Our Common Future Under Climate Change

International Scientific Conference 7-10 JULY 2015 Paris, France

Menu
  • Home
  • Zoom Interactive Programme
Cliquer pour fermer

Thursday 9 July - 14:30-16:00 UNESCO Fontenoy - ROOM VIII

3325 (a) - Overcoming barriers to transitions: knowledge to action and the importance of communication

Parallel Session

Lead Convener(s): J. Palutikof (Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia)

Convener(s): H. Winkler (University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa), N. Pahuja (The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, India)

14:30

Barriers to action and the role of communication

J. Palutikof (Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia)

Abstract details
Barriers to action and the role of communication
Abstract content
14:45

Experiences of co-production of evidence to support transitions

H. Winkler (University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa)

Abstract details
Experiences of co-production of evidence to support transitions
Abstract content
15:00

Impact, intention and implementation - a hard talk toward COP-21

N. Pahuja (The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, India)

Abstract details
Impact, intention and implementation - a hard talk toward COP-21
Abstract content
15:15

For richer or for poorer? Examining science-governance relations from a global perspective

L. Van Kerkhoff (The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia), H. Berry (The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia)

Abstract details
For richer or for poorer? Examining science-governance relations from a global perspective

L. Van Kerkhoff (1) ; H. Berry (2)
(1) The Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, ACT, Australia; (2) The Australian National University, Climate Change Institute, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Abstract content

The application of research-based knowledge to national-scale action on important public issues such as climate change is necessarily shaped by each nation’s socio-political stance toward the value and role of science in governance and decision-making (Jasanoff, 2010). Similarly, it is shaped by their capacities to enact those values by governing effectively for the public good. Yet although there has been considerable study and scholarship regarding the challenges of linking knowledge to action for science and research and associated institutional innovations, there has been relatively little that has sought to investigate the national-scale relationships between research and the public functions of governance. Examining these relationships helps us to understand the socio-political substrate from which other knowledge to action innovations must grow. There is extensive analysis showing that greater investment in R&D is related to higher economic growth, but none that has specifically sought to describe whether governance and R&D are related independent of national income via better public management, and how this might vary globally. To contribute to this understanding we sought to answer the questions of: whether there are quantitatively discernible relationships between science and governance at the macro (global) scale; how these relations might differ across countries; and how this diversity can be understood. This latter question is particularly important from the perspective of governing global environmental processes such as climate change.

To address these questions we investigated two hypotheses: first, that governance performance and research and development (R&D) are related independent of national income levels. Second, that these relations differ across high-income countries and lower-income countries, both quantitatively and qualitatively. We drew on publicly available country-level statistical data from the World Bank and UNESCO to investigate how national governance capacities are related to research and development investment (RDI). Using a sample of 209 countries we show that, while national income is an important factor, governance performance is independently related to RDI. Importantly, different domains of governance are relevant for high-income and lower-income countries. In terms of governance, in high-income countries, ‘governance effectiveness’ is the sole predictor of RDI while, in lower-income countries, it is predicted by greater ‘rule of law’ but less ‘control of corruption’. These results show that the relationships between governance and R&D in lower-income countries are complex and substantially different from high-income countries. More detailed analysis is warranted if we are to understand how to address the diversity of science-governance relations and the challenges andopportunities they pose for linking knowledge with action on global issues.

Jasanoff, S. (2010). A New Climate for Society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 233–253.

15:30

Addressing migration in the context of global environmental change: an institutional perspective

M. Traore Chazalnoel (International Organization for Migration, Geneva, France)

Abstract details
Addressing migration in the context of global environmental change: an institutional perspective

M. Traore Chazalnoel (1)
(1) International Organization for Migration, DMM/MECC, Geneva, France

Abstract content

As the leading migration agency, the International Organization for Migration has been working on migration, environment and climate change for more than twenty years, promoting research, awareness and knowledge of the subject, contributing to mainstreaming migration and environment into policies, promoting migration as an adaptation strategy in the context of climate change, building the capacity of key stakeholders, and assisting migrants in need, by combining bottom-up and top-down approaches to the management of environmental migration.

Building on the Organization’s global research, operational, and policy experience, this session will reflect on the pathway from knowledge to action in the area of climate-related migration governance. The presentation will explore the opportunities migration offers in the context of climate change, and discuss the challenges around addressing environmental and climate-related migration, including the difficulty of measuring and framing environmental migration and producing evidence to inform decision makers; the challenge of bridging the gap between empirical knowledge and political action, and of putting policies into practice; the difficulties behind attracting funding to enable action; legal challenges; operational and coordination challenges.

The session will also present some recommendations and possible avenues for improved action and governance of environmental migration, as a contribution to the preparatory work ahead of the COP21.

15:45

The smallholder farmers' adoption challenges on conservation agriculture practices in the southern highlands of Tanzania

B. Gwambene (Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, United Republic of)

Abstract details
The smallholder farmers' adoption challenges on conservation agriculture practices in the southern highlands of Tanzania

B. Gwambene (1)
(1) Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, United Republic of

Abstract content

Conservation Agriculture (CA) used as a mitigation and adaptation options to address impacts of climate variability  and an alternative practice for increasing food production while maintaining the soil resource base. It is promoted to address the problems of soil degradation resulting from the impacts of climate change and agricultural practices that deplete the organic matter and nutrient content of the soil.  However, adoption of CA among smallholder farmers has been limited and features many challenges in the southern highlands of Tanzania. This paper assesses the challenges of adopting conservation agriculture practices in smallholder and subsistence farming in this region. It used the survey methods that include participatory rural appraisal (PRA), questionnaire survey, key informant interview and field observation to collect both qualitative and quantitative information. The qualitative methods established the knowledge and experience with livelihood activities, adoption of CA, spatial and temporal changes in agricultural production and response strategies while the quantitative method provided the percentages and statistical information. The qualitative data were processed and analyzed by using trend and content analysis while quantitative data were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel and SPSS software. The results indicate that about 95% of smallholder farmers tend to only adopt certain components, such as mulching, crop rotation and water management techniques. Factors such as the knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA practices, long term crop yield benefits from CA, strong trade-offs posed adoption challenges. Poor functioning and access to the recommended inputs, markets and credit facilities and shortage of extension services increased adoption challenges at a local level. It was further revealed that climate variability, land exhaustion/ shortage, unreliable markets, and lack of product knowledge were reported to increase challenge in crop production. An enabling environment for farmers through appropriate policy, strategies and implementation plans at all levels provide an opportunity to increase adoption of CA and improve their livelihoods and productivity. This will need a policy and strategies that focus more on technical approaches to increase adoption rates with the consideration of social aspects such as perceptions that are equally important in conservation agriculture. Understanding what motivates farmers to try or reject specific CA practices is imperative in adoption of technology. In practice, farmers are able, or willing, to implement or partly adopt based on their perception of what is feasible in their particular circumstances. Issues such as the nature of the technology, affordability, time and resource invested, accessibility to appropriate tools and equipment, and competition for crop residue have influenced rate and extent of adoption among smallholder farmers.

 

Key word: Conservation agriculture, smallholder farmers, adoption challenges, adaptation options and southern highlands