Search

This article introduces a special issue on the contribution of social science to addressing transformations to sustainability. Articles underline the importance of embracing theoretically rooted, empirically informed, and collaboratively generated knowledge to address sustainability challenges and transformative change. Emphasis is placed on the role of the social sciences in elaborating on the politicisation and pluralisation of transformation processes and outcomes, helping situate, frame, reflect and generate societal action, while acknowledging the complexity of societal transformation in different contexts.

Whereas photoredox catalysis using molecular systems enjoys considerable utility in small molecule transformations and reactions relevant to organic synthesis, to date there are no related examples of photodriven catalytic nitrogen fixation. We wondered whether a photoinduced transfer hydrogenation strategy might provide a viable pathway toward such a reaction. Hantzsch esters (and related organic structures) offer an opportunity for catalysis design in this context as they can behave as photoreductants, though to our knowledge they had yet to be shown to be compatible with such a redox intensive process (6 e–/6 H+). In the present study we demonstrate that fully reduced Hantzsch esters (abbreviated as HEH2) successively deliver stored H2-equivalents to N2, producing NH3 catalytically, in the presence of a molecular precatalyst (Mo) under blue-light irradiation but otherwise ambient conditions. While not required for the observed photocatalysis, the addition of a photoredox catalyst (Ir) to the reaction mixture enhances both the rate and turnover number of the net transformation. Encouraging with respect to future studies toward recycling the donor, electrochemically or via hydrogenation, other N-heterocycle H2-donors are also compatible with catalysis in the presence of the photoredox catalyst. The reduction of N2 to NH3 by HEH2 or H2 are thermodynamically very similar (ΔΔGf(NH3) = 1.8 kcal mol–1 in acetonitrile). However, whereas the combination of H2 with N2 to produce NH3 is accomplished via high temperature and pressure over a metal catalyst, the needed overpotential to drive the reduction of N2 by HEH2 can instead be derived from light. This study hence illustrates a promising photoredox catalysis approach toward deep reduction of robust small molecule substrates via photoinduced transfer hydrogenation, with the complete reduction of the triple bond of N2 providing a vivid example.

BACKGROUND: Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most prevalent eating disorder. We examined the presence of binge eating (BE) and three associated eating behaviors in relation to subcortical regional volumes and cortical thickness from brain scans. METHODS: We processed structural MRI brain scans for 466 individuals from the Nathan Kline Institute Rockland Sample using Freesurfer. We investigated subcortical volumes and cortical thicknesses among those with and without BE and in relation to the scores on dietary restraint, disinhibition, and hunger from the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ). We conducted a whole-brain analysis and a region of analysis (ROI) using a priori regions associated with BE and with the three eating factors. We also compared scores on the three TFEQ factors for the BE and non-BE. RESULTS: The BE group had higher scores for dietary restraint (p = .013), disinhibition (p = 1.22E-07), and hunger (p = 5.88E-07). In the whole-brain analysis, no regions survived correction for multiple comparisons (FDR corrected p

Loss and damage is the “third pillar” of international climate governance alongside mitigation and adaptation. When mitigation and adaptation fail, losses and damages occur. Scholars have been reacting to international political discourse centred around governing actual or potential severe losses and damages from climate change. Large gaps exist in relation to understanding the underlying power dimensions, rationalities, knowledges, and technologies of loss and damage governance and science. We draw from a Foucauldian-inspired governmentality framework to argue there is an emerging governmentality of loss and damage. We find, among other things, that root causes of loss and damage are being obscured, Western knowledge and technocratic interventions are centred, and there are colonial presupposed subjectivities of Global South victims of climate change, which are being contested by people bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. We propose future directions for critical research on climate change loss and damage.

