60
S. Turner-Walker et al.
social resilience, with agency-based resilience frameworks allowing for a reframing
of resilience from origins in describing ecosystems, to a people-centred perspective
(Bohle et al. 2009). Davidson (2010) suggests that successful social adaptation to
climate change is more aptly described as a collective agency. Collective action is seen
as the necessary nexus for adaptation and is key to many natural resource and related
livelihood management decisions (Adger 2003a). Communities are often already
characterised by collective action, social networks, experimentation and advocacy.
Communities in local resource-dependent settings have also historically acted collectively to govern the livelihood resources (i.e. water, forest, fish, agriculture) that are
seasonal, weather-dependent and variable (Adger 2003a). Such conceptsframe the
ways in which adaptation programmes are developed and positioned as community
activities. The following sections of this chapter discuss in application to the two
case study findings, local experiences of adaptive capacity and resilience enhancing
activities. The two case studies taken in point show that these conceptualisations of
adaptation have had limited integration into informing programmatic planning and
design under national adaptation planning actions to date.
The Translation of International Climate Change
Adaptation Frameworks into National Planning and Climate
Change Adaptation Programming in Indonesia
To understand the context shaping local experiences of adaptation programmes, this
section of the chapter sets out Indonesia’s country commitments and priorities on
adaptation in which the programming for village activity-level implementation in the
two case studies were developed. Under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement (2015), adaptation was defined as
a global goal of “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing
vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response” (UNFCCC 2015). The responsibility of developed countries to provide support for adaptation and mitigation in
developing countries is set out in Articles 3.1 and 4.4. During the UNFCCC 21st
Conference of Parties (CoP) in Paris during 2015, ambitious targets for climate
financing were set, and earlier commitments to pledging US $100 billion in global
climate finance each year were reiterated (Scoville-Simonds 2016). The commitment
pledged by developed countries to mobilise US $100 billion per year (minimum)
in climate finance for developing countries, is shared between both mitigation and
adaptation (Scoville-Simonds 2016). Adaptation finance was allocated based on both
moral and legal grounds based on the notion that developed countries should provide
assistance to developing ones (Füssel 2010), while adaptation allocations are given as
differential distribution between (developed) countries’ contributions to the causes
of climate change through emissions, against the vulnerability to climate change
S. Turner-Walker et al.
social resilience, with agency-based resilience frameworks allowing for a reframing
of resilience from origins in describing ecosystems, to a people-centred perspective
(Bohle et al. 2009). Davidson (2010) suggests that successful social adaptation to
climate change is more aptly described as a collective agency. Collective action is seen
as the necessary nexus for adaptation and is key to many natural resource and related
livelihood management decisions (Adger 2003a). Communities are often already
characterised by collective action, social networks, experimentation and advocacy.
Communities in local resource-dependent settings have also historically acted collectively to govern the livelihood resources (i.e. water, forest, fish, agriculture) that are
seasonal, weather-dependent and variable (Adger 2003a). Such conceptsframe the
ways in which adaptation programmes are developed and positioned as community
activities. The following sections of this chapter discuss in application to the two
case study findings, local experiences of adaptive capacity and resilience enhancing
activities. The two case studies taken in point show that these conceptualisations of
adaptation have had limited integration into informing programmatic planning and
design under national adaptation planning actions to date.
The Translation of International Climate Change
Adaptation Frameworks into National Planning and Climate
Change Adaptation Programming in Indonesia
To understand the context shaping local experiences of adaptation programmes, this
section of the chapter sets out Indonesia’s country commitments and priorities on
adaptation in which the programming for village activity-level implementation in the
two case studies were developed. Under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement (2015), adaptation was defined as
a global goal of “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing
vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response” (UNFCCC 2015). The responsibility of developed countries to provide support for adaptation and mitigation in
developing countries is set out in Articles 3.1 and 4.4. During the UNFCCC 21st
Conference of Parties (CoP) in Paris during 2015, ambitious targets for climate
financing were set, and earlier commitments to pledging US $100 billion in global
climate finance each year were reiterated (Scoville-Simonds 2016). The commitment
pledged by developed countries to mobilise US $100 billion per year (minimum)
in climate finance for developing countries, is shared between both mitigation and
adaptation (Scoville-Simonds 2016). Adaptation finance was allocated based on both
moral and legal grounds based on the notion that developed countries should provide
assistance to developing ones (Füssel 2010), while adaptation allocations are given as
differential distribution between (developed) countries’ contributions to the causes
of climate change through emissions, against the vulnerability to climate change