Framing and integration in the global forest, agriculture and climate change nexus

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate on Integrative Governance by studying integration in the global forest–agriculture–climate change nexus. Since the 1990s, the role of the land-use sector, in particular forests and agriculture, has become increasingly prominent in climate change debates due to its vulnerability and its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing agriculture, climate change and forest policies in an integrated way could therefore create important synergies and reduce trade-offs. This article aims to analyse the extent of integration in current global governance in the nexus of agriculture, forests and climate change, and to explain this extent of integration. Based on the analysis of secondary data, participation in key events and semi-structured interviews, this article concludes that efforts to enhance integration have taken different forms for the different pairs of domains (climate change–agriculture, agriculture–forest, forest–climate change) as well as for the nexus of the three. Integration has been mainly enhanced through soft law, programmes and integrative approaches (e.g. landscape approach, climate smart agriculture, agroforestry). The analysis also shows that the extent of integration among the governance systems has differed. Interplay management efforts on forests and climate change have been relatively successful. Agriculture and forest, and agriculture and climate have low and modest levels of integration respectively, except adaptation in agriculture, which enjoys higher integration levels. Differences in integration can be explained by the medium to high degrees of legalization and the (in)compatibility of the dominant frames present in the different governance systems. Furthermore, our results show that integration in a governance system with a high degree of legalisation, and dominated by one regime, as is the case in climate change, presents important challenges. In such cases, integration might have greater potential outside the intergovernmental regime through soft law approaches.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation in agriculture: a review of the evidence for synergies and tradeoffs

“…Agricultural yields were often described as important metrics for measuring increases in food security, and increasing yields were considered a priority for adaptation outcome [33,34]. However, publications we examined also noted the importance of considering whether the outcomes being measured contributed meaningfully to achieving stated objectives [16,35].…”

“…Relying on productivity measures alone does not necessarily provide insight about food security or the adaptation of agriculture to climate change and may leave other systematic challenges of food and nutritional access unexamined [35][36][37]. Further, using agricultural productivity as the dominant measurement for climate change adaptation means that other dimensions of adaptation (e.g.…”

Climate change governance in agroforestry systems: a systematic review

“…With the prospect of new finance opportunities from sustainable value chains or international finance instruments, such as REDD+, possible incentives for agroforestry will depend on the coordination of climate and biodiversity policies, as well as the integration of institutional settings within existing governance structures while reducing administrative hurdles (Zinngrebe et al 2020). In the case of governance systems dominated by one regime, as is the case in climate change, integration might have greater potential outside the intergovernmental regime through soft law approaches (Soto Golcher & Visseren-Hamakers, 2018).…”

Integrative governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage

“…Soto Gólcher and Visseren-Hamakers (2018) analyze the extent of integration in the global forest–agriculture–climate change nexus. They show that efforts to enhance integration include soft law, programs, and specific integrative approaches, such as the landscape approach, climate smart agriculture, and agroforestry.…”

“…They discuss the concepts of nexuses, integration, and interplay management. Contrary to mainstreaming and some approaches to policy integration, the nexus approach gives equal importance to different sectors or governance systems, and is meant as an avenue to balance conflicting sectoral objectives and promote policy coherence (Soto Gólcher and Visseren-Hamakers, 2018). Policy integration is understood as “the inclusion of sector-specific objectives, considerations or concerns into other policy domains,” with interplay management defined as “conscious efforts by any relevant actor or group of actors, in whatever form or forum, to address and improve institutional interaction and its effects” (Strokke and Oberthür, 2011: 6).…”