Responsibility for climate change adaptation

Abstract

As a policy process, climate change adaptation is rapidly advancing. Yet fundamental questions remain unanswered including, who is responsible for planned adaptation and when, who is liable for losses and damages resulting from climate change and how is responsibility distributed in a multilevel governance system? Responsibility can be evaluated in terms of the timing of particular events, the specific societal actors involved and the rules and norms used to attribute responsibility for dealing with those events. Four types of responsibility—care, liability, accountability, and responsiveness for adaptation—are identified, based on empirical studies and examples from the literature. This review demonstrates the need to further explore the normative implications of responsibility and how they should be considered in adaptation governance and policy. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation

Vulnerability of rangeland beef cattle production to climate‐induced NPP fluctuations in the US Great Plains

“…Development and implementation of regional climate risk planning and associated adaptation strategies may exceed the logistical, technical, and financial capacity of individual beef producers (Chambwera et al, 2014). Comprehensive, regional adaptation planning may require assistance from state and national agencies, in partnership with the private sector, to maintain economically and ecologically viable rangeland beef cattle production (Juhola, 2019; Mimura et al, 2014; Wilhite et al., 2014). The central goals of climate preparedness will be to maintain economic viability by minimizing costly destocking–restocking cycles and to prevent degradation of rangeland resources, especially soils and biodiversity, under conditions of increasing climate variability.…”

“…The central goals of climate preparedness will be to maintain economic viability by minimizing costly destocking–restocking cycles and to prevent degradation of rangeland resources, especially soils and biodiversity, under conditions of increasing climate variability. The question becomes “who will take responsibility for the development and implementation of climate risk planning to address the pending consequences of climate variability on rangeland beef cattle production and the associated socio‐ecological consequences throughout the Great Plains (Juhola, 2019)?” A multisector approach involving local, state, and national actors is currently envisioned as being the best approach to confronting a climate challenge of this magnitude (Stafford Smith et al., 2007). These regional climate planning strategies are arguably best founded on the premise of an uncertain future, rather than one of enhancing predictability of the future (Pelling, 2011).…”

Access and allocation in climate change adaptation

“…Often, however, the public sector is expected to become active. Particularly in poorer countries, the public sector may not function well, such that responsibility or the "burden of adaptation" (Eakin et al 2014) is transferred to private actors, who may or may not have the necessary resources (Sheller and León 2016;Juhola 2019; see also Sect. 3.1).…”

“…At the same time, adaptation finance and adaptation policies and plans are often located at the national level (Fenton et al 2014;Massey et al 2014;Habtezion et al 2015). The literature hence discusses to what extent adaptation is, or should be, indeed local (Nalau et al 2015;Juhola 2019).…”

“…The opposite of successful adaptation is mal-adaptation: "action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that impacts adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups" (Barnett and O'Neill 2010: 211;Juhola et al 2016). There is some evidence that reliance on donor-funding may reduce adaptation effectiveness (Barnett 2008;Betzold 2015) or that certain measures are maladaptive.…”