Throughout this chapter, elements of analysis have been proposed about the necessary conditions for negotiating EbA governance arrangements, and main relevant gaps were identified. In addition, some steps were indicated for improving vertical and horizontal integration between national and local institutions, local actors, agents and community leaderships to permit better territorial planning and management with an eye to climate change adaptation.
The major challenges identified include the gradual erosion of principles of democratic co-existence, owed in part to public institutions’ loss of credibility regarding their capacity to solve the problems citizens face in terms of physical security, water security and food security. These will be accentuated by the adverse effects of climate change. Institutions’ weakened legitimacy reflects the lack of local and national leadership and incapacity to propose, through existing mechanisms, viable and lasting solutions to pressing development challenges.
Another significant challenge relates to the incongruence between addressing urgent human development needs (quality employment, access to education, health services, food security) pitted against the need to predict future conditions in light of climate change and take decisions whose remit is neither immediate nor short term but guarantee a minimum quality of life for future generations. How, then, is one to reconcile what is urgent with what is important? This is a challenge for any organisation, entity, actor or community dedicated to environmental management in general, and adaptation to climate change in particular.
One of the lessons deriving from the analysis set out in this book is that negotiation can be based on a given institutional order or lead to new institutional arrangements that promote more robust and legitimate governance. Clearly, this represents an opportunity as it facilitates local decision making and most especially, allows distinguishing between the need for change and the need for continuity. It thus remains to be determined when to make use of existing governance institutions and arrangements, and when to propose new figures responding better to the needs of all stakeholders.
Opportunity also exists in negotiation concerned with the identification and recognition of co-benefits between public policies, since climate change adaptation can be fostered or constrained by other, non-climate policy instruments. For example, a decision by the agriculture sector to take advantage of wastewater to reduce pollution of water bodies can also be an adaptation opportunity, since such action reduces water consumption and promotes recycling and re-use of a fragile and finite resource subject to changes in availability. This reinforces the idea of improving inter-institutional communication and coordination to identify such opportunities and promote synergies between development actions and EbA.
Finally, another advantage of negotiation lies in how these processes make it possible to build more solid and transparent institutions. Many of the region’s countries have a broad and complex legal framework whose interpretation and implementation are at times random and not very effective.
An opportunity arising from lessons learnt as described in this book is how co-existence with the adverse impacts of climate change can be strengthened by improving conditions for effective governance. New arrangements resulting from the negotiation processes mentioned here will most certainly offer hope to those who have lost faith in public institutions. They are a direct response to the aspirations and needs of local populations, and thereby contribute to the transparency and legitimacy of institutional order in Meso American countries.
Conclusions and recommendations: calibrating
On adjustment
To be effective, EbA governance must make it possible to link maintenance of ecosystem services with economic development and social equity, while also ensuring that people can peacefully co-exist. It must also be tailored to specific contexts and geographical zones with different degrees of vulnerability, becoming a vehicle to ensure that EbA measures are sustainable regardless of climate uncertainties.
EbA-related policies, laws and regulations should not be viewed as instruments that are impossible to transform, adjust and reform. To the contrary, they must be monitored, appropriated and internalised by civil society as a whole and by the most vulnerable groups in particular. While the reform of EbA legal and institutional frameworks is a complex task demanding time and effort, it will be possible insofar as actors are committed to influencing their formulation and implementation. It is imperative that these actors’ capacities be consolidated and strengthened for EbA governance that is efficient, effective, just and equitable.
Also indispensable is coherent, continuous and innovative knowledge management that takes traditional knowledge into account and is science-based (evidence) to show that EbA works effectively. Without concrete evidence and numbers to persuade decision makers and economically influential sectors, EbA will not survive over time.
Effective climate change governance is paramount on the local, national and international agenda of themes to be resolved at this time, given the trial by fire to come within the next 30 years when impacts will be felt more intensely. This calls for solid institutions capable of coping with scarcity and of governing in a context of emergency and crisis. Inescapably, spaces of transparent public administration and citizen participation, while still imperfect, will have to be reinforced as governance structures will otherwise lack the muscle and resilience necessary to address those impacts.