Climate change research is at an impasse. The transformation of economies and everyday practices is more urgent, and yet appears ever more daunting as attempts at behaviour change, regulations, and global agreements confront material and social-political infrastructures that support the status quo. Effective action requires new ways of conceptualizing society, climate and environment and yet current research struggles to break free of established categories. In response, this contribution revisits important insights from the social sciences and humanities on the co-production of political economies, cultures, societies and biophysical relations and shows the possibilities for ontological pluralism to open up for new imaginations. Its intention is to help generate a different framing of socionatural change that goes beyond the current science-policy-behavioural change pathway. It puts forward several moments of inadvertent concealment in contemporary debates that stem directly from the way issues are framed and imagined in contemporary discourses. By placing values, normative commitments, and experiential and plural ways of knowing from around the world at the centre of climate knowledge, we confront climate change with contested politics and the everyday foundations of action rather than just data.

Terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) is an important metric of ecosystem functioning; however, there are little empirical data on the NPP of human-modified ecosystems, particularly smallholder, perennial crops like cocoa (Theobroma cacao), which are extensive across the tropics. Human-appropriated NPP (HANPP) is a measure of the proportion of a natural system's NPP that has either been reduced through land-use change or harvested directly and, previously, has been calculated to estimate the scale of the human impact on the biosphere. Additionally, human modification can create shifts in NPP allocation and decomposition, with concomitant impacts on the carbon cycle. This study presents the results of 3 years of intensive monitoring of forest and smallholder cocoa farms across disturbance, management intensity, distance from forest and farm age gradients. We measured among the highest reported NPP values in tropical forest, 17.57 ± 2.1 and 17.7 ± 1.6 Mg C ha−1 year−1 for intact and logged forest, respectively; however, the average NPP of cocoa farms was still higher, 18.8 ± 2.5 Mg C ha−1 year−1, which we found was driven by cocoa pod production. We found a dramatic shift in litterfall residence times, where cocoa leaves decomposed more slowly than forest leaves and shade tree litterfall decomposed considerably faster, indicating significant changes in rates of nutrient cycling. The average HANPP value for all cocoa farms was 2.1 ± 1.1 Mg C ha−1 year−1; however, depending on the density of shade trees, it ranged from −4.6 to 5.2 Mg C ha−1 year−1. Therefore, rather than being related to cocoa yield, HANPP was reduced by maintaining higher shade levels. Across our monitored farms, 18.9% of farm NPP was harvested (i.e., whole cocoa pods) and only 1.1% (i.e., cocoa beans) was removed from the system, suggesting that the scale of HANPP in smallholder cocoa agroforestry systems is relatively small. (Less)

Recent evidence shows that climate change is leading to irreversible and existential impacts on vulnerable communities and countries across the globe. Among other effects, this has given rise to public debate and engagement around notions of climate crisis and emergency. The Loss and Damage (L&D) policy debate has emphasized these aspects over the last three decades. Yet, despite institutionalization through an article on L&D by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the Paris Agreement, the debate has remained vague, particularly with reference to its remit and relationship to adaptation policy and practice. Research has recently made important strides forward in terms of developing a science perspective on L&D. This article reviews insights derived from recent publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others, and presents the implications for science and policy. Emerging evidence on hard and soft adaptation limits in certain systems, sectors and regions holds the potential to further build momentum for climate policy to live up to the Paris ambition of stringent emission reductions and to increase efforts to support the most vulnerable. L&D policy may want to consider actions to extend soft adaptation limits and spur transformational, that is, non-standard risk management and adaptation, so that limits are not breached. Financial, technical, and legal support would be appropriate for instances where hard limits are transgressed. Research is well positioned to further develop robust evidence on critical and relevant risks at scale in the most vulnerable countries and communities, as well as options to reduce barriers and limits to adaptation.

Currently no systematic assessment of loss and damage due to climate change exists. Towards such an inventory we present a transparent way to ascertain the quality of evidence for such assessments. Current levels of global warming (Haustein et al. 2017) have already intensified heatwaves, droughts and floods, with many recent events exhibiting evidence of being exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change (e.g., Herring et al. 2018, 2016). Recent improvements in understanding demonstrate that half a degree of additional warming will have further severe impacts (Masson-Delmotte et al. 2018). In the context of this rapid and damaging change, there is a clear need to quantify and address both the losses and damages from impacts we have not adapted to today, as well as to adapt to those that will emerge in the next few decades. To do this, it is essential to understand the impacts of man-made climate change on the scales that climate adaptation decisions are made. Drivers of disasters, ultimately responsible for much loss and damage, are unfolding in an ever-changing socio-economic context, which also alters exposure and vulnerability. While various case studies exist (discussed below), there is to date no comprehensive or comparable database quantifying anthropogenic contributions to climate change loss and damage. We suggest that this needs to change.

