2. Methodology

2.1. Research purpose and objectives

This study examines what constitutes an equitable JTfA to climate change from an African perspective. Our central aim was to develop a JTfA framework that can inform national, regional, and international policy processes, ensuring they reflect African experiences and justice imperatives.

Three objectives informed the study:

1. Defining JTfA: Using an adapted grounded theory approach to develop a conceptual framework for JTfA in Africa.
2. Shaping the adaptation narrative: Establishing a meta-narrative that reframes adaptation as a fundamental justice issue.
3. Strengthen policy and action: Promoting a consistent Afrocentric approach to adaptation with relevance to national, regional, and international policy and practice.

We applied qualitative methods comprising open-ended interviews, focus group discussions, expert engagement, and a structured literature review. The research engaged  72 participants in total (35 women and 37 men), nearly achieving complete gender equity. Three participants took part in both an interview and focus group session and were therefore counted only once in the overall total.

2.2. Conceptual and methodological approach

We applied an adapted grounded theory approach, guided by Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory, to flexibly merge information from primary and secondary sources, articulate key elements of a JTfA in Africa, and develop a matrix to assess its dimensions across spatial scales.^[1] This approach emphasises knowledge co-creation with diverse stakeholders, while remaining sensitive to power dynamics and social justice concerns. Our study also drew on Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory, which highlights how overlapping social identities – including gender, class, and poverty – shape differentiated vulnerability.^[2] Schlosberg’s environmental justice framework – which emphasises fairly distributing benefits and burdens – also informed the study.^[3]  We applied dependency theory and world systems analysis to examine how global economic and governance structures perpetuate climate inequities, situating Africa’s adaptation challenges within broader global structural inequalities.^[4] We also adopted the critical theory of the ‘Epistemologies of the South,’ first developed by de Sousa Santos, as a conceptual framework to inform analysis around knowledge production and knowledge systems.^[5]

2.3. Operational definitions and epistemological positioning

Several concepts relating to knowledge, identity, and environmental justice recur in this report. Given their centrality to realising a JTfA, the following operational definitions clarify how these concepts are understood and applied in the analysis.

Indigenous Peoples

Discussion of African Indigenous knowledge (IK) requires asking who and what knowledge counts as ‘Indigenous.’ Regarding Africa, the Indigenous Peoples concept has been a source of confusion and political contention, with the often-invoked reference to ‘first peoples’ or original descendants considered inapplicable given the continent’s long history of human civilisations that predate colonialism.^[6]

Many African governments have asserted that all their citizens are Indigenous or that no Indigenous groups exist in their country. However, pressure from civil society persuaded the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to establish a Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations in the early 2000s. Rather than providing a common definition, it identified three key characteristics that distinguish Indigenous Peoples across Africa: a history of being excluded and marginalised from development processes, cultural distinctiveness, and self-identification.^[7] The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee also indicates the term is relevant for acknowledging groups that primarily rely on natural resources, such as hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastoralists.^[8]

Distinguishing between Western scientific and Indigenous epistemologies

This report distinguishes between Western science and IK so we can examine inequalities in how different knowledge forms are produced, recognised, and used.

Western science is typically viewed as being analytical and using reductionist methods – essentially deconstructing complex phenomena to their most basic or fundamental parts. As a result, Western science often separates itself from its object of study and, more broadly, tends to separate that object (including humans) from nature. It is also objective, positivist, and rigorous, owing to its use of empirical evidence via quantitative or qualitative data collection methods.^[9] Western science relies on transmission and being recorded via text-based forms and academic studies.^[10]

IK has no single characterisation because of its diversity. The IPCC adopts UNESCO’s definition: ‘the understandings, skills and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings.’^[11] IK is dynamic and constantly evolving to meet new challenges or contexts.

Therefore, it is generally considered to hold a comparatively greater holistic, intuitive perspective. It recognises the complexity of the world and the interdependence of its systems. Indigenous worldviews do not separate nature and human society, as humans are part of a deeply interconnected web of life. Relationships with the environment are reciprocal, providing sustenance and autonomy while often fostering its conservation. IK does not distinguish between spiritual, empirical, and sacred forms of knowledge.^[12] It is also considered largely subjective and qualitative in nature, informed by contexts and local conditions. Unlike Western science, IK is predominantly passed down through generations orally.^[13] It is necessary to critically engage with IK because, as with any knowledge system, IK can exhibit social ontologies – such as patriarchy – that are sometimes historically grounded or mobilised in contemporary society, even when lacking historical basis, to serve particular ends.^[14]

Indigenous environmental justice

Conceptualising forms of justice warrants acknowledgement of the existence of widespread and historically rooted Indigenous versions of environmental justice, including specific African versions.

