Climate Change, Tribal Livelihoods and Adaptive Capacity in Jangalmahal, West Bengal: A Comparative Policy and Secondary-Data Case Study

Climate change interacts with livelihood insecurity through ecological change, resource access, labour markets, public infrastructure, and the capacity of institutions to support adaptation. These relationships are especially important in Jangalmahal, a forest-fringe and predominantly rural region of southwestern West Bengal where many households combine rain-fed agriculture, wage labour, forest-based products, livestock, and migration. This article develops a comparative policy and secondary-data framework for examining how climate-related livelihood risks and adaptive capacity intersect across Jhargram, Purulia, Bankura, and Paschim Medinipur. It synthesises published research on tribal livelihood vulnerability and forest dependence with official material on climate vulnerability, the Forest Rights Act (FRA), and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The review identifies an established empirical foundation: prior household research in Paschim Medinipur has compared vulnerability among Santal, Munda, Bhumij, and Lodha communities, while another study has examined forest-dependent households’ perceptions of climate and forest change in Jangalmahal. Consequently, the principal contribution proposed here is not a claim that the region is unstudied, but a shift from describing vulnerability toward assessing the policy pathways through which adaptive capacity might be supported, constrained, or unequally distributed. The article uses the sustainable livelihoods framework, vulnerability theory, and institutional analysis to organise evidence across five dimensions: livelihood assets, climate exposure, access to natural resources, public employment and infrastructure, and institutional recognition and participation. Official FRA figures demonstrate that claims, titles, and pending or rejected applications differ across the four districts, but these administrative measures cannot by themselves establish whether rights are secure or whether climate resilience has improved. Similarly, MGNREGA expenditure and employment indicators can describe implementation but cannot be interpreted as adaptation outcomes without examining asset quality, durability, distribution, and local hazard relevance. The paper proposes a reproducible comparative protocol and a policy matrix linking evidence to testable propositions. It concludes that climate adaptation in Jangalmahal should be evaluated as a multi-institutional process connecting livelihood diversification, secure resource access, locally relevant public works, and meaningful participation. Quantitative conclusions about present-day household adaptive capacity remain contingent on extraction and harmonisation of current district- and block-level datasets.