Non-technical summaryDespite efforts to address the global forest crisis, deforestation and degradation continue, so we need to urgently revisit possible solutions. A failure to halt the global forest crisis contributes to climate change and biodiversity loss and will continue to result in inequalities in access to, and benefits from, forest resources. In this paper, we unpack a series of powerful myths about forests and their management. By exposing and better understanding these myths and what makes them so persistent, we have the basis to make the social and political changes needed to better manage and protect forests globally.

Non-technical summary Resilience is a cross-disciplinary concept that is relevant for understanding the sustainability of the social and environmental conditions in which we live. Most research normatively focuses on building or strengthening resilience, despite growing recognition of the importance of breaking the resilience of, and thus transforming, unsustainable social-ecological systems. Undesirable resilience (cf. lock-ins, social-ecological traps), however, is not only less explored in the academic literature, but its understanding is also more fragmented across different disciplines. This disparity can inhibit collaboration among researchers exploring interdependent challenges in sustainability sciences. In this article, we propose that the term lock-in may contribute to a common understanding of undesirable resilience across scientific fields. Technical summary Resilience is an extendable concept that bridges the social and life sciences. Studies increasingly interpret resilience normatively as a desirable property of social-ecological systems, despite growing awareness of resilient properties leading to social and ecological degradation, vulnerability or barriers that hinder sustainability transformations (i.e., 'undesirable' resilience). This is the first study to qualify, quantify and compare the conceptualization of 'desirable' and 'undesirable' resilience across academic disciplines. Our literature analysis found that various synonyms are used to denote undesirable resilience (e.g., path dependency, social-ecological traps, institutional inertia). Compared to resilience as a desirable property, research on undesirable resilience is substantially less frequent and scattered across distinct scientific fields. Amongst synonyms for undesirable resilience, the term lock-in is more frequently and evenly used across academic disciplines. We propose that lock-in therefore has the potential to reconcile diverse interpretations of the mechanisms that constrain system transformation - explicitly and coherently addressing characteristics of reversibility and plausibility - and thus enabling integrative understanding of social-ecological system dynamics. Social media summary 'Lock-in' as a bridging concept for interdisciplinary understanding of barriers to desirable sustainability transitions.

Reducing vulnerability is essential for adaptation to climate change. Compared to approaches that examine vulnerability to a specific hazard, our analysis offers an alternative perspective that conceptualizes vulnerability to climate change as a phenomenon that is independent of any specific type of hazard but relevant to multiple hazards. Vulnerability is thus a product of structural inequality and systemic in nature. Based on two established index systems, we perform global analyses of specific phenomena—such as poverty, access to basic infrastructure services and forced migration—that influence and determine vulnerability. Our statistical and spatial analyses reveal an emerging pattern of climate vulnerability within regional clusters and shows that vulnerability is a transboundary issue, crossing political, sectorial and geographical borders and impacting shared resources. The spatial statistical hotspot analysis of vulnerability underscores that hotspots, for example of high vulnerability, state fragility, low biodiversity protection or forced migration, emerge in multi-country clusters. This aspect has often been overlooked, most attention to-date having been given to the positioning of individual countries within vulnerability rankings. In hotspots such as in the Sahel, East and Central Africa, as well as in Southern Asia and Central America, vulnerability is interwoven with high levels of state fragility, making adaptation solutions more complex. The recognition of the regional clusters and the transboundary nature of vulnerability calls for new research and action on how to strengthen transboundary approaches for vulnerability reduction, potentially enhancing prospects for successful adaptation.

