Search

Abstract: In many cases in which climate change affects natural resources, impacts are uncertain and adaptation to climate change often involves collective action problems at the local level, which are embedded in multilevel governance regimes. Adaptive management (AM) is an emerging approach to deal with such uncertainty and complexity by promoting multilevel institutions that are robust to change and able to learn. Much of the literature evaluating AM in multilevel governance regimes, however, focuses only on the adherence to certain structural features said to make AM successful, leaving aside the question whether AM actually produces desired outcomes. This paper evaluates AM in multilevel regimes also in terms of the outcomes they produce. To this end, we first apply the Management and Transition Framework (MTF) in order to describe three multilevel regimes in Lesotho. For each regime we then observe whether it adheres to the structure features of AM. Finally, we evaluate the extent to which the outcomes, natural resource management projects, are conducive to ‘design principles’ for sustainable common-pool resource management. We find that, though no ideal ‘adaptive regime’ is found in Lesotho, the results confirm the AM hypotheses that decentralised decision-making, open information sources, and plurality of user interests lead to improved outcomes. Conversely, elements of the climate regime are found not to be adaptive. Our findings also confirm the appropriateness of AM as a governance approach to climate adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptation to climate change occurs largely through action at the local level, which is influenced by international and national levels of political and social organization. This article explores the impact of discourse at the international level on adaptation policy at the national and local level. Discourse defines which knowledge claims, methods and rationalities are accepted and reproduced by actors as a basis for policy development and implementation; this is called `framing'. Scientific literature defines adaptation and vulnerability in a general way and so accommodates different framings. This article reviews the history of the concepts of adaptation and vulnerability in the literature and their relation to development. Evidence is presented for the presence of two framings of CCIAV in the literature: the `decision-analytic' and the `institutional-analytic'. Wetlands and climate-related projects in Lesotho are analysed and evidence is presented for the reproduction of the two framings. A decision-analytic framing favours projects focusing on technological solutions and reducing projected impacts. Conversely, institutional-analytic framing tends to produce projects that more explicitly include governance issues. It is concluded that framings exert a significant influence on policy when linked to, for example, sources of funding for adaptation. It is argued that methods linked to the `decision-analytic' framing risk limiting the scope of effective adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]