Climate policy processes, local institutions, and adaptation actions: mechanisms of translation and influence

Abstract

This paper reviews and synthesizes the published literature on decentralization of renewable resources and development interventions to identify four key lessons for future adaptation planning at the national level. After presenting an analysis of why studies of decentralization reforms are relevant to adaptation planning, the paper examines priority adaptation projects identified by 47 Least Developed Countries in their National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Our research analyzes the range of institutional instruments and relationships visible in contemporary decentralization reforms. The four major lessons for adaptation planning concern the need for national adaptation planners to: (1) attend systematically to local institutions relevant to adaptation and increase local capacity through transfers of information, financial, and technical resources; (2) empower communities and local governments by increasing local autonomy so as to decentralize adaptation planning and implementation; (3) create mechanisms for information sharing among decision makers across sectors and levels of decision making; and (4) improve accountability of local decision makers to their constituents. 

A study of how REDD+ can be used to improve the adaptation of local communities to climate change – a case study of Central Kalimantan Indonesia

“…NAPAs have led to the creation of 513 adaptation projects at a cost of $1.5 billion, which represents a relatively small amount on a global scale (UNFCCC, 2012). A recent study has shown that in many countries, the NAPAs have resulted in very few practical outcomes, but they are still in the early planning stages (Agarwal et al, 2012;Hillman et al, 2015).…”

“…As a result, the success for adaptation heavily depends on the efficiency in which decision making can be translated across multiple scales to contribute to effective local outcomes. In the case of NAPAs, few have examined how to coordinate adaptation efforts across different sectors and scales (national, regional, local), the institutional arrangements necessary to implement adaptation projects, and how to utilize resources and actors to implement adaptation priorities (Agarwal et al, 2012). These programs (and adaptation strategies in general) have found the multi-scalar and cross-sectoral nature of adaptation challenging and that more research could increase our understanding on how to make such programs more effective (Adger, 2016;Dzebo & Stripple, 2015).…”

“…As mentioned, this complexity derives from social and biophysical processes operating differently at different scales and contexts (Cilliers, 1998). Further, competing interests between public and private sectors and uneven distributions of costs and benefits contribute to this complexity (Agarwal et al, 2012). In the past, adaptation governance has struggled to deal with cross-scale interactions (Agarwal et al, 2012).…”

“…Further, competing interests between public and private sectors and uneven distributions of costs and benefits contribute to this complexity (Agarwal et al, 2012). In the past, adaptation governance has struggled to deal with cross-scale interactions (Agarwal et al, 2012). For example, National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) exemplify this struggle (UNFCCC, 2016).…”

“…NAPAs are currently the most prominent national-level efforts and aim to identify priority areas for adaptation within the country, from which local adaptation projects can be developed (UNFCCC, 2012). Within NAPA guidelines, NAPAs are expected to consider the local nature of adaptation and use widespread stakeholder involvement and participation to promote consideration of crossscale issues (Agarwal et al, 2012).…”