1,720,997 research outputs found
The ‘national turn’ in climate change loss and damage governance research: constructing the L&D policy landscape in Tuvalu
No full textLoss and damage (L&D) is now a key area of climate policy. Yet studies of L&D governance have focused disproportionately on the international level while the national scale of analysis has been overlooked. Recent developments in the UNFCCC negotiations and a growing call for a ‘science of loss’ that can support policy-makers to address L&D suggest the need for a greater understanding of L&D governance at the national level. How do national policy-makers understand the concept of L&D? What types of policies have been developed, implemented and funded to address L&D? We study the paradigmatic case of Tuvalu to illustrate the value of turning to the national level of analysis, while recognizing that other countries might frame L&D and its relevance for the national context differently, and thus devise a diverse set of policy responses. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with national stakeholders and a systematic policy review using methods of interpretive policy analysis, we show that the concept of L&D was introduced in official documentation in 2012 and is not explicitly distinguished from adaptation. We find that managing L&D constitutes a complex governance system with competencies and responsibilities diffused across different national actors and multiple governance scales. As conceptualized by policy-makers and within policy documents, L&D is closely tied to issues related to national sovereignty, human mobility, infrastructure investment and protection of the Exclusive Economic Zone. We conclude by suggesting that there is a need for a ‘national turn’ in research on L&D governance to produce knowledge that will support policy-makers, but also argue that national level analyses will always need to be situated within a multi-scalar context. Key policy insights: Conceptual understandings of L&D and how it is distinct from adaptation do not translate neatly into national policy-making practices. In Tuvalu, L&D does not feature as a stand-alone policy domain, but rather it is treated as a cross-cutting issue. National responses to L&D might involve action at the regional and international level. The establishment of the Santiago Network at COP25 provides new impetus for considering how to govern climate change L&D at the national level
An assessment framework for climate-proof nature-based solutions
No full textRaising interest in ‘nature-based solutions’ (NBS) has inspired attempts to organise their principles and qualities within comprehensive and internally consistent evaluation frameworks, so as to demonstrate the superior performance of ‘working with nature’. However, the proposed frameworks stop short of taking into account the changing conditions in which NBS are set to operate. Climate change, in particular, can alter ecosystems and their services, and may undermine the performance of green solutions that rely on them. We present here a ‘dynamic’ assessment framework that explicitly accounts for the impact of climate change on the effectiveness of the proposed NBS. The framework is based on an innovative approach that integrates system analysis and backcasting. Although it has not yet been applied to the NBS context, backcasting is well-suited to seize the transformational character of NBS, as it encourages ‘breakthrough’ leaps rather than incremental improvements. Our framework factors in the multifunctional character of NBS and is designed to capture associated direct benefits/costs and co-benefits/costs. It is meant to be applied ex ante to ideally support the choice between innovative NBS and traditional options, in an effort to respond to the societal challenges identified by the EU Research & Innovation agenda on the environment
The knowledge politics of climate change loss and damage across scales of governance
No full textWhilst the international politics of climate change-related loss and damage has received growing scholarly attention, there has been less focus on national level policy responses. This is puzzling because climate change impacts are inherently local and political. What knowledge and ideas do policy actors at the national level use to conceptualise the problem of climate change loss and damage? What are the injustices that result from the multi-scalar construction of governance problems? Drawing on insights from Science and Technology Studies about the politics of knowledge production, we analyse how governance problems are constructed and explore resultant injustices. To do so, we focus on the paradigmatic case study of Antigua and Barbuda, illustrating the complex interactions between knowledge and politics in governing loss and damage. We conclude by calling for greater scholarly attention to the production of epistemological injustices, as specific forms of knowledge are translated across scales of action
Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss & damage debate
No full textThe Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (L&D) associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established in 2013 to advance i) knowledge generation; ii) coordination and iii) support to address losses and damages under the UNFCCC. So far, the work undertaken by the WIM Executive Committee (ExCom) has focused on enhancing understanding and awareness of the issue and promoting collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Delivering on the WIM's third function on action and support has lagged behind, and ‘the political’ nature of L&D has often been blamed for this. Key terrains of contention among Parties have included the positioning of L&D governance vis-à-vis the adaptation space and struggles around state liability and compensation. As a way to facilitate discussion on implementation options, recent research has suggested de-politicising aspects of the L&D debate; yet we have very little insight into how the politics are understood within the realm of international L&D governance. This paper brings an analysis of ‘the political’ into the picture by identifying the complex and underlying issues that fuel contention within UNFCCC L&D negotiations. It gives centre stage to the way different framings of norms and material interests affect the debate, and challenges the tendency in current L&D literature to overlook the socio-historical and political underpinnings of this area of policy-making. We employ a qualitative multi-methods research design which draws on content analysis of 138 official Parties’ submissions and statements, 14 elite interviews with key current and former L&D negotiators and is built on a foundation of 3 years of participant observation at COPs and WIM meetings. We approach this data with a political ethnographic sensibility that seeks to explore how meanings are constructed within and across different sources of data. Our empirical results show that, rather than being a monolithic dispute, L&D catalyses different yet intertwined unresolved discussions. We identify five areas of contention, including continued disputes around compensation; conflicts on the legitimacy of L&D as a third pillar of climate action; tensions between the technical and political dimension of the debate; debates over accountability for losses and damages incurred; and the connection of L&D with other unresolved issues under the Convention
