Evidence for a Systems Approach to Climate Action and Governance

Brendan Halloran, PhD

The Blog Series on a Just Climate Transition by the University of Oxford Climate Alumni Network (OxCAN) delves into the complexities and challenges of the issue, while proffering tangible solutions and pathways. In this post, Governance and Development Expert Brendan Halloran, PhD, outlines the crucial need for a systems approach to climate action, including greater engagement with the complexities of political economy and governance.

The climate crisis is the defining challenge of our time.

Much has been learned over the past decades about the causes and consequences of climate change. Ongoing research and practice are deepening our understanding about how to advance climate change mitigation and resilience, and protect diverse natural ecosystems. However, when I undertook a recent review of the evidence (over 130 studies, including numerous meta-analyses and systematic reviews) across climate change mitigation and resilience, as well as ecosystem protection and management, I did not find a clear or straightforward blueprint or solution. Rather, many of the insights and lessons from the evidence raise important questions about current thinking and practice. In particular, the evidence is clear that climate approaches need to better reflect the systems, including political economy and governance elements, that shape climate change vulnerabilities, decisions, actions, and outcomes.

With respect to mitigating climate change, important progress has been made in the green transition, yet not enough to prevent significant climate impacts. According to evidence reviewed by the World Bank [1], a very large number of climate change mitigation policies have been adopted across countries and sectors, and many of these are being implemented successfully. However, the enabling conditions needed for policies to be put in place and implemented effectively are challenging, and include institutional capacity, public and political support, and a strategic and coordinated approach. Thus, the most critical barriers to moving towards a carbon-neutral economy are not resources or technologies, but rather:

…the difficulty of designing and enacting structural change in a complex political environment that is defined by a wide range of political interest groups of varying degrees of power and influence; inconducive institutional architecture; limited government capacity; and diverging preferences, views, and beliefs across people, sectors, and groups…This complex context in each country—known as the political economy—ultimately enables or constrains effective responses to the threat of climate change [2].

Earlier explorations of climate change resilience have indeed emphasised the interrelated dimensions of actors (individual and collective), systems and institutions that are reflected both in situations of vulnerability and resilience [3]. This includes a recognition that the structural marginalisation of some groups significantly increases their vulnerability and undermines their possibilities of resilience. Thus:

…vulnerability to climate change occurs when fragile, inflexible systems and/or marginalised or low-capacity agents are exposed to increased climate hazards, and their ability to respond or shift strategies is limited by constraining institutions. Resilience is high where robust and flexible systems can be accessed by high-capacity agents and where that access is enabled by supportive institutions (p. 318–319).

A systems approach is particularly relevant in evolving from ‘coping’ to ‘transformative’ climate change adaptation, including navigating the complex governance dimensions of relationships and institutional dynamics that often underpin climate vulnerabilities [4]. However, despite an emerging understanding of the systems contributing to climate vulnerability, one review of climate adaptation interventions found that the complex social, economic, and political drivers of climate vulnerability are often not fully taken into account in climate adaptation efforts, including power dynamics among local stakeholders and between them and the adaptation programme [5]. The review found that failing to take these systems into account reduced the effectiveness of adaptation efforts, and may have unintentionally created new vulnerabilities. However, often these dimensions are overlooked in research and evaluation of adaptation efforts [6].

Evidence on protecting critical ecosystems largely aligns with the above, with an emphasis on navigating the tensions in natural resources governance between the often-challenging political economy (particularly the power asymmetries between local communities and economic and governmental actors) and the need for inclusive collective action and accountable governance of their use. For example, evidence on community forestry in Nepal demonstrates that a range of challenges (including a lack of meaningful citizen participation, lack of transparency and accountability, and weak overall governance) undermines outcomes and is driven by overall lack of political commitment and institutional capacity, a desire by bureaucrats to maintain power, and a siloed approach [7]. Conversely, in Mexico, a long process of reform and community organising, despite obstacles and backsliding, has resulted in significant areas of forest being under community management [8].

