Presentation
Adaptation should be understood as the outcome of choices that need to be made explicit, and thus as a matter for societal debate, grounded in knowledge and scientific understanding of current and future risks. Its governance must likewise be made explicit–that is, the way public decision-making is organized to make these choices and implement the resulting changes. In this spirit, and drawing on a review of the existing literature, this Issue Brief proposes an analytical framework that categorizes the key dimensions and questions, to make the governance of adaptation explicit.
Key Messages
- Planning for adaptation requires embedding measures within coherent pathways. Such pathways are shaped by choices about the future–of a territory or sector, for instance–and by the transformations we are prepared to accept in pursuit of various objectives (such as risk reduction and avoidance of maladaptation, social, spatial and temporal justice, and the legitimacy and acceptability of adaptation pathways and choices).
- This Issue Brief proposes an analytical framework for systematically examining how public decision- making is organized, and its effects, across three dimensions: (1) the framing of adaptation issues through the definition of the challenge, relevant knowledge, the scope of governance and objectives; (2) the actors involved in adaptation governance; and (3) the tools and instruments deployed.
- Applying this framework to real-world cases could shed light on the trade-offs made in practice and their effects, and help identify the success factors, levers, and barriers within the governance arrangements that shape adaptation strategies.
