental change in how we define expertise, risk, and success.
From transactional checkboxes to relational commitment
The current institutional structure of climate aid is based on transactions. We fund a project for 12 to 18 months, expect measurable outputs, and then move on. As Shenaz Musa pointed out, this “checkbox” approach undermines the very foundation of resilience.
True adaptation requires a relational commitment. Care, in a professional context, means investing in a community’s long-term social fabric before a single brick is laid. It also involves recognising that trust is a prerequisite for technical success. If practitioners are not given the time or budget to build deep relationships, the resulting “solutions” often fail to endure once the funding cycle ends.
The fallacy of the “pretty” or cute project
One of the most provocative points raised during the discussion was Sheela Patel’s critique of the “pretty” project. There is a widespread pressure in the development sector to create “photogenic” success stories for donors—rebuilt houses with fresh paint and smiling beneficiaries.
However, Patel argues that this aesthetic focus often conceals a “conspiracy of hiding” failures. In the reality of informal settlements, resilience isn’t always attractive; it is functional, incremental, and often “ugly” by conventional standards. When we prioritise the appearance of success over the process of survival, we create “cute” pilot projects that cannot be scaled. To progress, we must stop funding boutique experiments and begin funding large, interconnected networks where knowledge and failure are shared openly.
Embracing “two-way trust” and having the courage to fail
In the traditional funder-grantee relationship, trust is often one-sided: the community and NGOs must prove their trustworthiness through detailed reporting and compliance. Victoria Matusevich introduces a “two-way trust” model. In this approach, the funder also demonstrates trust by offering significant flexibility. Climate impacts are unpredictable; a plan made in January might be outdated by June due to a local flood, cascading risks, or a changing social environment. Care-based adaptation requires funders to have the “courage to fail together” with their partners. This involves reallocating resources in real-time and viewing “failed” experiments as valuable data rather than administrative burdens. Learning what doesn’t work is as important as discovering what does. Embrace the courage to follow through on what drives remarkable innovation and transformation; everyone must fully participate with trust.
Democratizing knowledge: Lived experience as evidence
There is often a tension between “top-down” climate science and “bottom-up” community knowledge. The podcast guests argued against the extraction of knowledge and for democratising this evidence to produce real insights and learning that remain with communities. While technical data is vital, it must be translated into a language and actions that inform local choices.
Communities are not just “recipients” of climate science; they are practitioners of practice-based evidence. They have a keen understanding of local microclimates and social support systems. A care-focused approach recognises that a community’s “feelings” about their changing environment are just as scientifically important as a rainfall chart. We must stop viewing traditional or experiential knowledge as “anecdotal” and start treating it as the primary guide for development investment.
Centring the care economy
Finally, we must recognise that the burden of adaptation often falls on the “invisible” care economy, which is mainly sustained by women. In informal settings, women handle water, food, and social safety nets during and after climate disasters.
A care-focused adaptation strategy explicitly funds the social infrastructure that supports this labour. This might include funding communal kitchens, childcare centres, or women’s collectives. Securing the community’s life-support systems fosters the stability needed for long-term climate resilience.
A call to action for practitioners
Focusing on care within Locally Led Adaptation is not about being “nice”; it is about being effective. It involves addressing the power imbalances that sustain systemic inequities.
As we progress towards COP31 and beyond, our challenge as a professional community is to stop asking “How much concrete was poured?” and start asking “How was the decision made, whose knowledge was recognised, and did we act with the humility to listen?”
Resilience is not formed merely by materials. It is developed through care.