Search

The port governance literature has charted the trend towards devolution of port services to the private sector, also showing how the increasing influence of external private actors such as shipping lines and global terminal operators affects decisions on expansion and service provision, producing a more multifaceted and polycentric kind of port governance. In this paper we extend these notions to cover both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. A growing body of literature on green ports discusses the various actions that can be taken to limit emissions in the port area, while another body of literature is growing on climate change adaptation measures, including the uncertain risks and rewards. Both mitigation and adaptation actions are partly linked to the commercial decisions of port actors but also partly driven by external actors (e.g. society, government, regulators). The analysis produces an updated conceptualisation of port governance under climate change, based on four stakeholder groups (public policy, commercial actors, indirect actors and international shipping governance) and produces three key conclusions. First, concession contracts and commercial relationships will need to change, with a more integrated vision and approach to sharing future (sometimes undefined or uncosted) costs and benefits between the port authority and commercial partners. Second, diversification of the port business model will see a larger focus on energy production and provision, requiring the more explicit inclusion of external stakeholders, particularly energy companies, in port governance. Third, port governance will see a return to prominence of the public dimension, both in terms of national decarbonisation plans and particularly regarding adaptation to an uncertain and turbulent future. As ports are both commercial activities and national infrastructure, these different identities will need to be united in a joint vision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is urgent need for the transformation of built environments to tackle climate change. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2 °C is of paramount importance, as is planning for future climate change risks. Architects, as designers of the built environment hold an important role in advocating and enabling the necessary mitigation and adaptation actions required in the design and construction of new buildings, and the reuse of existing built fabric – to reduced embodied carbon and achieve operational energy efficiency. Despite the importance, most built environments do not yet adequately address climate change. Limited research has examined the barriers that architectural professionals encounter when integrating climate change action in their projects during their role designing built environments. This is the gap that this research addresses. Interviews with twenty-two Australian architectural practitioners were undertaken, to investigate their experience of barriers to and facilitators of climate change action in their professional practice. Four key themes were found: 1) actors, 2) processes and structures, 3) information and knowledge, and 4) the role of government. Barriers and facilitators were found to be embedded in architects' perception of their role, the processes and practices they undertake, and their relationship with other stakeholders. The facilitators identified can assist drive better outcomes for future design and construction of buildings. Recommendations identified include: 1) build architects' confidence and capability to be advocates; 2) develop of architects' climate change knowledge and competence; 3) transform design processes to be more circular, interdisciplinary and long term focused, and 4) reform current built environment policy to adequately consider climate change. [Display omitted] • Architects are crucial to achieving climate change action, but there is limited information on how to achieve this. • This study interviewed Australian architects about the barriers and facilitators they face to climate change action. • Key barriers for architects to enable change include limited influence, reach and decision-making capabilities. • Barriers and facilitators to climate action are influenced by both internal and external factors. • Identifies initiatives to facilitate climate change action: building knowledge and capacity, and transforming design processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • The pandemic did not halt, nor slow down climate change. • Africa faces challenges in financing climate action. • COVID-19 drained resources and attention for climate action. • Africa will be less sustainable and resilient post-COVID-19. • Approaches used to address COVID-19 should be adopted for climate change. This study assesses the potential for establishing a sustainable and climate-resilient African economy, post-COVID-19, focusing on Kenya, South Africa, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe. Utilising the United Nation's Climate-Positive Action Framework, document analysis, and a systematic literature review, it examines these nations' investment in climate action. Findings reveal a decrease in climate funding during the pandemic, with notable gaps in climate finance, including reallocations away from climate-related ministries and delays in project implementation. This decline in climate action poses risks to sustainability and climate resilience. To mitigate these risks, the study emphasizes the need for frameworks to mobilize external and domestic resources for climate action. Despite ongoing challenges posed by COVID-19, proactive measures are essential to maintain focus on climate action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agroforestry, a sustainable land-use system that integrates trees with crops and/or livestock, is recognized as an effective strategy for synergizing climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts in India. However, the prevalence of limited land under agroforestry indicates the presence of significant constraints hindering its widespread implementation. To address this challenge, the State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC) represents a potentially potent policy tool for driving the expansion of agroforestry at the sub-national level. The aim of this study was to examine (i) how the SAPCCs recognized and reported the benefits of agroforestry for climate change adaptation and mitigation, and (ii) what policy approaches are put forth to operationalize agroforestry in India. For this study, the information on agroforestry was coded using a hybrid approach (a combination of deductive and inductive coding) followed by thematic analysis and peer debriefing (for validation of the generated codes and themes). Many of the mitigation and adaptation benefits of agroforestry are reflected in the SAPCCs. However, the predominant focus of these SAPCCs has been on tree-based agroforestry, with insufficient attention given to the crop-tree-livestock nexus, which could offer greater scope for reducing agricultural emissions. Furthermore, existing constraints to the expansion of agroforestry have not been adequately addressed, and the strategies proposed lack the necessary precision to enable effective implementation on the ground. These shortcomings are further compounded by the absence of accurate budgetary estimates, thereby hindering the ability to execute meaningful actions at the grassroots level. The results of this study could offer valuable perspectives on how the potential benefits of agroforestry may be harnessed more prudently to realize mitigation and adaptation outcomes in India while aligning with the country's Nationally Determined Contributions and building sustainable livelihood. [Display omitted] • India's sub-national climate change action plans acknowledge agroforestry's potential for climate change adaptation and mitigation. • However, the plans primarily focus on adding trees to expand agroforestry and overlook the potential of agrosilvopastoral systems. • The existing constraints of agroforestry adoption in India are not sufficiently addressed, and budget estimates vary significantly among states. • To address these issues, the plans require revision to incorporate specific actions and a clear implementation roadmap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]