Blockchain Papers

Niamjit Das

This chapter examines mangrove governance as a pathway for bridging policy and practice in climate resilience. It explores national and local structures, highlighting strengths and weaknesses in policies, decentralization challenges, and institutional fragmentation. Case studies from Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya, and the Philippines illustrate diverse approaches, from disaster risk reduction and large-scale restoration to community stewardship and carbon finance. Persistent barriers include conflicts between development and conservation, weak enforcement, equity gaps, and political-economic complexities. Future directions emphasize resilient governance systems, multi-level and transboundary cooperation, scaling community-based models, and embedding mangroves into sustainability agendas. Governance is reaffirmed as the cornerstone of sustainable mangrove management, requiring adaptive, inclusive, and collaborative frameworks to ensure ecological resilience and social equity.

Abdul-Wahab Tahiru, Silas Uwumborge Takal, Samuel Jerry Cobbina, Wilhemina Asare · 5 authors

Northern Ghana faces acute climate vulnerabilities, yet adaptation pathways remain fragmented and poorly synthesized. This study systematically reviewed 15 peer-reviewed literature covering the Savannah, Upper East, Upper West, North East, and Northern regions to assess climate impacts on agro-pastoral communities, evaluate existing adaptation strategies, and explore policy implications. Findings reveal that erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts, rising temperatures, and land degradation have undermined food security and livestock systems, while increasing pest outbreaks and intensifying farmer–pastoralist conflicts. Communities have responded through water harvesting, livelihood diversification (including agroforestry, shea processing, small livestock rearing, and seasonal migration), and reliance on indigenous knowledge systems. However, these strategies remain constrained by inadequate finance, weak infrastructure such as faulty hand pumps, gender inequalities, and limited integration with formal climate services. The review underscores the need for coherent policies that expand decentralized water infrastructure, scale climate-smart financing, institutionalize conflict-resolution platforms, and embed gender-responsive and indigenous approaches into national adaptation planning. Strengthening the interface between local innovation and formal governance is critical for building inclusive and scalable resilience across Northern Ghana’s agro-pastoral systems.

Md. Al Amin Alamin, Sabekun Nahar Setu

This research investigates the barriers to effective climate finance in Bangladesh, a Least Developed Country (LDC) highly vulnerable to climate threats such as sea-level rise, cyclones, salinity intrusion, and flooding. Despite receiving a significant share of international climate funds for LDCs, Bangladesh faces persistent challenges including complex access procedures, reliance on loan-based financing, institutional limitations, and centralized governance. The study examines Bangladesh's legal and institutional frameworks, including the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) and the Climate Change Trust Act 2010, alongside constitutional and judicial environmental commitments. Findings reveal systemic issues such as limited local participation, donor-driven management, and concerns over debt sustainability. Key recommendations include shifting towards grant-based finance, expanding legal standing for environmental litigation, decentralizing fund access to local governments, and enacting a dedicated Climate Change Act. The study underscores the imperative for Bangladesh to embed climate justice within its legal and financial systems and to advocate strongly in international climate forums. This research contributes valuable insights to the global discourse on climate justice and resilience for the most vulnerable nations.

Kamalakanta Datta, Pradyot Ranjan Jena

No abstract is available for this record.

Benjamin Chemouni, 10th European Conference of African Studies (ECAS)

This paper examines how international green finance is both shaped by and reshapes local political economies, using the case of Rwanda to illustrate these dynamics. Focusing on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) subsidy for adaptation projects in Gicumbi district in the North of the country, the paper demonstrates how national and local elites have leveraged GCF funding not only to enhance resilience against climate impacts in rural areas but also to further their interests and consolidate political authority. At the national level, this has manifested in the realignment of key policies related to adaptation, villagization, and agriculture, while also altering the distribution of power and resources among some political elite. Specifically, GCF funding has driven institutional rearrangements within the state apparatus, stifling decentralization and strengthening certain ministries and agencies at the expense of others. At the sub-national level, local governments have reinterpreted green finance frameworks to navigate local constraints and maximise political survival. This has occasionally disrupted traditional power dynamics, disempowering some segments of the local elite in favour of other actors in the small capitalist class, national elites, and security actors. Drawing on extensive fieldwork in Rwanda and policy analysis, the paper contributes to understanding how international climate finance gets localised and its capacity to alter governance structures and power relations in the Global South.