Ecosystems can be society’s life insurance against the impacts of climate change. Many of their goods and services support a wide range of productive activities, from farming, ranching and fishing to much of urban life. But their conservation and sustainable use calls for clear policies, effective laws and solid institutions that facilitate the participation of all actors and stakeholders.
EbA requires horizontal integration across ministries, and vertical integration between levels of government (federal, state, provincial, regional, municipal and local). In pragmatic terms, it must be based on concrete efforts of land use planning, management of basins and coastal and marine resources and linkage between national, regional, provincial, departmental and local governments in territorial, environmental and economic development planning.
On capacity
In relation to climate change adaptation, capacity is a pluri-conceptual notion that covers adaptation capacity, governance capacity and EbA governance capacity.
Given that the countries most vulnerable to climate change are also those with the least adaptation capacity, it is imperative to prioritise capacity-building programmes not only to address climate
128 Governance for ecosystem-based adaptation
change impacts but also to influence the establishment of effective governance structures in this sphere.
EbA governance capacity touches on a range of aspects, from the sensitisation of different stakeholder groups to the formulation of policy, legal and institutional frameworks for its effective, long-term management. These capacities should be assessed at the most local up to the national level and in States’ cooperation with neighbours.
Limitations on EbA governance capacities should be considered a matter of priority and examined holistically and comprehensively to ensure that actors’ and ecosystems’ different interests and needs are taken into account in the context of the uncertainty inherent to climate change.
Capacities are vital to achieve the objective of EbA governance that is multidimensional, flexible, participatory and ecosystemic.
Bearing in mind that vulnerability is comprised of three distinctive elements, namely exposure, sensitivity and adaptation capacity, it is the last of these that must ultimately be strengthened to reduce vulnerability and enhance the resilience of populations and ecosystems to climate change.
EbA governance capacities are therefore essential to improve, in the long term, sustainable livelihoods for human populations and the ecosystems on which they depend.
On evidence
Given the complexity of the ecosystem and social processes involved, it is necessary to have evidence that can be evaluated periodically and used to modify EbA actions. More intensive research will be needed on the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of implementing EbA measures and the corresponding governance arrangements. Existing experiences and lessons drawn from them could be useful. Similarly, global financing mechanisms for adaptation could be instrumental in the formulation and evaluation of EbA-related projects, policies, institutions, laws and processes, and to continue improving them over time.
EbA governance depends on a database of solid, rigorous and comprehensive evidence.
Implementation of EbA should include 1) information gathering about ecosystem services and the co-benefits they generate and can generate, and about environmental and social vulnerability;
2) a knowledge management system so that information can be compiled and analysed; 3) a monitoring and evaluation system with realistic indicators; 4) EbA training plans; and 5) clear and timely communication and transfer of knowledge. All of this must incorporate the participation of all stakeholder groups.
Capacity building to generate, analyse and interpret evidence in the face of climate uncertainties, the establishment of information dissemination networks and finally, clearly conveying evidence to decision makers are all essential for feedback on EbA governance and to ensure that the results of projects and measures are positive and sustainable over time.
Evidence about the effectiveness of EbA to improve its governance and in turn, about the effectiveness of EbA governance are both necessary to ensure the sustainability of adaptation actions.
EbA governance frameworks must also be capable of influencing projects and initiatives in this area.
Moreover, to the extent that those responsible for implementing policies and laws do so effectively, trust in those frameworks will be generated. Transparency, accountability, enforcement of the law and institutional capacity are important to build participatory and inclusive governance arrangements.
On policies
Integrating EbA in climate change policies makes it possible to guide its gradual integration in sectoral policies and different administrative levels of the State. This could assure EbA’s permeation in development policies so that ecosystem conservation, restoration and use is no longer restricted to environmental policy.
Policies integrating EbA must be precise enough to direct the necessary legal reforms. Such reforms should be based on a holistic assessment of gaps and possible synergies among sector regulatory frameworks for EbA.