Loss and Damage (L&D;) has been the subject of contentious debate in international climate policy for several decades. Recently, formal mechanisms on L&D; have been established, but arguably through unclear language. This ambiguity is politically important, but researchers and practitioners require clearer understandings of L&D.; Here we report on the first in-depth empirical study of actor perspectives, including interviews with 38 key stakeholders in research, practice, and policy. We find points of agreement and also important distinctions in terms of: the relationship between L&D; and adaptation, the emphasis on avoiding versus addressing L&D;, the relevance of anthropogenic climate change, and the role of justice. A typology of four perspectives is identified, with different implications for research priorities and actions to address L&D.; This typology enables improved understanding of existing perspectives and so has potential to facilitate more transparent discussion of the options available to address L&D;.

Cocoa yields in Ghana remain low. This has variously been attributed to low rates of fertilizer application, pollinator limitation, and particularly dry growing conditions. In this paper we use an African forest-agriculture landscape dominated by cocoa (Theobroma cacao) to develop an ecological production function, allowing us to identify key ecological and management limits acting on cocoa yields simultaneously. These included more consistent application of fertilizers inter-annually, distributing rotting biomass throughout the farm and reducing the incidence of capsid attacks. By relaxing these limits, we estimate plausible increases in yields and, by extension, farm incomes. Our analysis reveals that resulting increases in cocoa yields requiring both ecological and intensive management interventions could be significant (113 ± 60%); however, benefits are disproportionately realized by the wealthiest households. We found that wealthier households benefited proportionally more from ecological intensification methods (e.g., leaving more rotting biomass in their farms) and the poorest households benefited proportionally more from capital-intensive intensification methods (e.g., pesticide and fertilizer applications). We treated poverty as multi-dimensional, and show that only certain dimensions of poverty (school attendance, assets, and food security) are significantly related to cocoa incomes, while several other dimensions (access to clean water, sanitation and electricity, and infant mortality) are not. We explore how increased household cocoa incomes could impact different dimensions of poverty. Our findings suggest, that if all households adopted the optimal level of each of these management options, and in so doing had similar poverty profiles to those households already managing optimally, we would see the community-averaged probability: a child of a household misses school decrease from 47 to 31%, a household would be able to acquire assets increase from 40 to 59% and a household would have access to an adequate amount of food increase from 62 to 79%.

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) to climate change is an approach claimed to deliver social benefits relevant to marginalized groups. Based on a structured literature review, we interrogate such claims, asking whether such approaches may (or may not) contribute to social change and, more specifically, empowerment. We present a review of the predominant meaning and interlinkages of the EbA and empowerment concepts, which shows that EbA pays insufficient attention to issues of empowerment and agency. On this basis, we discuss how an empowerment lens could be (better) integrated into the conceptualization of EbA, suggesting key dimensions through which this could be supported. We show that the emphasis on empowerment theory and the merits that it brings to the EbA literature are helpful, leading to a number of important questions to adaptation projects on the ground. Incorporating an empowerment lens leads to an increased consideration of issues of power more broadly, especially the way marginalized groups’ agency, access, and aspirations are conditioned by social structures that may prevent strategic adaptation choices. We conclude that EbA will facilitate empowerment better by explicitly considering how social benefits can emerge from the interplay between particular types of actions, marginalized people’s adaptive strategies, and their relational context.

Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (LD and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to establish responsibility or blame, but rather to investigate drivers of change. Attribution science is advancing rapidly, and has potential to increase understanding of how climate variability and change is influencing slow onset and extreme weather events, and how this interacts with other drivers of risk, including socio-economic drivers, to influence losses and damages. Over time, some uncertainties in the science will be reduced, as the anthropogenic climate change signal becomes stronger, and understanding of climate variability and change develops. However, some uncertainties will not be eliminated. Uncertainty is common in science, and does not prevent useful applications in policy, but might determine which applications are appropriate. It is important to highlight that in attribution studies, the strength of evidence varies substantially between different kinds of slow onset and extreme weather events, and between regions. Policy-makers should not expect the later emergence of conclusive evidence about the influence of climate variability and change on specific incidences of losses and damages; and, in particular, should not expect the strength of evidence to be equal between events, and between countries. Rather than waiting for further confidence in attribution studies, there is potential to start working now to integrate science into policy and practice, to help understand and tackle drivers of losses and damages, informing prevention, recovery, rehabilitation, and transformation.