Djornele Mpiere, Kawther Tehami, Issouf Coulibaly, Caleb Mbaiogaou

Disaster risk, climate change, and unsustainable development are growing and interconnected challenges across Africa, where socio-economic vulnerabilities, environmental degradation, and institutional fragility converge to amplify risks. While the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change provide complementary global frameworks for tackling these complex issues, the true extent of their integrated implementation in the African context has remained largely unexplored. Existing research has tended to examine these frameworks in isolation, failing to capture their potential synergies and combined impact. This study fills this gap by assessing the integration of these global frameworks into national and sub-national planning and implementation processes in Africa. The study conducted a systematic review, complemented by a review of grey literature, covering the period from 2000 to 2024. The analysis combined qualitative thematic synthesis with quantitative assessment using MATLAB to identify trends, patterns, and integration gaps. Key funding reveals that while these frameworks are formally endorsed in Africa, their integration remains limited and inconsistent. Analysis shows that only 6.5% of Africa’s measurable SDG targets are on track, with 67.7% requiring acceleration and 25.8% off track for achieving the 2030 goals. Furthermore, fewer than 30% of African countries have adopted comprehensive strategies aligning DRR, climate adaptation, and SDGs. The study also confirms that fragmented financing, weak decentralization, and incompatible data systems persist as major barriers, limiting operational coherence and impact.

Miguel E. Leal, Claudia Heinze

Millions of people in Uganda are in need of urgent climate adaptation. The current central government-led top-down projects are inefficient and ineffective. These projects financed by multi-lateral global climate funds have limited impact at community level. The Local Climate Living Adaptation facility (LoCAL) through its Performance-Based Climate Resilience Grants to local governments is much more efficient and effective. True last mile delivery of climate adaptation can be accomplished through the bottom-up District Development Planning process by assessing climate issues and capturing adaptation needs in village proposal sheets and turn them into Village Climate Adaptation Plans. To be able to rapidly provide locally led adaptation, systematically and continuously to the millions of people in need, integration of the three delivery mechanisms is proposed, where the millions of climate finance raised by the central government are channelled to district level as Performance-Based Climate Resilient Grants based on the adaptation needs captured in Village Climate Adaptation Plans.

Luisito Dela Cruz, Moses Aaron Angeles

Through a careful analysis of official government documents such as national statutes, national agency memorandum orders, policy directives reports, and national and local plans, among others, pertinent to the Philippine Government's response to climate change mitigation and adaptation, the paper elucidated the policy directions of the country concerning climate change response. Aimed at proposing recommendations to enhance the current legal, organizational, and fiscal frameworks of the Philippine Government in its efforts to mainstream its climate change strategy, the paper identified some of the gaps and possible areas of improvement in the standing legal and structural constellations of policies employed in the country. It has been found by the research that though there have been actions related to the international mandate of promoting sustainable development, there are still areas that can be reformed and revisited if the government programs and institutions are to remain in fidelity to the commitments of the Philippines to combat the impacts and mitigate the effects of climate change. As the title suggests, the paper offers policy directions to strengthen government and academic institutions to better respond to this daunting challenge.References2013 Typhoon Haiyan: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. (n.d.). World vision. https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2013-typhoon-haiyan-facts.Asian Disaster Reduction Center. (n.d.). Information on disaster risk reduction of member countries. https://www.adrc.asia/nationinformation.php?NationCode=608&Lang=en.Asian Development Bank. (2012). Addressing migration and climate change in Asia and the Pacific: Final report. ADB.Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability in the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development 28(1). 21-39.Brillantes, A. & Montes, R. (2007). Federalism: Logical step after devolution? Philippine Journal of Public Administration 51(1-4). 1-32.Brillantes, A. (1987). Decentralization in the Philippines: An overview. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 31 (2): 131-148.Brillantes, A. (1998). Decentralized democratic governance under the local government code: A governmental perspective. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 32(1&2): 38-57.Brown, K. (2012). Typhoon Pablo batters ‘typhoon-free’ Mindanao. The Asia Foundation. https://asiafoundation.org/2012/ 12/19/typhoon-pablo-batters-typhoon-free-mindanao/.Capuno, J. (2019). Tugs of war: Local governments, national government. Public Policy Journal, 16 & 17: 98-116.Cheema, S. & Rondinelli, D. (2007). Decentralizing governance: Emerging concepts and practices. Brookings Institution Press.Dorotan, E. & Carizo, J. (2014). Issues and critical actions in local governance. Galing Pook Foundation.Hannah, R. (2014). Climate change and human development. Zed Books Ltd.Griggs, G. (2017). Coasts in crisis: A global challenge. University of California Press.Jha, A. & Geddes, Z. (2013). Strong, safe, and resilient: A strategic policy guide for disaster risk management in East Asia and the Pacific. The World Bank.Local Government Academy of the Philippines. (2013). User’s manual for LGUs: Guidebook for the preparation of LCCAP. Fabi’s Enterprises.Manila Observatory for the Congressional Commission on Science and Technology and Engineering. (2010). COMSTE Technical primer on climate change in the Philippines conference engineering resilience, confronting risk beyond adaptation. Sofitel ManilaMayon mud buries 100 in Bicol amid ‘Reming’ fury. (2006, Nov. 30). GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/22465/mayon-mud-buries-100-in-bicol-amid-remingfury/story/.National Climate Change Commission. (2021). 2020 Accomplishment Report: Adapting for a sustainable future.National Climate Change Commission. (2011). National climate change action plan.National Climate Change Commission. (2019). The Philippine national climate change action plan.NDCC: Typhoon ‘Frank’ damage estimate now at P 10B. (2008, July 1). GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/104407/ndcc-typhoon-frank-damage-estimate-now-atp10b/story/.Perez, R. (2017). Assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in the Philippines coastal resources sector. Natural Disaster Reduction Branch – PAGASA.Remembering Milenyo’s wrath in 2006. (2014, July 15). Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/news-commentary/2014/07/15/1346515/remembering-milenyos-wrath-2006.Republic Act 9729, An act mainstreaming climate change into government policy formulations, establishing the framework strategy and program on climate change, creating for this purpose the climate change commission, and other purposes (2009). https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2009/10/23/republic-act-no- 9729/.Republic Act 10174, An act establishing the people’s survival fund to provide long-term finance streams to enable the government to effectively address the problem of climate change, amending for the purpose Republic Act 9729, otherwise known as the 'Climate Change Act of 2009', and for other purposes (2012). https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/08/16/republic-act-no-10174/.Republic Act 10121, An act strengthening the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management System, providing for the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management framework and institutionalizing the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan, appropriating funds therefore and for other purposes (2010). https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2010/05/27/republic-act-no-10121/.Republic Act 7160, An Act for a Local Government Code of 1991 (1991). https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1991/10/10/republic-act-no-7160/.Walker, R. & Mason, W. (2015). Climate change adaptation for health and social services. CSIRO Publishing.