Legislative reforms must be comprehensive in that they reduce possible ecosystem stressors from sources other than climate change (such as over-exploitation of natural resources or pollution). The reforms should fuel actions for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of ecosystems, and eliminate perverse incentives contributing to the depletion of natural resources and biodiversity.
Inasmuch as governance inherently contemplates policy and law, the second is necessary to ensure the continuity of the first so that advances in EbA are not set back due to possible changes of government and administrations. In addition, law is relevant for guaranteeing policy coherence and promoting institutional coordination among multiple levels and sectors. Climate change imposes the need to make law more flexible when necessary. This is particularly important, for example, to accommodate changes in the behavioural patterns of species, modifications of the spatial limits of protected areas, etc.
Since effective EbA implementation depends on adequate financial resources, among others, it is recommended that policy and law specify financing sources for EbA and consequently direct the resources necessary to implement these actions, as well as for research and capacity building.
Effective implementation of climate change adaptation and ecosystem conservation, meaning EbA, requires the involvement of society as a whole, which indicates the need to strengthen its capacity and the role of citizens as change agent. Training and empowerment are recommended so that citizens can act as overseers of ecosystem health and thus contribute to the effectiveness and sustainability of EbA.
EbA policy and law must include measures ensuring the participation of indigenous groups, local communities, youth, women and other vulnerable and marginalised groups, helping them improve their influencing abilities in this area and recognising their crucial function in the stewardship, restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems.
Given the threats posed by climate change, it is imperative to improve regulatory frameworks concerning conservation of ecosystems and their services to reduce their vulnerability, enhance their resilience and therefore ensure that EbA can effectively accomplish its mission.
While policy and law are appropriate instruments to assure effective EbA governance at the national, sub-national and local level, at global and transboundary level States must enter into and implement agreements conducive to ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of shared ecosystems, but which also promote collaboration among States on related issues such as sharing information and experiences, capacity building and research.
130 Governance for ecosystem-based adaptation
On institutions
The main challenge climate change poses for institutionality, and certainly for EbA, is reconciling uncertainty around this phenomenon and its effects with the rigidity inherent to all institutions, structures or organisations responsible for management of territory and natural resources.
Emerging institutionality to deal with climate change and its consequences contributes to the rise of multidimensional, multi-stakeholder (public and private) and advisory structures that operate parallel and complementarily to traditional entities in the management of environment, biodiversity and natural resources.
Emerging structures present a series of weaknesses (such as insufficient financing, the need to strengthen internal leaderships promoting dialogue and negotiation and the non-binding character of their decisions) that must be addressed to avoid compromising their efficacy. Nevertheless, they have also brought a series of benefits in terms of social participation, awareness and internalisation of the climate agenda for actors not traditionally included in discussions on climate change and EbA.
The multidimensionality of the emerging structures should be understood as being both horizontal (between different sectors) and vertical (between local, sub-national and national entities). The former requires reconciling the work of State ministries, agencies and entities with different agendas, while the latter must promote interaction that encourages dialogue between different levels and establishes a favourable environment for defining actions and formulating and adopting EbA and EbA-related policies.
Multi-stakeholder institutions involving a broad group from the public sector, civil society and the private sector serve as spaces to facilitate dialogue and negotiation on options of climate change adaptation.
Many key ecosystems for adaptation are shared by two or more States, while a large portion of the communities and populations most vulnerable to climate change, especially in developing countries, depend on those ecosystems and live in border areas. It is therefore necessary to promote the internalisation of EbA in policy dialogue between States so that it is incorporated in multinational projects and initiatives and in transboundary or transnational governance structures. In this sense, EbA could be seen as a vehicle fuelling cooperation between States.
The uncertainty and complexity of climate systems and variability and its effects call for the gradual evolution of traditional institutions to incorporate the flexibility needed for integrating the best information available and elements of uncertainty inherent to this phenomenon. Adaptive management thus arises as a new paradigm or trend imposing a change of paradigm in natural resource management.
