The relevance of a coproductive capacity framework to climate change adaptation: investigating the health and water sectors in Cambodia

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Multiple active partnerships in the health and water sectors in Cambodia exist to address climate change adaptation, operating beyond typical sectoral and organizational divides. Decisions around national adaptation policy are made predominantly by the relevant lead ministry, contrasting with where funding originates from (i.e., major donors, multilaterals, United Nation agencies). Adaptation policy is thus the result of a process of coproduction by state and nonstate actors. The research we present sought to understand the relationships that exist between knowledge-and decision-makers with respect to climate change adaptation in the health and water sectors in Cambodia, and the factors that enabled or constrained these relationships. Forty-four interviews were conducted with representatives of 32 organizations. We found that coproductive relationships were most effective when there were clearly defined roles and responsibilities, coordination of technical and financial resources, and trust. The two key factors of coproductive capacity that enabled and supported these partnerships were scientific resources and governance capability. Ultimately, the roles and responsibilities given to various actors requires commensurate funding and greater consideration of existing relationships and power dynamics. The reliance on international scientific expertise also needs to be challenged so that local research capabilities can be developed and locally relevant, problem-specific information can be provided. The ongoing funding, codevelopment, and sharing of such knowledge would significantly enhance trust and cooperation.

A How‐to Guide for Coproduction of Actionable Science

“…The first two guiding principles and eight recommended practices focus on individual coproduction efforts. Each of these eight practices is an activity associated with successful coproduction in case studies described by Cash et al (2003Cash et al ( , 2006, Lemos & Morehouse (2005), NRC (2009), Bowen et al (2015), Lebel et al (2015), Mukhopadhyay et al (2014), Schuttenberg & Guth (2015), Wyborn (2015), and Nel et al (2016), six case studies in our ACCCNRS report (Beier, Behar et al 2015), and our experiences as participants or observers in efforts that incorporated elements of coproduction. Every activity or idea associated with successful coproduction in two or more case studies is reflected in one or more of our principles and practices; there was no instance in which a key conclusion of one study was contradicted by another study.…”

Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world

“…Although power relations were an important part of scale politics (top down and bottom up) and suboptimality, they also had impacts horizontally, with implications for the legitimacy of coproduction activities. Bowen et al (2015) note that the power exerted by international bodies to insist that Cambodia develop policy on climate change disregarded local (national and subnational) development priorities, which may explain lacklustre implementation of that policy. In this case the top-down imposition meets horizontal resistance at the local level.…”

“…In Cambodia, Bowen et al (2015) argue that although technical and financial support in the area of climate adaptation is needed, the creation of new organizational structures or investing in knowledge development will not yield results in conditions of mistrust and weak relationships. They stress that it is not just the presence of technical capacities in climate science or environmental governance that are necessary, but that they are connected in positive and trusting relationships.…”

Moving Beyond Co-Construction of Knowledge to Enable Self-Determination

“…Yet even with co-management and transdisciplinary approaches that move beyond the technical, challenges remain in ensuring quality engagement across multiple stakeholders, that is contextually embedded and that ensures equity and inclusion of the marginalised (Lebel, Wattana and Talerngsri 2015;Bowen et al 2015). Evidence suggests that it is necessary, but not sufficient, to espouse equality if researchers are aiming to minimise the risk that marginalised communities face through engaging in co-construction.…”