Marvellous Christopher Etuk, Paschal Uzomah

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013-2014 was the most comprehensive analysis of anthropogenic climate change, its impacts, and potential responses. It concluded that climate change is “unequivocal” and human activities are the dominant cause. Avoidance of “dangerous” climate change will require sustained substantial reductions of emissions by mid-century and that net emissions decrease to zero before 2100. This paper describes, reviews and explains the place of tourism in AR5 and AR5’s relevance for tourism’s future, including impacts, adaptation, vulnerabilities, and mitigation. Tourism’s position in AR5 has strengthened, particularly with respect to the recognition of transboundary impacts, the sector’s contribution to climate change and its mitigation requirements. Major regional knowledge gaps persist. A lack of understanding of the integrated impacts of climate change and the effectiveness of adaptation strategies potentially hinders the development of resilient tourism operations and destinations. Uncertainties regarding tourist response to climate change impacts and mitigation policy impede predictions of tourism demand. The implications of different decarbonization pathways for the future of international tourism represent a key knowledge gap. The limited response of key tourism organizations to AR5 contributes to the risks climate change poses to the sector. Keywords: climate change; mitigation; adaptation; emissions; impacts; development Please note that the version provided here is the uncorrected proof version. For the authoritative version please go to the journal website: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2015.1062021#.VbMDLEV30os

Tamara Coger, Sarah Corry, R. Gregorowski

Locally led adaptation recognizes that people closest to the effects of climate change, especially those facing structural marginalization, require the financing and decision-making power to ensure that adaptation investments reflect their priorities. Supporters of locally led adaptation can leverage monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) processes to balance power, promote mutual accountability, elevate local knowledge and priorities, and create value for local actors. This paper recommends a systemic shift toward MEL that is locally led, context-aware, and itself adaptive. It provides steps throughout the MEL cycle and specific approaches, methods and tools that promote local agency in the interest of more effective and equitable locally led adaptation interventions. It builds on the recommendations of the Global Commission on Adaptation to increase decentralization of adaptation finance to the local level, and aims to support implementation of the eight Principles for Locally Led Adaptation that were developed for the Commission.

