Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 (section)

==== 6.4.4.3 Resolving challenges in response option implementation ====

<div id="section-6-4-4-3-resolving-challenges-in-response-option-implementation-block-1"></div>

The 40 response options assessed in this chapter face a variety of barriers to implementation that require action across multiple actors to overcome (Section 6.4.1). Studies have noted that, while adoption of response options by individuals may depend on individual assets and motivation, larger structural and institutional factors are almost always equally important if not more so (Adimassu et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1114|1114]]</sup> ; Djenontin et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1115|1115]]</sup> ), though harder to capture in research variables (Schwilch et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1116|1116]]</sup> ). These institutional and governance factors can create an enabling environment for sustainable land management (SLM) practices, or challenges to their adoption (Adimassu et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1117|1117]]</sup> ). Governance factors include the institutions that manage rules and policies, the social norms and collective actions of participants (including civil society actors and the private sector), and the interactions between them (Ostrom 1990 <sup>[[#fn:r1118|1118]]</sup> ; Huntjens et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1119|1119]]</sup> ; Davies 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1120|1120]]</sup> ). Many of Ostrom’s design principles for successful governance can be applied to response options for SLM; these principles are: (i) clearly defined boundaries, (ii) understanding of both benefits and costs, (iii) collective choice arrangements, (iv) monitoring, (v) graduated sanctions, (vi) conflict-resolution mechanisms, (vii) recognition of rights, and (viii) nested (multi-scale) approaches. Unfortunately, studies of many natural resources and land management policy systems – in particular, in developing countries – often show the opposite: a lack of flexibility, strong hierarchical tendencies, and a lack of local participation in institutional frameworks (Ampaire et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1121|1121]]</sup> ). Analysis of government effectiveness (GE) – defined as quality of public services, policy formulation and implementation, civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, as well as credibility of the government’s commitment to its policies (Kaufmann et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1122|1122]]</sup> ) – has been shown to play a key role in land management. GE mediates land-user actions on land management and investment, and government policies and laws can help land users adopt sustainable land management practices (Nkonya et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1123|1123]]</sup> ) (Figure 6.9).

It is simply not a matter of putting the ‘right’ institutions or policies in place, however, as governance can be undermined by inattention to power dynamics (Fabinyi et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1124|1124]]</sup> ). Power shapes how actors gain access and control over resources, and negotiate, transform and adopt certain response options or not. These variable dynamics of power between different levels and stakeholders have an impact on the ability to implement different response options. The inability of many national governments to address social exclusion in general will have an effect on the implementation of many response options. Further, response options themselves can become avenues for actors to exert power claims over others (Nightingale 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1125|1125]]</sup> ). For example, there have been many concerns that reduced deforestation and forest degradation projects run the risk of reversing trends towards decentralisation in forest management and creating new power disparities between the state and local actors (Phelps et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1126|1126]]</sup> ). Below we assess how two important factors – the involvement of stakeholders, and the coordination of action across scales – will help in moving from response options to policy implementation, a theme Chapter 7 takes up in further detail.

''Involvement of stakeholders''

A wide range of stakeholders are necessary for successful land, agricultural and environmental policy, and implementing response options requires that a range of actors, including businesses, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples and local communities, scientists, and policymakers work together for success. Diverse stakeholders have a particularly important role to play in defining problems, assessing knowledge and proposing solutions (Stokes et al. 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r1127|1127]]</sup> ; Phillipson et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1128|1128]]</sup> ). Lack of connection between science knowledge and on-the-ground practice has hampered adoption of many response options in the past; simply presenting ‘scientifically’ derived response options is not enough (Marques et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1129|1129]]</sup> ). For example, the importance of recognising and incorporating local knowledge and indigenous knowledge is increasingly emphasised in successful policy implementation (see Cross-Chapter Box 13 in Chapter 7), as local practices of water management, soil fertility management, improved grazing, restoration and sustainable management of forests are often well-aligned with response options assessed by scientists (Marques et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1130|1130]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-6-4-4-3-resolving-challenges-in-response-option-implementation-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-6.9"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 6.9'''

<span id="relationship-between-changes-in-government-effectiveness-ge-and-changes-in-land-management.-notes-ndvi-change-in-normalized-difference-vegetation-index-baseline-year-2001-endline-year-2010.-source-of-ndvi-data-modis-goveff-change-in-ge-baseline-year-2001-endline-year-2010.-world-bank-nkonya-et-al.-2016."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Relationship between changes in government effectiveness (GE) and changes in land management. Notes: ∆NDVI = Change in Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (baseline year 2001, Endline year 2010). Source of NDVI data: MODIS ∆GovEff = Change in GE (baseline year 2001, endline year 2010). (World Bank; Nkonya et al. 2016).'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:71fa138c8d6e6564c85c3e6e1e1fc811 Figure-6.9-1024x819.jpg]]

Relationship between changes in government effectiveness (GE) and changes in land management. Notes: ∆NDVI = Change in Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (baseline year 2001, Endline year 2010). Source of NDVI data: MODIS ∆GovEff = Change in GE (baseline year 2001, endline year 2010). (World Bank; Nkonya et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1284|1284]]</sup> ).