The debate on "Loss and Damage" (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the "Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage" was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, meth ods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network - a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe - provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking sugges tions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation "game" by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of Transformation.

As climate change research becomes increasingly applied, the need for actionable information is growing rapidly. A key aspect of this requirement is the representation of uncertainties. The conventional approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change is probabilistic, based on ensembles of climate model simulations. In the face of deep uncertainties, the known limitations of this approach are becoming increasingly apparent. An alternative is thus emerging which may be called a ‘storyline’ approach. We define a storyline as a physically self-consistent unfolding of past events, or of plausible future events or pathways. No a priori probability of the storyline is assessed; emphasis is placed instead on understanding the driving factors involved, and the plausibility of those factors. We introduce a typology of four reasons for using storylines to represent uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change: (i) improving risk awareness by framing risk in an event-oriented rather than a probabilistic manner, which corresponds more directly to how people perceive and respond to risk; (ii) strengthening decision-making by allowing one to work backward from a particular vulnerability or decision point, combining climate change information with other relevant factors to address compound risk and develop appropriate stress tests; (iii) providing a physical basis for partitioning uncertainty, thereby allowing the use of more credible regional models in a conditioned manner and (iv) exploring the boundaries of plausibility, thereby guarding against false precision and surprise. Storylines also offer a powerful way of linking physical with human aspects of climate change.

Schemes to promote sustainable forest management have increasingly focused on addressing widespread informalities in timber production, based on the presumed links between formalisation, the maintenance of forest cover and local welfare. This trend is typified by the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative and associated Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) aimed at eradicating the trade of illegal wood between partner countries and the EU. Yet there is concern that such initiatives might have detrimental impacts on the largely informal rights of local resource users. In order to inform the formalisation agenda, more detailed analysis of the operation of local rights, and how they might be affected by particular schemes is required. This paper focuses on Ghana as a country with a largely informal wood sector that has signed a VPA with the EU for the express purpose of rapid formalisation. Our analysis is guided by a framework for assessing which types of rights might be transformed by particular approaches to formalisation and the subsequent effect this might have on forests and people in particular local contexts. We then apply this framework to an in-depth local case study of on-farm timber governance within a cocoa-forest landscape in Ghana’s Central Region to examine how the operation of formal and informal and substantive and procedural rights shape who controls, and benefits from, on-farm timber production. We then analyse the content of the VPA in light of these local realities and assess its potential impacts. Our findings highlight how the substantive rights the state grants to companies are presumed to be balanced with the granting of procedural rights to farmers via the mechanisms of right of refusal to harvest on-farm timber, compensation for damage to cocoa crops and the negotiation of community-level Social Responsibility Agreements with private companies. Yet a comparison of these formal rights with farmers’ existing informal rights reveals that farmers’ control and access to benefits from trees on their farms are notably higher in the ‘illegal’ chainsaw dominated informal sector than in the ‘legal’ state-based system. Farmers choose to maintain trees on farms both to shade cocoa and in anticipation of benefits from their informal sale. The VPA, however, aims to eradicate all informal on-farm timber production and thus threatens existing local rights and benefit capture while diminishing incentives to maintain trees on farm. Rather than further criminalising local systems of timber governance, the maintenance of tree cover and local benefit-sharing would be better served by 1) phasing out timber concessions on farmland, 2) abandoning the distinction between planted and native trees on farms and, 3) understanding, recognizing and respecting the existing informal rights of farmers, traditional authorities and chainsaw loggers to negotiate among themselves patterns of access and control of on-farm trees and timber. In general, the case study challenges the assertion that formalisation is requisite for sustainable forest management and mandates a more nuanced and contextually informed assessment of the assumed costs and benefits associated with particular forms of legal and policy reform.