Margaret Rosso Grossman

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.”1 Atmospheric and ocean temperatures are rising, “[p]recipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.”2 The 2017 Climate Science Special Report describes the current state of scientific knowledge about U.S. and global climate change. The report concludes that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation.”3 Global data show that 2016 was the warmest year on record and the third consecutive year for record global average surface temperatures.4 In the continental United States, 2016 was the second warmest year on record, after 2012, with higher than average precipitation and fifteen climate-related disasters including drought, wildfire, floods, and severe storms, which caused losses of more than $1 billion.5 The emission of greenhouses gases (GHGs),6 which move about in the atmosphere, is a major cause of global climate change. GHGs absorb terrestrial radiation that leaves the Earth’s surface. Although GHGs “create the natural heat-trapping properties of the atmosphere” and are “necessary to life as we know it,” high concentrations of GHGs cause an increase in the Earth’s absorption of energy and the resulting increase in temperature referred to as global warming.7 Recent research identifies deadly effects of climate change, “one of the biggest global threats to human health of the 21st century.”8 If global GHG emissions are not reduced, heat waves will affect 74% of the world’s population by 2100. Even with drastic GHG reductions, almost half of humans will face deadly heat.9 In Europe, increasing temperatures will result in weather disasters, especially heat waves and coastal flooding, and a sharp increase in climate-related deaths by 2100.10 By 2050, climate change may affect nutrition in developing countries as rising temperatures reduce availability of plant proteins.11 Although a number of U.S. statutes govern human activities related to climate change, no comprehensive climate change legislation exists.12 Federal programs (including the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan13), as well as regional, state, and local initiatives, promised to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Recent developments, however, have diluted federal efforts.14 For example, in March 2017, President Trump revoked significant Obama-administration climate change policies, including the Climate Action Plan and related strategies.15 This revocation and others that followed are likely to result in increased emissions and a failure to meet climate targets (e.g., energy efficiency, methane emissions).16 Significantly, in June 2017, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,17 a decision that triggered international condemnation, as well as criticism from state and local governments and large corporations in the United States. In August 2017, the United States notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as the United States is eligible, unless it “identifies suitable terms for reengagement.”18 The U.S. withdrawal was characterized as a “severe backwards move and an abrogation of its responsibility as the world’s second largest emitter . . . when more, not less, commitment is needed from all governments to avert the worst impacts of climate change.”19 Despite this withdrawal, however, the United States could meet its Paris goals through the efforts of cities, states, and businesses.20 The global crisis of climate change has affected the practice of law.21 Indeed, in recent years, climate change has engendered “a rapidly building wave of litigation” in the United States.22 Although the judiciary is “a latecomer to the crisis that has worsened in the hands of the legislative and executive branches,”23 litigation can play a role in forcing government regulatory action and perhaps in providing remedies for harm from GHG emissions. As commentators observed, “[t]he president might root out climate policy from executive branch decision-making, but he cannot unilaterally remove the issue from judicial consideration.”24 This Report, guided by a questionnaire prepared for the Twentieth General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, addresses the topic of climate change lawsuits and the individual. The questionnaire focuses on lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs against public and private actors to achieve mitigation of climate change to its not on as corporations and the of climate change filed in the United States, a number individual that on of mitigation and for this Report of action to climate change. a number of by plaintiffs in climate change The Report a number of by individual plaintiffs and against public and private Climate change is of state, local judicial litigation in which the and an issue of the policy of climate change and U.S. and climate change to of government responsibility to GHG emission by and government with for in to GHG climate change litigation to and climate change into in The of litigation” and by a of U.S. climate change litigation This to more than a of for and related to climate change. In some of the in the climate change is not the of the in federal and state the public and and a climate change and significant number of U.S. climate change are on federal statutes and and judicial of and have government regulatory by more for mitigation the for example, to climate-related action and to as the of the and federal for failure to GHG emissions and the of climate change. of climate change lawsuits have to example, of emissions after with plaintiffs Even more state of GHG emissions and climate change state that on and regulatory in local on local government Although climate change litigation on federal and state statutes has a plaintiffs have of with are for and have on the of action in climate change and some for with and considered is and some on public with its on may for some climate change lawsuits are to with a to the however, federal public in by that and the it federal to of emissions from on state may to plaintiffs have in but some commentators as the cause of for a in of and significant in against GHG especially in that emissions a to plaintiffs and that emissions caused may more in against local governments but that the than an extreme precipitation was cause of harm may Despite the of some climate change may not an to mitigate adapt to climate change. As change the this and in and in emissions the a action and as to once all of and of will have to climate change from a that is to private and local than Climate change and cannot through the was to private of and was and cannot to a to and for and all of have and the to and to and after a regulatory has been can and play a plaintiffs have filed a number of in on the public are of a global the Atmospheric with a with in and governments to natural of for and Although the of public in U.S. is to the is an of federal and state with in recent public litigation that the government a to its to public including the and affected by GHG emissions. public is and may to climate change. have the as a public and a have in a state GHG have public have that are to and have public to the is that to climate change could an state to as of the public in and to natural and as in of climate change the of judicial to climate change perhaps on and the Climate change, it is is “a global and is that by the of and the by international have to the for from harm caused by GHG emissions. in the of climate and from the on Climate and others that emissions of GHGs are a major cause of climate The in in in global temperatures has with a significant increase in the of in the the are For when is into the atmosphere, it the of a energy and the of is a a Despite judicial of the climate change litigation a number of in all climate change others to of on the cause of action and the The focuses on major to to mitigate the effects of climate change. not to plaintiffs in climate change of the