A significant weakness in the institutional framework for EbA is the limited capacity of institutions themselves to understand that EbA is not just a tool for ecosystem adaptation. This keeps EbA from being seen as part of comprehensive adaptation strategies promoting benefits for the entire society, including all relevant economic sectors (not just environmental).
In the last analysis, the efficacy of the institutional framework for climate change depends on the capacity of institutions, entities, agencies and officials and decision makers themselves, with respect to matters inherent to climate change adaptation. It is therefore necessary to work towards the strengthening of governance capacities at multiple levels and for a multiplicity of actors as means of contributing to effective EbA implementation and management.
On negotiation
Negotiation about EbA is multifaceted. Related decision-making requires a complex series of interactions to establish the favourable national and local environment leading to sustainable management of ecosystems in a context of change and uncertainty.
The type of negotiation varies from one country to another, one region to another and one particular situation to another. It ranges from an agreement between neighbouring States on management of protected areas such as biosphere reserves or world heritage sites, to local-level dialogue and consultation processes among authorities, guilds, chambers and community associations to define the reach and scope of a reforestation project or restoration of riverbanks or mangroves.
The nature of negotiation about EbA is dictated by the type of resource to be managed for adaptation purposes, the geographic and territorial scale and the number of institutions and actors involved.
In concrete terms, it takes place through formal consultation processes or citizen or multisector participation in defining relevant public policies for adaptation, or in ad hoc form for a particular initiative or project.
EbA negotiation must be anchored in territorial terms and refer to specific spaces, ecosystems or watersheds. The ’territorialisation‘ of negotiation requires making use of existing spaces at local or bioregional level that directly influence decision making about local administration, public investment and resource allocation related to EbA.
EbA entails discerning and adjusting a complex web of supply and demand for goods and services, biological and geomorphous dynamics, and interrelations between national and local players of all kinds who participate (or not) in decision making and planning. Hence, defining an agenda, its terms, facilitation and decision making in a negotiation are crucial for the adoption of effective agreements that can be implemented and ultimately, serve to strengthen EbA governance.
Climate change requires long-term commitments to adaptation, which can only be achieved through institutions that can evolve and reinvent themselves. This process of institutional transformation is, in the last analysis, the greatest challenge to adaptation. There are no adaptation options based on continuity (business as usual). Coping with the impacts of climate change requires permanent capacity to create and reinvent governance arrangements.
132 Governance for ecosystem-based adaptation
Bibliography
1 Adjustment
Abell, R., Asquith, N., Boccaletti, G., Bremer,L., Chapin, E., Erickson-Quiroz, A., Higgins, J., Johnson, J., Kang, S., Karres,N., Lehner, B., McDonald,R., Raepple, J., Shemie, D., Simmons, E., Sridhar, A., Vigerstøl, K., Vogl, A. and Wood, S. (2017). Beyond the Source: The Environmental, Eco-nomic and Community Benefits of Source Water Protection. Arlington, VA, EE.UU.: The Nature Conservancy.
Aguilar, G. and Iza, A.O. (2011). Governance of Shared Waters. Legal and Institutional Issues. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9995
Adger, W.N., Brown I. and Surminski, S. (2018). ‘Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 376: 20180106. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0106
Andrade, A., Córdoba, R., Dave, R., Girot, P., Herrera-F, B., Munroe, R., Oglethorpe, J., Paaby, P., Pramova, E., Watson, J., Vergara, W. and Suarez, I. (2012). Principles and Guidelines for Inte-grating Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation in Project and Policy Design. Turrialba, Costa Rica: IUCN-CEM, CATIE.
Bai, X. (2018). ‘Advance the ecosystem approach in cities’. Nature 559: 7. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1038/d41586-018-05607-x
Burhenne-Guilmin, F. and Scanlon, J. (eds.) (2004). International Environmental Governance. An In-ternational Regime for Protected Areas. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 49.
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, G.B.: IUCN.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010). Convention on Biological Diversity 2010: Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its 10th Meeting. X/33. Biodiversity and climate change. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992). Convenio de Diversidad Biológica. Available at:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf