Integrating mitigation and adaptation in climate and land use policies in Brazil: a policy document analysis

This paper investigates climate policy integration and coherence in land use policies in Brazil. Unlike other policy analyses a key aim is to assess ‘internal policy coherence’ in the climate change domain, or the extent to which positive and negative interactions between mitigation and adaptation are taken into account in policy formulation. The paper is based on a systematic content analysis of major federal level climate change and land use policies. The results indicate a stronger focus on climate change mitigation compared to adaptation in all land uses. Integrated approaches that consider mutually supportive mitigation and adaptation actions are called for in key climate change policies, but so far such linkages remain largely unexplored in sectoral policies. While some progress in this regard occurred in the agricultural sector, this has not translated into actual policy actions that are of use to small-scale producers. In the forest domain the focus remains almost exclusively on climate change mitigation. Three main recommendations are drawn. First, more knowledge about locally specific climate change impacts, resilience, capacity and measures for climate change adaptation is needed in order to increase the opportunities to pursue mutually beneficial approaches to climate change mitigation, adaptation and development, in particular in the forestry sector. Second, policy makers need to address more explicitly potential trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation in both policy formulation and implementation. Third, policy action on how to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes and avoid trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation needs to be operationalised into concrete policy objectives within sectoral policies and into practices that apply not just to agriculture and livestock systems, but to forested landscapes as well

REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: Constraints and opportunities for successful policy making

The prospective introduction of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and enhancement of carbon stocks) in Brazil has generated many questions about its form of implementation and likely environmental effectiveness. These issues must be addressed to reduce the risks associated with REDD+, such as conflicts over land and forest resources, and increase the likelihood of successful outcomes, as equitable benefits sharing. In this study, we examine how policy actors such as NGOs, government, and the private sector influence the REDD+ policy process in Brazil. We analyze actors’ positions on key issues in REDD+ (conflicts; benefits sharing; free, prior, and informed consent; tenure; and coordination) to identify associated constraints and opportunities for REDD+ policy making with a focus on the national strategy. We examine the structure of three policy networks in this policy arena (prestige, information exchange, and collaboration) with the aim of explaining these constraints and opportunities, so that policy can be positively modified or adapted ahead of its implementation. We note that the presence of polarization on the issues analyzed implies the need for better negotiation among actors if REDD+ is to move forward effectively. Furthermore, the absence of coordination between types of actors (private sector, government, and NGOs) suggests that achieving optimal REDD+ governance in Brazil will be difficult. Finally, we propose some directions for REDD+ policy making in Brazil that could help policy managers and stakeholders improve the design and implementation of the national strategy

Climate policy integration in the land use sector: Mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development linkages

This article re-conceptualizes Climate Policy Integration (CPI) in the land use sector to highlight the need to assess the level of integration of mitigation and adaptation objectives and policies to minimize trade-offs and to exploit synergies. It suggests that effective CPI in the land use sector requires i) internal climate policy coherence between mitigation and adaptation objectives and policies; ii) external climate policy coherence between climate change and development objectives; iii) vertical policy integration to mainstream climate change into sectoral policies and; iv) horizontal policy integration by overarching governance structures for cross-sectoral coordination. This framework is used to examine CPI in the land use sector of Indonesia. The findings indicate that adaptation actors and policies are the main advocates of internal policy coherence. External policy coherence between mitigation and development planning is called for, but remains to be operationalized. Bureaucratic politics has in turn undermined vertical and horizontal policy integration. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that the Indonesian bureaucracy can deliver strong coordinated action addressing climate change in the land use sector, unless sectoral ministries internalize a strong mandate on internal and external climate policy coherence and find ways to coordinate policy action effectively

Integrating mitigation and adaptation in climate and land use policies in Indonesia: a policy document analysis

Most of the climate policy integration literature focuses on mainstreaming mitigation OR adaptation into sectoral policies. Such approaches, however, tend to ignore possible interactions between climate change adaptation and mitigation, which are particularly important in the land use sector. This paper investigates climate policy integration and coherence in the forest and agricultural sectors in Indonesia. It assesses the extent to which climate change policies display internal ‘climate change policy coherence’ between climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives, and ‘external policy coherence’ between climate change and non-climate change objectives of land use policies. The results indicate a shift since 2014 from a predominantly vertical to a more fragmented form of horizontal policy integration. Insufficient political action, resources and knowledge on vulnerability and adaptation options in forestry and agriculture and limited attention to reconcile mitigation and development objectives in land use sector are the main obstacles to internal and external policy integration. A present, for the most part climate change efforts still need to translate into revised sectoral policies. In a fragmented and predominantly horizontal policy architecture the willingness of sectoral ministries to recognize the importance of climate change objectives and of synergies between mitigation and adaptation will be crucial to moved toward a more effective climate policy integration

Where ecosystems, people and health meet: academic traditons and emerging fields for research and practice

Human-driven environmental change has brought attention to the importance of ecosystems in sustaining human health and well-being. There are various schools of thought and fields of inquiry and action that seek to understand health in relation to linked social and ecological phenomena. We describe 18 such fields and outline common elements and incongruities among them. They converge around the application of systems thinking and crossing disciplinary boundaries, while differences are found in methodologies, research foci and problem framing. Although fields encourage sustainable and equitable pathways for health promotion, depoliticized and ahistorical approaches continue to be standard practice. Future research calls for a deeper commitment to examining ourselves as political actors, making space for conversations around power dynamics, and (re)centering participants in research methodologies.As mudanças ambientais antrópicas despertaram a atenção para a importância dos ecossistemas como fundamentais para sustentar a saúde e o bem-estar humanos. Várias escolas de pensamento e campos de atuação em pesquisa e ação buscam compreender a saúde e os fenômenos sociais e ecológicos associados. Apresentamos 18 desses campos de atuação destacando seus elementos comuns e divergências. Eles convergem em torno do cruzamento de fronteiras disciplinares e na aplicação do pensamento sistêmico, enquanto as principais diferenças são encontradas nas metodologias, nos enfoques de pesquisa e no enquadramento dos problemas. Embora os campos busquem promover a saúde pelos caminhos sustentáveis e equitativos, as abordagens despolitizadas e a-históricas continuam sendo parte da prática padrão. Pesquisas futuras requerem um compromisso maior na avaliação das nossas próprias condutas como atores políticos e na promoção de novos espaços de discussões sobre a dinâmica de poder, a fim de (re)centralizar os participantes nas metodologias de pesquisa