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-4-3-resolving-challenges-in-response-option-implementation-block-3"></div>

Stakeholder engagement is an important approach for successful environmental and climate policy and planning. Tools such as stakeholder mapping, in which affected and interested parties are identified and described in terms of their interrelationships and current or future objectives and aspirations, and scenario-based stakeholder engagement, which combines stakeholder analysis with climate scenarios, are increasingly being applied to facilitate better planning outcomes (Tompkins et al. 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r1131|1131]]</sup> ; Pomeroy and Douvere 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r1132|1132]]</sup> ; Star et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1133|1133]]</sup> ). Facilitated dialogues early in design processes have shown good success in bringing multiple and sometimes conflicting stakeholders to the table to discuss synergies and trade-offs around policy implementation (Gopnik et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1134|1134]]</sup> ). Knowledge exchange, social learning, and other concepts are also increasingly being incorporated into understanding how to facilitate sustainable land management (Djenontin et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1135|1135]]</sup> ), as evidence suggests that negotiating the complexity of socio-ecological systems (SES) requires flexible learning arrangements, in particular for multiple stakeholders (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1136|1136]]</sup> ; Armitage et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1137|1137]]</sup> ; Heikkila and Gerlak 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1138|1138]]</sup> ). Social learning has been defined as ‘a change in understanding and skills that becomes situated in groups of actors/ communities of practice through social interactions,’ (Albert et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1139|1139]]</sup> ), and social learning is often linked with attempts to increase levels of participation in decision-making, from consultation to more serious community control (Collins and Ison 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1140|1140]]</sup> ; McCrum et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1141|1141]]</sup> ). Learning also facilitates responses to emerging problems and helps actors in SESs grapple with complexity. One outcome of learning can be adaptive risk management (ARM), in which ‘one takes action based on available information, monitors what happens, learns from the experience and adjusts future actions based on what has been learnt’ (Bidwell et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1142|1142]]</sup> ). Suggestions to facilitate social learning, ARM, and decision-making include extending science-policy networks and using local bridging organisations, such as extension services, for knowledge co-production (Bidwell et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1143|1143]]</sup> ; Böcher and Krott 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1144|1144]]</sup> ; Howarth and Monasterolo 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1145|1145]]</sup> ) (see further discussion in Chapter 7, Section 7.5).

Ensuring that women are included as key stakeholders in response option implementation is also important, as gender norms and roles affect vulnerability and access to resources, and gender inequality limits the possible range of responses for adoption by women (Lambrou and Piana 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r1146|1146]]</sup> ). For example, environmental change may increase women’s workload as their access to natural resources may decline, or they may have to take up low-wage labour if agriculture becomes unsuitable in their local areas under climate change (Nelson et al. 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r1147|1147]]</sup> ). Every response option considered in this chapter potentially has a gender dimension to it that needs to be taken into consideration (Tables 6.73–6.75 note how response options intersect with SDG 5 Gender Equality); for example, to address food security through sustainable intensification will clearly have to address female farmers in Africa (Kondylis et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1148|1148]]</sup> ; Garcia and Wanner 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1149|1149]]</sup> ) (for further information, see Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7).

''Challenges of coordination''

Coordinated action to implement the response options will be required across a range of actors, including business, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples and local communities and policymakers to create enabling conditions. Conjoining response options to maximise social, climatic and environmental benefits will require framing of such actions as strong pathways to sustainable development (Ayers and Dodman 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1150|1150]]</sup> ). As the chapter has pointed out, there are many potential options for synergies, especially among several response options that might be applied together and in coordination with one another (such as dietary change and improved land management measures). This coordination will help ensure that synergies are met and trade-offs minimised, but this will require deliberate coordination across multiple scales, actors and sectors. For example, there are a variety of response options available at different scales that could form portfolios of measures applied by different stakeholders from farm to international scales. Agricultural diversification and use of local seeds by smallholders can be particularly useful poverty eradication and biodiversity conservation measures, but are only successful when higher scales, such as national and international markets and supply chains, also value these goods in trade regimes, and consumers see the benefits of purchasing these goods. However, the land and food sectors face particular challenges of institutional fragmentation, and often suffer from a lack of engagement between stakeholders at different scales (Biermann et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1151|1151]]</sup> ; Deininger et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1152|1152]]</sup> ) (see Chapter 7, Section 7.6.2).