U.S. which federal judicial to and plaintiffs in federal have to state The of to that the has a in the and that will in a The U.S. the of in an a show it has an in that is and and not the is to the action of the and it is as to that the will by a The for is to the than to the have to the of the and the the of the of and climate change lawsuits on of the have have to in the are to the and the the the of individual in the The in and The that we that the affect the in a and individual have that plaintiffs that are more than by all a global however, climate change of The that from climate change are may to that are but in a the that not the in the of The to the a and caused by climate change. the of plaintiffs are to a to a of As the U.S. of for the the of in climate change might by which a public action on to an a of scientific of “a of the of for can for of the climate change no could the on the harm by the this more As the in climate change has the that the reduce global but not that a decision can of climate change of a to government failure to the impacts of climate change in the the The that the statutes the government to more regulatory action to mitigate climate federal the the government to the impacts of that affect the to government failure to climate change in in the effects of a than and and harm global was not in the to plaintiffs of climate change have the decision that the harm is not related to climate and and to the failure to climate change could with in the when plaintiffs that are (e.g., failure to climate change in a decision that in harm to may to when can an for that is not climate is when a the failure to GHG emissions federal was a issue in States, local and private that the U.S. its responsibility the to the emissions of including from the to the to GHG emissions and the for to with the In its the that GHG emissions caused but that the state of the for as and for its from the of rising sea that could coastal In terms of emissions from to GHG The of emissions to the by and its The decision in was of as but some that the decision the for especially and As private plaintiffs could the to in from rising sea to climate change, but have been on are in the is that “a government action leaves some that to climate change and its The in a a of which in a federal it that of are to an branch of government and not in federal The might considered an of the for that can for the of In a the of a and that of is from the the the as a The that that are not Indeed, have been to In the climate change the was in and in a federal of emissions from The federal in that climate change was and especially on a of an policy of a for and that it needed a legislative policy it could the global warming The the as the the in and that of the The was not and the could a public the The but not the the that the which the to federal In a more recent of and public a federal in of the in The that the not a but a of been The however, that plaintiffs a have to to of the of judicial and the to litigation in the of climate the not and others that it was not to to it not of not from the of the The of a of issue the judicial and legislative has the of some climate change on federal decision is a federal public for that GHG emissions from to global Federal when Congress not and that the federal of GHG emissions. The its and the regulatory the the and the it federal to of emissions from The for of federal is the to of to the to not to emissions federal the The however, that . . . not judicial through in the federal Although plaintiffs in that not on the of For example, of was a federal public against energy for by an by from waves and to global Although federal could to the that to the of and that of the of action all its the federal public as it the issue in The was not affected by the that for that the GHG of the triggered which the executive branch has not its on federal but not the state The however, that availability . . . of a state on the of the a and and is the of climate change that the can more GHG Recent harm to public including the and not issue in and the has not been to public as public which and are by the are the government to the As a a the and the which to the however, of may a significant to in for caused by climate change. the the GHG emissions and as well as the of to that The of climate change significant GHGs from some have in the atmosphere, and others are emissions. emissions from when In on Climate describes the of climate change as in the and of harm the when can related to plaintiffs in climate change will face in especially emissions from a of into the atmosphere, and once there to climate change, which caused a . . . and that 2017 international that has that GHG emissions to climate change impacts for the of plaintiffs face the of that GHG emissions a in of of GHGs will of action that the a government GHG emissions not may have in plaintiffs may not meet the of cause for example, was caused by extreme than of by the that the of the resulting harm was that harm result from the plaintiffs from climate change, in and and in a of that the of from a in is of by climate change plaintiffs are to in climate in scientific have on than more local in scientific research may of plaintiffs to and to responsibility more in for example, that climate change is the result of emissions and emissions to major The on from to that of global emissions of and methane from international and For some this could of In the United States, have the to on regulatory and in statutes have that and others affected by regulatory to for after to the meet the however, have the for litigation against governments private plaintiffs in climate change litigation to and The some by Although climate change and in the United States, climate change in the United States have on human In the in the on that U.S. failure to GHGs human The not the but the to human of climate In recent years, public in state has human with by the of that public government action on climate change. for as well as “a with and others in all by a of and and lawsuits have been but a have to regulatory litigation the to its judicial role in public government to the as a public and remedies that will that the federal filed in the efforts of individual plaintiffs to of the public in the of climate change. in United are for and a with a in the United States, the and executive that for that the climate but and of concentrations in the to the U.S. not the plaintiffs in that to and and that have to natural in for the and for a that been and an and of a to reduce emissions of and moved to that the plaintiffs the federal government is not to public The and the of the to The the are for some of the harm caused by climate change, plaintiffs may climate change policy in and this can to change policy of the of the the the in of the and that the not a but a of have plaintiffs for and which are and likely to are to and are the to out emissions and reduce will to climate The and public a of of a the that to a climate of human life is to a and The that a action is and the climate in a that will cause human human result in to human and the it a for a The the of harm to public and that the to the federal not public and characterized as can in federal the of the that have been and in the of and the has for moved for an but in June 2017, the The United States filed a of in the in that in this show a and intent to the of Congress to policy energy of public and by out of a to a of human The the and on is the federal decision that might a to a but it to a climate that the plaintiffs will Indeed, the the of a against federal public was a of state in state may For example, a state of the public with a of individual and a that the public the government to GHG emissions. The of that the state a public to natural including the atmosphere, but that public the and than by a The addresses of GHGs and plaintiffs the to in the cannot GHG emissions. the the for the federal and state mitigation of climate change. example, regulatory others of GHG emissions and climate change in decision against public actors regulatory to mitigate climate by plaintiffs as of litigation lawsuits against public actors for In plaintiffs of of for In the GHG in the the and public and but its was on In of individual state and a of to the to GHG emissions as by the which regulatory and that it with the state The and the of and that the not with the the to that of of a on emissions that may the emissions from of of emission for and that on an of was a to the of of a for a to GHG emission to the In June the the of to its of especially in of the which the characterized as an to on climate change, that the of action on climate change, but to emission In the the second of the but the state and to public and the state In however, after the the the to its and for GHG emission to the The of this By the of the its GHG and GHG emission to the in a 2016 the to to a for that that is and to a The of the to the plaintiffs in In the of the that federal to the are more than to the States the to the In 2017, the of the 2016 as an of The in is significant of its of the crisis of climate change, its of of the atmosphere, and its on the of for In the an public responsibility of in a by severe to and significant number of U.S. than on government responsibility to the of GHG emissions and climate change in decision Federal on the the and state on state In an of litigation through “a well . . . that GHG emissions and climate change impacts are for but that the for the level of been but some more recent have of climate change in The on for federal of GHG emissions and climate change effects the 2017 executive that to but the withdrawal in 2017 not change the will to of climate change in and on of of have to of climate change by federal to the of in an have of climate change in others have climate change a of and the For example, a recent by on of individual is U.S. in of of the and that the on federal in major impacts on affected global climate change, and of the of the effects of on and of the the the In the prepared for the the and of not the effects of GHGs and climate and considered of a of the that the was not and This however, has been as of of its to to the energy that is the of climate plaintiffs mitigation of climate change to In U.S. for example, that of on almost in federal statutes by to climate change, global and GHG emissions. Although have to have plaintiffs to that in no scientific for that climate change that climate change cause harm to the in show that the to plaintiffs to that the of the a to climate the that plaintiffs to show that to the The federal the for of the state in the with a number filed have individual are with as especially the have been more than the In for of for example, a that the report was in it to the effects of a large on GHGs global individual plaintiffs of climate change in of local with For example, individual plaintiffs failure to an of a for a for was the failure to the effects of and emissions from effects on and increased GHG emissions. the the that of the was a the and of an of on an to the but not the climate change was In an individual and the on prepared the The that the with the but the individual the that the was The that the which considered GHG not climate change and effects of the The however, of the which to with a of the by of when the not that might mitigate significant effects on the Climate change policy and litigation in the United States with on however, has more in policy and and local have been especially in the of climate effects on coastal and to others for filed after not for failure of the of to adapt to the effects of climate change. The action in the and it to increased the government increased the of flooding, and the not to of cause of however, was but some in of for In from plaintiffs of the more than that the and failure to the to from The that the failure to and the to severe The in that the to the federal not The of the but the for and its the the government was from the to the decision for the government affected the plaintiffs been as well as In litigation after the government and individual filed a against the United that the of the increased and after and resulting in of The of decision on in which that the in and the was a cause of the The in that plaintiffs with and that the severe and a In after failure of the to the of for the was not plaintiffs no for the of for the of on the and for of as a result of The a with for a of and The U.S. of for the Federal will the of As federal the government in from related to climate change but government may more to which not government could the failure to that increase not of the the government is for a of that not have for government the and the cause of In some however, government failure to to and the might that and plaintiffs can against and local and are of that is for plaintiffs can that of the of climate and the that governments will for state for and some but is likely to Although government in some failure to public may state and local governments from for failure to failure to that have no to Despite some for state and local governments as are to for impacts from and of individual In a recent to after severe in the the of and its of in for failure to to The that it no knowledge of a is from for activities a For the a to the the to the The no to plaintiffs the of was the to the and the in plaintiffs to for of after In the against and government the public which to of government to the public than to individual are than in which governments to for to adapt to the effects of climate change. In a the local government over to a The a of the the but significant to the and others in the In a over a the and an The that for a on a of all and that increase the of the In a are to the of not to a not to a out that the resulting from a public the for may the of for as well as from the to individual climate change plaintiffs have private of private are not by but the some federal may and some that are in goals of . . . its to against private actors have not been to for a of by and a emissions and as well as the of against perhaps and climate change of that may but others example, of harm from climate to was a action against a number of energy corporations by a coastal by for of public and private and as well as The that the for the but not the and that the not as a The was when the but judicial to a of for the and the not the a by on of its individual and and that and a to public health and the in to adapt to effects of climate change, a sea level extreme could the In 2017, the federal to for but that plaintiffs for for not likely to 2100. actors may in by In 2017, local governments in private and to for of from and methane from to of action in the public private and for failure to and that since the but that GHG from affected climate and sea plaintiffs that to that plaintiffs and for and of of and plaintiffs have climate change that energy have and the public about the of climate change from recent filed in on of that by failure to climate-related may more significant in climate change The and climate change and its including impacts and extreme weather in the and others are from energy and an for as a government of its and of on climate Recent research that energy of the of climate change, the to reduce but to the As the climate change litigation especially for private as well some and are of but plaintiffs have been including the and of for individual and Although U.S. to have been to on private may some of the and that have Even individual plaintiffs may that lawsuits to mitigate adapt to climate change are not and than individual are more likely to have the to climate change This Report is on by the of and commitment of the issue to a a of and for the of an policy of a for the of a of the of an for to a decision the of from by on and to a to and are that plaintiffs likely could not the through the

