Search

This paper scrutinises claims made about the promise and efficacy of ecosystems-based adaptation (EBA), through an exploration of EBA-relevant interventions in two fieldsites in Mexico. Our data starts to fill important gaps in current global debates about EBA. We find evidence of the important contribution of interventions relevant to EBA objectives at a small scale and under very specific conditions. However, the viability of similar interventions is substantially reduced, and arguably rendered null, as an incentive for conservation in a more populous fieldsites. Furthermore, evidence suggests that other adaptation options risked being overlooked if the context were viewed solely through the lens of EBA. We conclude that EBA needs to: a) engage with and address the trade-offs which characterised earlier attempts to integrate conservation and development, and; b) acknowledge the implications for its objectives of a globally predominant, neoliberal political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the growth in work linking climate change and national level development agendas, there has been limited attention to their political economy. These processes mediate the winners, losers and potential trade-offs between different goals, and the political and institutional factors which enable or inhibit integration across different policy areas. This paper applies a political economy analysis to case studies on low carbon energy in Kenya and carbon forestry in Mozambique. In examining the intersection of climate and development policy, we demonstrate the critical importance of politics, power and interests when climate-motivated initiatives encounter wider and more complex national policy contexts, which strongly influence the prospects of achieving integrated climate policy and development goals in practice. We advance the following arguments: First , understanding both the informal nature and historical embeddedness of decision making around key issue areas and resource sectors of relevance to climate change policy is vital to engaging actually existing politics; why actors hold the positions they do and how they make decisions in practice. Second , we need to understand and engage with the interests, power relations and policy networks that will shape the prospects of realising climate policy goals; acting as barriers in some cases and as vehicles for change in others. Third , by looking at the ways in which common global drivers have very different impacts upon climate change policy once refracted through national levels institutions and policy processes, it is easier to understand the potential and limits of translating global policy into local practice. And fourth , climate change and development outcomes, and the associated trade-offs, look very different depending on how they are framed, who frames them and in which actor coalitions. Understanding these can inform the levers of change and power to be navigated, and with whom to engage in order to address climate change and development goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The sustainable livelihoods approach has become a key framework for academic research and in policy circles. • The sustainable livelihoods approach has also been widely critiqued. • Responding to these critiques but recognising its strengths, this paper sets out a sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. This paper proposes a reformulation of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) fit for the 21st century. The article explores the rise and usage of the original SLF, highlighting how its popularity among development practitioners emerged both from its practical focus, and its depoliticization of wider shifts in the development landscape at the time. Distilling the various critiques that have emerged around the use of the SLF and sustainable livelihoods approaches, the article highlights problems of theory, method, scale, historical conceptualisation, politics, and debates on decolonising knowledge. It further explores two key shifts in the global development landscape that characterise the 21st century, namely the impacts of climate change on rural livelihoods, and the shifts wrought by globalisation, before highlighting the structural and relational turns in critical development literature. In speaking to both historical critiques and more recent debates, we present a SLF for the 21st century, foregrounding a structural, spatially-disaggregated, dynamic and ecologically-coherent approach to framing rural livelihoods. We offer a framework and not an approach, hoping that that our SLF leaves open the possibility for different theoretical traditions to better work with emerging rural livelihoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]