Many of the response options listed in this chapter could be potentially implemented as ‘community-based’ actions, including community-based reforestation, community-based insurance, or community-based disaster risk management. Grounding response options in community approaches aims to identify, assist and implement activities ‘that strengthen the capacity of local people to adapt to living in a riskier and less predictable climate’ (Ayers and Forsyth 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1153|1153]]</sup> ). Research shows that people willingly come together to provide mutual aid and protection against risk, to manage natural resources, and to work cooperatively to find solutions to environmental provisioning problems. Some activities that fall under this type of collective action include the creation of institutions or rules, working cooperatively to manage a resource by restricting some activities and encouraging others, sharing information to improve public goods, or mobilising resources (such as capital) to fix a collective problem (Ostrom 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r1154|1154]]</sup> ; Poteete and Ostrom 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r1155|1155]]</sup> ), or engagement in participatory land-use planning (Bourgoin 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1156|1156]]</sup> ; Evers and Hofmeister 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1157|1157]]</sup> ). These participatory processes ‘are likely to lead to more beneficial environmental outcomes through better informed, sustainable decisions, and win-win solutions regarding economic and conservation objectives’ (Vente et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1158|1158]]</sup> ), and evaluations of community-based response options have been generally positive (Karim and Thiel 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1159|1159]]</sup> ; Tompkins and Adger 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r1160|1160]]</sup> ).

Agrawal (2001) <sup>[[#fn:r1161|1161]]</sup> has identified more than 30 different indicators that have been important in understanding who undertakes collective action for the environment, including: the size of the group undertaking action; the type and distribution of the benefits from the action; the heterogeneity of the group; the dependence of the group on these benefits; the presence of leadership; presence of social capital and trust; and autonomy and independence to make and enforce rules. Alternatively, when households expect the government to undertake response actions, they have less incentive to join in collective action, as the state role has ‘crowded out’ local cooperation (Adger 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1162|1162]]</sup> ). High levels of social trust and capital can increase willingness of farmers to engage in response options, such as improved soil management or carbon forestry (Stringer et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1163|1163]]</sup> ; Lee 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1164|1164]]</sup> ), and social capital helps with connectivity across levels of SESs (Brondizio et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1165|1165]]</sup> ). Dietz et al. (2013) <sup>[[#fn:r1166|1166]]</sup> lay out important policy directions for more successful facilitation of collective action across scales and stakeholders. These include: providing information; dealing with conflict; inducing rule compliance; providing physical, technical or institutional infrastructure; and being prepared for change. The adoption of participatory protocols and structured processes to select response options together with stakeholders will likely lead to greater success in coordination and participation (Bautista et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1167|1167]]</sup> ; Franks 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1168|1168]]</sup> ; Schwilch et al. 2012a <sup>[[#fn:r1169|1169]]</sup> ).

However, wider adoption of community-based approaches is potentially hampered by several factors, including the fact that most are small-scale (Forsyth 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1170|1170]]</sup> ; Ensor et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1171|1171]]</sup> ) and it is often unclear how to assess criteria of success (Forsyth 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1172|1172]]</sup> ). Others also caution that community-based approaches often are not able to adequately address the key drivers of vulnerability such as inequality and uneven power relations (Nagoda and Nightingale 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1173|1173]]</sup> ).

''Moving from response options to policies''

Chapter 7 discusses in further depth the risks and challenges involved in formulating policy responses that meet the demands for sustainable land management and development outcomes, such as food security, community adaptation and poverty alleviation. Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 maps how specific response options might be turned into policies; for example, to implement a response option aimed at agricultural diversification, a range of policies from elimination of agricultural subsidies (which might favour single crops) to environmental farm programmes and agro-environmental payments (to encourage alternative crops). Oftentimes, any particular response option might have a variety of potential policy pathways that might address different scales or stakeholders or take on different aspects of coordination and integration (Section 7.6.1). Given the unique challenges of decision-making under uncertainty in future climate scenarios, Chapter 7 particularly discusses the need for flexible, iterative, and adaptive processes to turn response options into policy frameworks.

<div id="section-6-4-4-3-resolving-challenges-in-response-option-implementation-block-4" class="box"></div>

<span id="ccb9-climate-and-land-pathways"></span>