Stern Mwakalimi Kita

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–30, calls for countries to strengthen disaster risk governance systems as a pathway to disaster risk reduction. This paper assesses the disaster risk governance system in Malawi, Sub‐Saharan Africa, to understand how the positioning of multiple actors is contributing to the creation of an environment generating either positive or negative outcomes. The study utilizes a landscape governance analytical framework grounded within network governance theory and predominantly relies on qualitative approaches. The study finds that non‐governmental organizations are delivering the majority of disaster risk management services in the country. However, there are shortfalls within and across key actors and institutions that are frustrating progress and could reverse isolated gains that the country has made. While central government is largely detached from community‐level implementation, its incapacity is worsened by politicians and local government actors who have positioned themselves to capture risk reduction finance. The paper, therefore, questions the rationale behind the urgency in decentralizing disaster risk governance before addressing critical challenges within the local government system. These findings, while specifically for Malawi, are also pertinent to other developing countries struggling to deal with the consequences of climate variability and change.

Sam Barrett

Adaptation finance is designed to help vulnerable populations withstand effects of climate variability and change. However, levels of vulnerability seldom determine finance distribution. Political and economic preferences of national and local government decision-makers tend to direct funding streams. This article takes an institutional approach to adaptation finance allocation by comparing decentralized and devolved local governance structures managing adaptation finance in Kenya before and after the Constitution of 2010. Prior to reforms, funding was directed through decentralized mechanisms operating within district councils and local authorities; recently, devolution of political, administrative, and fiscal decision-making to county governments coincided with piloting of new local adaptation funds. Theory suggests that devolution institutionalizes more participative decision-making and fairer allocations. Evidence suggests vulnerable communities are indeed more likely to access, design, and receive allocations of finance in devolved political systems.