Science for Loss and Damage. Findings and Propositions
No full textThe debate on "Loss and Damage" (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the "Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage" was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network-a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe-provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation "game" by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation
A network approach for moving from planning to implementation in climate change adaptation: Evidence from southern Mexico
No full textCollaboration barriers have been reported among the most frequent institutional constraints to adaptation. Yet, the growing literature on the topic has been largely descriptive and little attention has been placed on how to transform barriers into enablers for action. By taking a fragile socio-ecological lagoon system in Southern Mexico as a case study, the paper applies a social network analytical approach to: i) reveal the actual web of connections tying stakeholders through local governance arrangements; ii) identify shortcomings in multi-actor collaboration networks; and iii) propose ways to tackle them so that the full potential of adaptation can be exploited. The paper employs a mixed-method approach combining both a quantitative and qualitative Social Network Analysis (SNA). The quantitative SNA is used to assess the quality and strength of relationships among formal public organisations working on climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the site. The qualitative SNA is employed to both assess linking ties between formal organizations and local coastal communities potentially targeted with adaptation interventions, and bonding ties connecting community members. The approach proves to be useful to map the relational architecture of the system of interest and to reveal network characteristics that are important for collective action including: network fragmentation in subgroups; density of relations; centralization around a few actors. The actual topology of the network, as revealed, can then be compared with what is required for achieving societally desired adaptation outcomes and for identifying agents that can promote change. The paper acknowledges that a social analytical approach might be limited in unveiling the interests and motives behind actors’ participation in the network, and that the latter ultimately determine actors’ contribution in defining and enacting a joint solution for a common problem. However, the mixed-methods approach presented in this paper allows for gaining first insights on the way a mismatch between formal and informal institutions might drive socio-ecological systems towards inadequate adaptation outcomes
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Robust institutions for sustainable water markets: A survey of the literature and the way forward
No full textThis paper discusses a framework for analyzing robust institutions for water markets drawn on the new institutional economics school of thoughts which is based on Williamson, North, Coase and Ostrom theories on transaction cost economics, property rights and collective actions. Based on these theories, we review the evolution and development of water reforms and markets in countries such as Australia, USA (California and Colorado), Chile and in Spain. Based on the lessons learned from the Spanish and international experience on water markets, a list of robust recommendations for the improvement of water markets in Spain is proposed. These include among others, not only the definition of secure water rights, through the registration of rights or recognition of environment as a legitimate user, but also the monitoring of water trading activities, including the collection of information for prices and quantities or cost-benefit analysis for quantifying benefits and externalities. Finally, based on Sharma's approach (2012) a new robust water governance model for Spain is proposed in which the highest priority is given to the role of legal and political institutions and second priority to environmental, economic and social needs. We hope that the framework presented in this paper will function as a tool for researchers and policy makers in Spain and other European countries to understand how water markets can be further developed to be economically and environmentally efficient, and socially accepted
A digital climate summit to maintain Paris Agreement ambition
Full text linkThe COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the way we work, learn and interact with others. It is also changing how international politics is conducted. In early March, the European Council employed teleconferences to coordinate EU efforts to respond to the outbreak, the White House moved gatherings of the G7 online and the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted four resolutions via e-mail for the first time in history.
The UNFCCC Secretariat also embraced teleconferencing for the March and April meetings, including the 17th meeting of the Adaptation Committee and the 11th meeting of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage. However, Parties decided to postpone larger events, like the Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB 52) and the 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) in Glasgow. Avoiding in-person gatherings is essential and widely welcomed, but this may be a missed opportunity to re-think the way climate diplomacy works and the role technology can play in it
- …