Understanding, navigating and shifting climate systems and governance 

According to the World Bank, governance is ‘the process through which state and nonstate actors interact to design and implement policies within a given set of formal and informal rules that shape and are shaped by power’ [9]. Thus, governance refers to the complex systems of interaction of actors, institutions, interests and power at multiple levels (global, national, local) that shapes decisions, resources, actions and outcomes for domains such as climate action. 

The overall evidence suggests that climate actions that have not been informed by a systems perspective, including governance dimensions, have been less impactful and sustainable. This includes taking into account the political economy incentives and power dynamics that are often among the root causes of the failure to advance climate change mitigation and safeguard natural resources and ecosystems, as well as underpinning the climate change vulnerabilities of many communities and populations.  Understanding, navigating and shifting these governance systems – particularly the frameworks and dynamics among individuals and institutions responsible for climate decisions, resources and actions – is critical.

Moreover, the political economy of climate governance from global to local levels has often resulted in decisions and actions that are not inclusive, responsive or effective in addressing the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. To ensure a liveable planet for all people, particularly those communities and groups most vulnerable to climate change impacts, climate governance must shift to be more inclusive, responsive and accountable.

In summary, the causes and consequences of climate change are shaped by a complex system of actors and factors from the planetary level down to the very local.  The governance of climate decisions, policies, resources, and programmes – including political economy and power dynamics – is a critical dimension of climate systems. The evidence suggests that more effective climate strategies and efforts recognise and engage with these complex systems and governance dynamics that shape actions and outcomes for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and protection of natural ecosystems.  

Brendan Halloran, PhD has been working on complex governance and development challenges for over 15 years, leading and facilitating analysis, strategy, programming, research and learning with diverse organisations and networks, from grassroots to global. He is particularly focused on the politics and governance dimensions of inclusive and effective climate change resources, programmes and outcomes. 

References

[1] World Bank. (2023). Reality check – Lessons from 25 Policies advancing a low-carbon future. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099101623115027221

[2] Hallegatte, S., Godinho, C., Rentschler, J., Avner, P., Irina Dorband, I., Knudsen, C., Lemke, J., & Mealy, P. (2024). Within reach: Navigating the political economy of decarbonization. Climate Change and Development Series Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/publication/within-reach-navigating-the-political-economy-of-decarbonization

[3] Tyler, S., & Moench, M. (2012). A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and Development, 4(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2012.745389 

[4] Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. G. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001

[5] Eriksen, S., Schipper, E. L. F., Scoville-Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H. N., Brooks, N., Harding, B., Khatri, D., Lenaerts, L., Liverman, D., Mills-Novoa, M., Mosberg, M., Movik, S., Muok, B., Nightingale, A., Ojha, H., Sygna, L., Taylor, M., Vogel, C., & West, J. J. (2021). Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Development, 141, 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

[6] Silici, L., Knox, J., Rowe, A., Nanthikesan, S. (2022). Evaluating transformational adaptation in smallholder farming: Insights from an evidence review. In J.I. Uitto & G. Batra (Eds.), Transformational change for people and the planet. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78853-7_13 

[7] Sapkota, L.M., Dhungana, H., Poudyal, B.H., Chapagain, B., & Gritten, D. (2020). Understanding the barriers to community forestry delivering on its potential: An illustration from two heterogeneous districts in Nepal. Environmental Management, 65, 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01224-0 

[8] Bray, D.B. (2022). Economic accountability and pro-poor forest sector reforms in Mexico. Case Study. Accountability Research Center. https://accountabilityresearch.org/publication/economic-accountability-forest-sector-reform-mexico/#publicationdbc6-ca6e 

[9] World Bank. (2018). World development report 2017: Governance and the law. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017

Blogs are the opinions of their authors and do not represent the official views of OxCAN.