Sarah S. Stroup

The transnational nature of many environmental problems may demand international collaboration, but whether environmentalists supply such cooperation depends on political factors. Doherty and Doyle examine such processes at one of the world’s leading environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In Environmentalism, Resistance, and Solidarity, they use the case of Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) to explore whether and how activists from North and South can develop “common responses” to global problems (p. 25).The book’s major contribution is its detailed look inside this major NGO. Doherty and Doyle were granted access by senior leadership, allowing them to amass a wide array of resources. They designed a survey of the NGO’s national chapters that allowed them to trace the flow of resources and information. Using site visits, observations of international meetings, and archival material, Doherty and Doyle offer a rich understanding of what it means to “think globally, act locally.”This close perspective allows them to explore how Northern and Southern chapters have shaped FoEI over time. David Brower founded the organization in the United States in 1969, but its center of gravity quickly moved to Western Europe, where national chapters employed a mix of tactics, including public demonstrations, expert research, and traditional lobbying. In the 1980s, the focus moved from mostly local environmental concerns to a more international perspective. The authors identify the jointly conducted rainforest campaign (orchestrated by the English and Malaysian chapters) as an important milestone in the NGO’s transnational campaigning.Doherty and Doyle explain how resistance from Southern chapters has pushed FoEI to embrace a more radical and less strictly environmental sensibility. In 2002, Equador’s national chapter resigned from FoEI, decrying the domination of Northern groups. This “bombshell” (p. 49) rocked the weak federation and led to a reexamination of its structure and mission.Three elements of the federation’s new mission are noteworthy. First, people and nature now receive equal treatment. Many Southern chapters work closely with indigenous communities on land rights and pollution, and FoEI has strategic alliances with La Via Campesina (a small farmers movement) and the World March of Women. Second, national chapters of FoEI do not agree on whether capitalism is sustainable. Latin American chapters adopt explicit critiques of neoliberalism, while European chapters prefer the more moderate language of economic justice; FoEI provided a forum for debate on these matters but found no resolution. Finally, FoEI is fairly united in resistance to corporate power. The different national chapters have abandoned the reformist agenda of corporate social responsibility and targeted specific corporate practices. In sum, of the many possible frames within the environmental movement, FoEI comes together around the frame of environmental justice.Doherty and Doyle argue that, compared to other major environmental NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, Friends of the Earth is engaging in a more “emancipatory environmental politics” (p. 212) by providing an international forum at which North and South can meet. They argue that the weakness of the Friends of the Earth brand (most national chapters do not use that name) is actually a strength, allowing FoEI to build effective networks and set aside potentially distorting concerns over securing donors. Against these optimistic assessments, however, the authors hint at important questions about the efficacy of the group’s international structure. The forum model reveals conflicts but does not resolve them. The ties among national chapters are weak, so that no one chapter is challenged to alter its practices or redistribute its resources. Resources are still concentrated in Europe, which also has its own strong regional-level organization (FoE Europe). The capacity of the international secretariat is limited, and relatively few staff in the global federation work on international issues. In short, FoEI’s egalitarian and decentralized structure has created space for Southern voices but failed to challenge underlying inequalities.A more extensive assessment of FoEI’s political impact could have complemented the book’s insights into the group’s organizational structure. Doherty and Doyle explore two campaigns that are widely pursued across the FoEI federation, but the cases of food security and climate change reveal a diversity of strategies with mixed results. In food security, for example, the call for “redressing fundamental imbalances” (p. 159) is most needed but least apparent in the North, as Northern chapters largely neglect the question of rebuilding global structures of food production. Doherty and Doyle focus their attention inside the organization, but a full assessment of organization’s political achievements likely requires interviews and data gathered from the external targets and partners of FoEI.Those interested in international NGOs, Southern environmentalism, and organizational structure will all find valuable insights in this book. Problematically, a book that seeks to inform actual practice is being sold at a price point (more than US$95) that is inaccessible for most practitioners and individual scholars. A paperback release would increase its accessibility and readership.For Doherty and Doyle, Friends of the Earth today “remains a coalition of largely autonomous national organizations rather than a single global NGO, and the price it pays for this is possibly that its impact on international politics is therefore weaker than that of other more centralized NGOs” (p. 211). The key question is whether a structure that favors long-term engagement of Northern and Southern voices is a path towards the resistance politics that NGOs are often thought to embody.

Elizabeth Willoughby-Martin

In the last two decades a new form of social movement has spread internationally, characterized by political autonomy, direct action, radical change, and decentralized organization. In response to academic misunderstandings of these new movements, critical geographers have coined the term 'autonomous geographies' to allow effective documentation and communication of these struggles. This research uses autonomous geographies and related discourses to explore how autonomous political collective Camp for Climate Action Aotearoa contributes to the politics of climate change in New Zealand. As an active participant in Camp for Climate Action Aotearoa I have utilized a scholar activist epistemological framework throughout the research process, allowing successful navigation of these interconnected identities. Critical discussion of qualitative data gathered in semi-structured interviews with long-term participants indicates that Camp for Climate Action Aotearoa provides significant support to activists through community and affective solidarity. Camp for Climate Action Aotearoa uses direct action and direct democracy processes which contribute to everyday activist practices and express a non-hegemonic 'logic of affinity'. Data analysis indicates Camp for Climate Action Aotearoa contributes to the creation of alternative futures in the present. These alternative futures are necessary for healthy democracies. Physical climate camps are particularly significant in providing opportunities for creating these alternative visions. Climate Camp Aotearoa is a genuinely political collective that contributes to a repoliticization of climate change in New Zealand.