Search

Many coasts are eroding. In the Comoros, as in many other small island developing states (SIDS), communities frequently respond to coastal erosion by building seawalls-yet seawalls and other coastal defence structure are controversial, especially in a SIDS context, where they typically are poorly designed and constructed and thus tend to increase rather decrease erosion and are often unable to prevent flooding. Through an exploratory qualitative case study of Grande Comore, the main island of the Comoros (West Indian Ocean), we compare and contrast how local stakeholders, national elites and donors understand coastal erosion and flooding in the context of a changing climate and how they experience and perceive seawalls as a response measure. Our analysis suggests that although stakeholders are aware of different drivers of coastal erosion and flooding, including sand mining, seawalls are a frequent and customary response to coastal erosion and flooding. Little is known about their disadvantages or alternative response measures, especially among local community members. Further, a lack of capacity and resources leads not only to poorly designed and constructed seawalls but also to difficulties in enforcing rules and regulations such as bans on sand mining. From our exploratory study, three conclusions emerge: (1) local drivers of coastal erosion and flooding are more visible than global climate change while funding is more readily available for adaptation to climate change; (2) a mix of context and site-specific measures would be needed to adequately respond to coastal erosion and flooding; and (3) further information and knowledge about the extent and causes of coastal erosion and flooding as well as about the effects of different response measures would be needed to allow such context and site-specific measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Press conferences are an important element of a government's communication strategy at climate change summits. From a theoretical perspective, press conferences should serve two main functions: exerting pressure in negotiations and informing the public. These functions correspond to two logics of action: a logic of consequence where governments use press conferences as negotiation tools and a logic of appropriateness where governments organize press conferences to increase transparency. Based on new data from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change archives, we find limited support for these two logics of action. Neither democracies, which, we argue, are more likely to follow a logic of appropriateness, nor vulnerable countries, which are more likely to follow a logic of consequence, organize systematically more press conferences. Other factors, such as capacity and a government's function in the negotiation structure, seem to play a more important role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Small island states have been able to obtain some remarkable achievements in the climate change negotiations by building a cohesive coalition, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Its cohesion, however, has been affected by changes in the UNFCCC process. The increase both in the number of issues on the climate agenda and the number of negotiation groups may have helped or hindered compromise and finding common ground. To track how AOSIS has fared in the climate change regime, the activities and positions of AOSIS, and of individual AOSIS members over three distinct periods (1995–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2011) in the climate change regime, are compared. It is found that group activity has declined in relative terms and although there is overall agreement regarding mitigation and adaptation, there is less consensus regarding forestry (e.g. LULUCF and REDD) issues. However, despite controversies in some areas, AOSIS has remained a tightly coordinated and cohesive alliance that continues to be a key player in global climate policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]