This paper provides a multi-scalar examination of the Ethiopian coffee sector and its pursuit of climate resilience. Concern is growing about the potential impact of climate change on Arabica coffee in Ethiopia and the 25 million livelihoods it supports. Arabica coffee has a relatively narrow envelope of climatic suitability and recent studies suggest that the area of bioclimatically suitable space for the species in its native Ethiopia could decline dramatically in the coming decades. We adopt a critical perspective on resilience that reflects on the situated nature of the ecology/science of coffee and climate change and the operation of social, economic, and discursive power across scales, paying particular attention to the differentiated impacts of climate change and associated resilience strategies. This analysis begins by reviewing Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy strategy and argues that the current lack of attention to coffee is inappropriate considering the coffee sector’s vulnerability to climate change, economic importance and association with forests. The paper then examines the contemporary coffee sector which provides the context for reflecting on three potential responses to the threat climate change poses; a spatial response from farmers, adaptive farm management responses such as changing shade levels and the development of the country’s genetic resources to cultivate improved varieties. The analysis explores the disconnect between the interventions emerging from national and international institutions and the local context. The multi-scale approach highlights the presence of complex normative trade-offs associated with pursing climate resilience strategies and reinforces the importance of appreciating the dynamics which influence decision-making in the country.

Climate change, increasingly recognized as a hurdle to achieving sustainable development goals, has already begun impacting the lives and livelihoods of people around the world, including on the African continent. Vulnerability is a concept often employed in the context of climate change to identify risks and develop policy and adaptation measures that address current and projected impacts. However, it is situated in a broader social context, driven by factors such as land tenure and access, livelihood diversification, and empowerment, which single out historically marginalized groups like women. This paper applies a vulnerability framework to a case study of cocoa farming in the Central Region of Ghana, depicting not only the variety of factors contributing to climate change vulnerability but also different narratives on vulnerability that emerge based on a woman’s relation to cocoa production itself. The paper conveys how homogeneous representations of women farmers and the technical focus of climate-orientated policy interventions may threaten to further marginalize the most vulnerable and exacerbate existing inequalities. This has implications for both climate change policy design and implementation, as well as the broader social development agenda that has bearing on vulnerability.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, sustainable forest management, enhancement of forest carbon stocks and conservation (REDD+) aims to reduce the 12–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions attributable to forest loss worldwide. As tropical countries undertake REDD+ readiness, vital questions arise around the equity of REDD+ interventions. In particular, there has been much critique of the impact of REDD+ on local forest communities, and whether these interventions serve to entrench or address existing inequalities and the structural causes of poverty. Taking Ghana's REDD+ process as a case study, McDermott et al.'s (2013) ‘equity framework’ is used to systematically examine the contextual, procedural and distributive dimensions of equity, based on fieldwork carried out from July 2014 to March 2016. br This study draws on stakeholder perspectives and document analysis to draw conclusions about the equity of Ghana's REDD+ process. Our study shows that Ghana's national REDD+ strategy, legal texts and documents aim to ensure that all actors, including local forest communities, are considered ‘subjects of equity’. However, according to stakeholder perspectives and general forest laws and policies, there are multiple barriers to realizing the intended goals of equity. Firstly, the complex, multiple and unclear tenurial arrangements inhibit distributive equity. Secondly, uneven stakeholder knowledge and capacity hamper effective engagement in decision-making and limit procedural equity. Thirdly, contextual factors that are remnants of colonial structures and systems, and that serve competing political and economic interests through resource exploitation impact distributive equity. The ‘equity framework’ reveals that historical contextual factors impact the achievement of equity through REDD+, even with right government policies and strategies in place.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to deal with loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, including extreme events, in developing countries. It is not yet known whether events will need to be attributed to anthropogenic climate change to be considered under the WIM. Attribution is possible for some extreme events- a climate model assessment can estimate how greenhouse gas emissions have affected the likelihood of their occurrence. Dialogue between scientists and stakeholders is required to establish whether, and how, this science could play a role in the WIM.