These versions generally extend the right to justice beyond merely humans and to include Earth and all its living inhabitants in deeply relational and intergenerational ways. This de-centring of humans profoundly impacts what environmental justice means and how it should be achieved because it contrasts with the individualised, human rights-based understandings of justice that dominate environmental justice discussions.^[15]

For example, many Ongoni people in Nigeria have spent decades opposing oil exploration on their land because they believe that land and rivers are living and sacred beings in a deeply relational sense. Thus, they must be preserved from harm for the survival of current and future generations. They also believe that spirits and guardian animals live in the forests and must be protected.^[16]

2.4. Participant selection and data collection

African adaptation negotiators, national climate policy implementers, generalists, thematic focused experts, government representatives, civil society actors, and other non-state actors, as stakeholders, provided primary information for this study through interviews and focus group sessions. We conducted 10 open-ended interviews of seven men and three women. The gender disparity resulted from difficulties in securing interviews with the identified stakeholders and was partly mitigated through the focus group sessions.

We also held two focus group discussions with practitioners and community representatives. The first was online with five participants (three men, two women). The second formed part of an in-person workshop in May 2025, which included a dedicated adaptation research session. A total of 30 stakeholders (19 women, 11 men) participated in breakout group discussions, with all five African regions represented (North, West, Central, East, Southern). The groups discussed key questions, shared inputs during a plenary discussion, and submitted group summaries via email.

As a final step, we held a targeted session with 30 expert stakeholders during a separate workshop at the end of May 2025, involving African and international think tanks. Organisations included Power Shift Africa; Mercy Corps; Global Centre on Adaptation; Office of the Kenya Special Envoy for Climate Change; Global Gas and Oil Network; Africa Research and Impact Network; International Organisation for Migration; Triple Capital; South South North; African Centre of Meteorological Application for Development; International Crisis Group; UN Office for Project Services; SDG2 Advocacy Hub; University of Kwa-Zulu Natal; Kenya Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forestry; Ghana Environmental Protection Agency; Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment; Kenya National Treasury; Africa Centre for Technology Studies; and CARE International. The participants (18 men, 12 women) were presented with the preliminary research findings and then provided feedback on them during a plenary discussion. We recorded their feedback and used it to further refine the research findings.

2.5. Secondary research

We gathered secondary evidence through a comprehensive structured review of literature relating to climate vulnerability, adaptation, resilience concepts, just transitions, and environmental justice. We paid particular attention to the four justice dimensions relevant for adaptation: recognitional, procedural, distributive, and restorative. We also examined literature relating to ILK, locally led adaptation, adaptation finance, governance, structural vulnerability, and development pathways.

We reviewed resources including scholarly articles, project and research reports, policy briefs, policy documents, and grey literature. We also reviewed additional strategic policy documents from international organisations, governments, regional institutions, and non-state institutions, striving to use the latest research outputs. We sought to draw on recent evidence while incorporating foundational literature necessary to explain the historical and theoretical development of concepts used herein.

2.6. Data analysis and use of participant evidence

We applied iterative thematic coding consistent with grounded theory to analyse interview transcripts, focus groups, and workshop data. We then compared recurring themes, priorities, tensions, and context-specific insights from participants with the literature review to find convergences and areas for further refinement. We paid particular attention to how respondents understood justice in relation to adaptation, vulnerability, agency, governance, and finance within African adaptation contexts across national, regional, and international levels.

Participants’ contributions helped identify and refine the central themes and principles underpinning a JTfA. We also used these to test, challenge, and contextualise interpretations emerging from the literature. This evidence directly informed the development of the report’s proposed transition pathways and conceptual framework.

Quotations inserted in this report, thus, illustrate recurring or analytically significant perspectives rather than standalone testimonials. They allow participants’ experiences and interpretations to speak directly to the report’s findings and to enrich, support, or challenge the wider analysis. To balance contextual relevance with participants’ right to anonymity, quotations are attributed using broad descriptors – such as stakeholder category, gender, and African region – where this information can be disclosed while maintaining anonymity.

2.7. Research ethics, positionality, and limitations

We conducted data collection and engagement with due consideration of research ethics, including informed consent, anonymity, and reciprocity principles. Participants were informed of the purpose of the research and the intended use of their contributions. Identifying information was excluded from the report unless disclosure had been explicitly authorised.

We applied decolonising methodology to centre African voices and critically engage with Western theoretical frameworks, so that we could ensure the research was contextually relevant and respectful of African perspectives. This report, therefore, adopts an unapologetic Afrocentric positionality in its analysis and recommendations, grounding them in the lived realities, priorities, and perspectives of African actors and institutions.

There were, however, a few research limitations. First, limited resources to engage more grassroots voices resulted in our largely engaging professional participants across Africa. Conducting the study entirely in English also limited linguistic diversity and possibly constrained authentic expression for some participants, underscoring the importance of multilingual approaches. Time constraints restricted research to a single-interview format and prevented further interviews with additional experts, potentially limiting deeper engagement. African climate experts and stakeholders’ limited availability and uneven distribution across the continent also prevented equitable geographical representation in this study.