As indicated throughout this chapter, adaptation institutions in Meso America face several types of challenges
Scant funding
Lack of financing is a major issue in addressing climate change. This deficiency is particularly severe in local multidimensional structures, as well as in the national and state climate change directorates of the three Meso American countries and State of Chiapas, where staff is limited given the challenges of the climate agenda. Meso America is particularly dependent on international cooperation, making it difficult to generate the institutional capacities needed for tackling adaptation to climate change in the near, medium and long term.
Limitations of the ecosystem agenda
In Meso America, ecosystem-based responses to climate change are still viewed as an approach anchored in environmental institutionality. Ironically, this situation limits the potential of ecosystems for adaptation since many of the institutions required for successful EbA (ministries of finance, infrastructure, industry or tourism, among others) continue considering it a strategy for the adaptation of ecosystems. This view holds back the quantitative leap needed for EbA to enter into comprehensive adaptation strategies of multiple economic sectors.
Limited negotiating capacity
As discussed, the emerging institutionality has limited negotiation capacity when put into practice in multidimensional spaces. On one hand, historically the many government ministries have worked with independent agendas and in some cases take positions perceived as being in opposition to one another (extractive mining vs environmental protection, for example). On the other hand, the articulation of multiple government levels (national and municipal) has generally lagged behind, as seen in the lack of clarity about competencies or in the limited municipal budget, hampering adequate linkage and implementation of climate change adaptation policies.
Scant institutional flexibility
As stated, formal institutions require a series of rules for effective decision making (Gupta et al., 2010).
Incorporating greater flexibility in structures that traditionally strive to increase certainty therefore entails a change of paradigm in recognition of the rising uncertainty climate change imposes on the context. In this scenario, one of the greatest challenges is how to achieve institutional flexibility
without ignoring the certainty political, legal and institutional processes need. This balance is attained by better incorporating the best information available in public policy decision making (Vij et. al. 2017). This is undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges in a region like Meso America with limited institutional capacity to generate information permitting the adoption of solid public policy.
Limited effective participation
Current processes aimed at increasing participation through novel governance structures are a step forward, even though their scope is still restricted. Based on the ladder of participation proposed by Arnstein (1969) 4, the advisory structures recently created in Meso America could be classified in the intermediate category called ’Tokenism’ since the scope of members’ involvement is limited to
“informing,” “consulting” or “placating.” While providing a sense of ’participation’ in decisions, these levels of collaboration do not provide members of the structures substantive decision-making power in public policy formulation on climate change.
Ecosystem integrity
Lastly, the paradox confronting the current development model is that it is the primary cause of ecosystem degradation (Buscher, Dressler & Fletcher 2014). This, and climate change, are externalities that must be internalised in the dominant development model of Meso America and the world. This reckoning faces countless challenges since promises about the ’decoupling’ State institutions have been working on have not led to the level of effectiveness that was thought. The transfer of emissions from Europe to China testifies to this (Pan et. al., 2017); it has allowed inhabitants of the European continent to ’reduce‘ their emissions artificially. Hence, institutions (understood in their broadest contention as the rule of organisation in societies) must be subjected to deep transformation if climate change solutions are intended to be successful.
4 Arnstein (1969) classifies citizen participation in three categories and eight steps on the ladder: category 1:
Non-participation (includes the Manipulation and Therapy steps); category 2. Tokenism (includes Informing, Consultation and Placation) and category 3. Citizen Control (includes Partnership, Delegation and Citizen Control).
6 Negotiation
Pascal Girot
6.1 Introduction
Climate change continues its relentless advance as unquestionably one of the most important challenges confronting nations, those of Meso America among them. The availability of natural resources such as water will be affected, with impacts on the primary productivity of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems (IPCC, 2014). But the magnitude, frequency and extent of these impacts is still stamped with uncertainty, as are the consequences these impacts will have on the human systems that depend on those ecosystems. Meso America has already experienced the negative impacts of climate variability in the form of economic losses from extreme hydrometeorological events, including episodes of El Ñiño and La Niña (ENOS).
In response to this uncertainty, preference should be given to nature-based solutions in decision making about adaptation. This premise is based on the principle of In Dubio Pro Natura, or the precautionary principle, which states that given uncertainty around possible impacts on the environment, nature takes preference. In terms of decisions about EbA, creating conditions for long-term ecosystem governance is critical for the provisioning of environmental goods and services.
EbA poses multiple challenges for societies everywhere, including those of Meso America. Countries there have made important efforts to conserve biodiversity in situ. In Meso America, protected areas now cover approximately 25% of land ecosystems and 14% of marine ecosystems (Proyecto Estado de la Nación, 2016). Many are established through legal means, with fixed boundaries and delimitations. Because of adverse climate change effects, ecosystems and human production systems will require adjustments and modifications of their coverage and management categories.
In this sense, EbA requires flexibility and the creation of spaces and options for future adjustments of in situ conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
All climate action must provide opportunity for human communities and productive systems to adapt to climate change within the limits imposed by the provisioning of environmental services and protection of water sources. EbA challenges include, on one hand, the permanence of in situ conservation schemes and national parks with legally established boundaries and management categories, and on the other, the flexibility needed to ensure that these conservation values and the environmental goods and services they provide can continue being provided in the face of climate change.
Such flexibility ranges from making use of a wide range of already existing schemes of conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity and comprehensive water resource management such as biological corridors, watersheds, marine and coastal areas (shoreline and inter-tidal zones), ecological easements, community forest and recharge management regimes, responsible fishing zones and others.
114 Governance for ecosystem-based adaptation