Summary Resilience is becoming influential in development and vulnerability reduction sectors such as social protection, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Policy makers, donors and international development agencies are now increasingly referring to the term. In that context, the objective of this paper was to assess in a critical manner the advantages and limits of resilience. While the review highlights some positive elements –in particular the ability of the term to foster integrated approach across sectors– it also shows that resilience has important limitations. In particular it is not a pro‐poor concept, and the objective of poverty reduction cannot simply be substituted by resilience building.

SUMMARYThere is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.

Resilience has become prominent in academia where it is used as a central framework in disciplines such as ecology, climate change adaptation or urban planning. Policy makers and international development agencies also increasingly refer to it. The objective of this paper is to assess the advantages and limits of resilience in the context of development. Although the review highlights some positive elements—for example, the ability to foster an integrated approach—it also shows that resilience has important limitations. In particular, it is not a pro‐poor concept, in the sense that it does not exclusively apply to, or benefit, the poor. As such, resilience building cannot replace poverty reduction. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Climate change research is at an impasse. The transformation of economies and everyday practices is more urgent, and yet appears ever more daunting as attempts at behaviour change, regulations, and global agreements confront material and social-political infrastructures that support the status quo. Effective action requires new ways of conceptualizing society, climate and environment and yet current research struggles to break free of established categories. In response, this contribution revisits important insights from the social sciences and humanities on the co-production of political economies, cultures, societies and biophysical relations and shows the possibilities for ontological pluralism to open up for new imaginations. Its intention is to help generate a different framing of socionatural change that goes beyond the current science-policy-behavioural change pathway. It puts forward several moments of inadvertent concealment in contemporary debates that stem directly from the way issues are framed and imagined in contemporary discourses. By placing values, normative commitments, and experiential and plural ways of knowing from around the world at the centre of climate knowledge, we confront climate change with contested politics and the everyday foundations of action rather than just data.

Adaptive Social Protection refers to efforts to integrate social protection (SP), disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), the need for which is increasingly recognised by practitioners and academics. Relying on 124 agricultural programmes implemented in five countries in Asia, this article considers how these elements are being brought together, and explores the potential gains of these linkages. It shows that full integration is still relatively limited but that, when it occurs, it helps to shift the time horizon beyond short-term interventions aimed at supporting peoples' coping strategies and/or graduation objectives, towards longer-term interventions that can help promote transformation towards climate and disaster resilient livelihood options.

No abstract

Little is still known about how climate policy initiatives intersect with national level development agendas; the winners, losers and potential trade-offs between different goals, and the political and institutional factors which enable or inhibit integration across different policy areas. This paper addresses this gap by applying a political economic analysis to case studies on low carbon energy in Kenya and carbon forestry in Mozambique. In examining the intersection of climate and development policy, we demonstrate the critical importance of politics, power and interests when climate-motivated initiatives hit wider and more complex national policy contexts, ultimately determining the prospects of achieving integrated climate policy and development goals in practice. We advance the following arguments: (1) the importance of understanding both the informal nature and historical embeddedness of decision making around key issue areas and resource sectors of relevance to climate change policy; (2) The need to understand and engage with the interests, power relations and policy networks that will shape the prospects of realising climate policy goals; (3) the ways in which common global drivers have very different impacts upon national level climate change debates once refracted through national levels institutions and policy processes, and (4) how climate change and development outcomes, and the associated trade-offs, may look very different depending on how it is framed, who frames it, and in which actor coalitions. IntroductionThe need for climate policy goals to be integrated with development goals in developing countries is undisputed (REF). A number of developing countries now have strategies for development and climate change, under the banners of 'climate resilient development', 'climate compatible development' or similar concepts, which sets out goals, envisaged synergies across mitigation, adaptation and development, and implementation strategies (REF). There is also a limited, but growing body of literature that examines how various climate policy initiatives are implemented, as well as potential synergies and trade-offs between the different goals (Stringer et al. 2014; Suckall et al. 2013; Shames et al. 2013).What is less clear, however, is whether and how climate change and development benefits will materialise in the real world, including the processes whereby decisions are made, by whom, and who wins and who loses from various initiatives and actions to promote integration. Despite an emerging recognition that 'politics matter' in adaptation and mitigation policy at national and subnational levels in developing countries (e.g., Dodman and Mitlin, 2014; Nightingale et al., this issue), there is as yet little analysis of how, when, why and for whom they matter in particular settings. As noted by Lockwood (2013), the academic and policy debates on climate policy goals, such as those associated with 'triple wins' (REF), have little meaning unless they are analysed in relation to the politica...

No abstract