Suchergebnisse

AbstractEvidence indicates ongoing tensions over effective climate change adaptation measurement. Focusing on community‐based adaptation (CBA), we stress that some of these tensions stem from a lack of transparency around the knowledge and learning needs of different stakeholders engaged in CBA investments. Drawing on a participatory assessment of stakeholder information needs and appropriate scales required for effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for CBA, this article presents a new M&E for CBA framework. The framework identifies four levels at which M&E is to be undertaken by CBA practitioners and associated project stakeholders: participatory M&E at community level; M&E at individual project level and comparison across multiple project sites; M&E of capacity of institutions implementing CBA; and M&E of community of practice. The proposed framework tailors its M&E approaches according to these levels. By moving beyond the existing dominant donor‐driven M&E perspective, we argue that this more nuanced approach enhances the usefulness of M&E by ensuring that the accountability of stakeholders engaged in CBA landscapes is legitimate across multiple scales. The framework is applicable for M&E of general development practice, as well as the climate change adaptation and resilience remit.

The article considers what kind of assistance developing countries require from international sources, including the European Union (EU). The article explores the two kinds of financial assistance that are currently being offered, including existing channels of official development assistance (ODA) and dedicated climate change funds under the UNFCCC. The authors discuss recent key developments in EU action on climate change, and will consider whether the EU is taking the right steps towards meeting adaptation needs in the South. The article argues that adaptation assistance from the EU should be additional to ODA. Adaptation should, where possible, also be mainstreamed into ODA and development assistance should be 'climate proof'. K. Cargill

The impacts of human-induced climate change are manifested through losses and damages incurred due to the increasing frequency and intensity of climatic disasters all over the world. Low-income countries who have contributed the least in causing climate change, and have low financial
capability, are the worst victims of this. However, since the inception of the international climate regime under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), loss and damage has been a politically charged issue. It took about two decades of pushing by the vulnerable developing
countries for the agenda to formally anchor in the climate negotiations text. This was further solidified through establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and inclusion of stand-alone Article 8 on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement. Its institutionalisation has only done
the groundwork of addressing loss and damage however - the key issue of finance for loss and damage and other matters has remained largely unresolved to date – particularly since Article 8 does not have any provision for finance. This has been due to the climate change-causing wealthy
developed nations' utter disregard for their formal obligations in the climate regime as well as their moral obligation. In this article, we tease out the central controversies that underpin the intractability of this agenda at the negotiations of the UNFCCC. We begin by giving a walk-through
of the concept and history of loss and damage in the climate regime. Then we present a brief account of losses and damages occurring in the face of rising temperature, and highlight the key issues of contention, focusing on the more recent developments. Finally, we conclude by suggesting some
way forward for the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP26) taking place in Glasgow, UK in November 2021.

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to challenge and address the limitations of the traditional system of knowledge production that is embedded in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It argues that knowledge production in research processes conforms to colonialist thinking or west-inspired approaches. Such a system often results in the omission of crucial information due to a lack of participation, inclusion and diversity in knowledge production.Design/methodology/approachThe paper proposes practices and recommendations to decolonise knowledge production in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It provides a brief literature review on the concepts of decolonisation of knowledge and epistemological freedom, and its origins; assesses the need for knowledge decolonisation, emphasising on the integration of local knowledge from grassroots women-led initiatives in instances where disasters and crises are being investigated in vulnerable communities, especially in the Global South; and finally the paper proposes to decolonise knowledge production through activating co-learning and co-production. The practices have been developed from the work of relevant authors in the field and case studies.FindingsThrough a brief literature review on previous discourses on the topic of knowledge decolonisation and analysis of recent case studies on disaster and crisis management and community resilience, the paper finds that there exists a lack of pluralism and inclusion in epistemology which limits the pursuit to obtain the whole truth in the production of knowledge in research studies.Originality/valueThis paper adds to the discussion of decolonisation of knowledge in the field of disaster and climate change research studies, and research processes in general. It provides in-depth analyses of recent case studies of emerging community resilience and local practices that were crucial in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis.

The issue of loss and damage has historically been politically contentious, with developed countries being afraid of being held responsible, and developing countries demanding some form of compensation for being disproportionately impacted by climate change-induced loss and damage. After much debate between developed and developing countries, the Paris Agreement took the middle road between the varying outcomes envisioned by developed and developing countries. The Agreement recognised the most vital demands of the developing countries to incorporate loss and damage as an independent pillar of the UNFCCC process and made the Warsaw International Mechanism permanent. Considering the discomfort among the developed block, the language of the Agreement was general and non-binding in character, overtly excluding the possibility of liability or compensation under loss and damage, which many have been described as a failure for vulnerable countries. Thus, the major challenge for the COP22 will be to expedite the discussion around financing and legal responsibility for loss and damage. This article discusses the road towards the Paris Agreement in light of the history of negotiations on loss and damage under the UNFCCC and aims to understand how it will impact the future of loss and damage.