Climate change adaptation and its implementation at national and international levels

Climate change adaptation is the second arm of climate change action and seeks to ensure that all countries tackle the impacts of climate change by addressing both social and geographical vulnerabilities. The article discusses adaptation and its application at national and international levels. It also examines adaptation to climate change as a developmental challenge and how the principles of sustainable development can aid climate change action. The article analyses relevant aspects of national and international instruments relating to climate change adaptation and spotlights the commitment of Nigeria and South Africa to climate change adaptation. The article finds that integrating sustainable development into governance helps adaptation and increases resilience against the impacts of climate change. The article also emphasizes the necessity of good governance, particularly protection of human rights, climate finance and effective land use governance, to ensure climate change adaptation. The article argues that climate change adaptation should be viewed more as a developmental, rather than an environmental, challenge. It further asserts that coordinated action, especially in relation to land use governance and sustainable development is required to ensure sustainable climate action. This is particularly so given that citizens of many developing countries, including Nigeria and South Africa, depend on land and its resources for social and economic development. Keywords: Adaptation; Climate Finance; Good Governance; Nigeria; South Africa.

Knowledge of Governance as Knowledge for Governance: Spatialized Techniques of Neutralization

The term governance often evokes processes of negotiation and collaboration between civil society, private sector, and state actors. Yet, governance processes also involve a contest of ideas in efforts to legitimate state-backed decision making. Drawing on empirical cases of coastal property developments in South Australia, this chapter investigates how key actors in land-use governance—such as developers, planners, politicians, and scientists—reflexively deploy “techniques of neutralization” to deflect critiques and manage opposition to contentious new developments. The author explores how these techniques draw on particular spatial metaphors and images to suggest that, somewhat ironically, a tacit meta technique is to neutralize the projected environmental risks to coastal space through narratives of time. By outlining these everyday techniques of neutralization, the author argues that such routines are a form of knowledge of governance—knowing what can be said and ways of speaking within governance processes—that is in turn a form of knowledge for governance.

How boundary objects help to perform roles of science arbiter, honest broker, and issue advocate

We examine roles and knowledge by which researchers can enhance connections between science, policy, and society. We arranged a participatory scenario workshop with representatives from environmental administration to discuss how different land-use governance arrangements link to sustainability of reindeer herding in northern Finland. We used fast track scenarios as boundary objects that aimed to bring reindeer herders’ problem definitions to be discussed with administrators. First, we performed the role of science arbiter by using our previous research with reindeer herders as the starting point for the discussions. Next, we discussed and elaborated diverse future alternatives via the role of honest broker. Finally, we were interpreted as issue advocates because the scenario exercise reduced the scope of preferable policy options for administrators. Performing these boundary-spanning roles in the same process, but each, in turn, enables researchers to offer views on sustainability via scenarios that break easily acceptable conventions.

Inter-sectoral and multilevel coordination alone do not reduce deforestation and advance environmental justice: Why bold contestation works when collaboration fails

Policy makers, academics, and conservationists often posit that poor coordination between different land use sectors, and between levels of governance, as an underlying challenge for reducing deforestation and forest degradation. This paper analyzes this argument using data from interviews with over 500 respondents from government, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, local and indigenous communities, activists, and individuals involved in 35 diverse land use initiatives in three countries: Peru, Indonesia, and Mexico. We find that while there is strong evidence of widespread coordination failures between sectors and levels, more fundamental political issues preclude effective coordination. We argue that political coalitions act to oppose environmental objectives and to impede their opponents from participating in land use governance. Moreover, we find that where coordination between actors does occur, it does not necessarily produce environmentally sustainable and socially just land use outcomes. Where we do find successful initiatives to reduce deforestation and benefit local people, effective coordination between well-informed actors is often present, but it does not occur spontaneously, and is instead driven by political organizing over time by activists, local people, nongovernmental organizations, and international donors. We suggest that the global environmental community must recognize explicitly these political dimensions of land use governance in order to successfully collaborate with local people to reduce deforestation.