Download Is there a role for power relations in climate vulnerability and

Is there a role for power relations in climate vulnerability and ecosystem service discourses?
Final report of the Working Group 3 in the Helsinki University Centre for Environment workshop in 2016.
Authors
D’Amato, Dalia; Kauppinen, Vera; Malkamäki, Arttu; Nikkanen, Maija; and Qingqing, Sun
Abstract
Climate vulnerability and ecosystem services are encompassing and complementary conceptualizations
which are vigorously being mainstreamed in global academia and policy-making to address sustainability
issues. Research on both changing climate and degrading ecosystems has concluded that the global
environmental crisis will directly and concretely affect human well-being, and exacerbate poverty and
social inequalities. Nonetheless, key literature on climate change and ecosystem services has been
limited in accounting for the influence of power relations among groups in the context of social-ecological
change. Power relations include not only north-south global dynamics, but also local issues related to
gender or ethnicity, land or resources rights, topographic disposition, or any other condition that enables
individuals or groups to exercise some forms of power over the others. The aim of this study is thus to
analyze key conceptualizations of climate vulnerability and ecosystem services to determine if and to
what extent the power asymmetries are included in these frameworks, and how these have developed
with time. Based on our analysis, we observed a recent trend towards integrating the elaboration of
power within the climate change and ecosystem services narratives. Taking power dynamics into
account is fundamental particularly to inform policy-making, where the risk is to ignore or exacerbate
existing inequalities and conflicts, or even trigger them. The existence of this research gap in major
sustainability narratives is extremely pressing, considering that equity is a key goal in sustainability, as
formulated in the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015.
Keywords
Vulnerability; Ecosystem services; Power; Inequality; Political ecology; Discourse; IPCC; IPBES
Contents
1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 1
2. Methods _________________________________________________________________________ 3
3. Findings _________________________________________________________________________ 4
3.1 Concepts of vulnerability and adaptation in climate change ______________________________ 4
3.2 Gender issues around the climate vulnerability discourse ________________________________ 6
3.3 Concept of governance in ecosystem services ________________________________________ 7
3.4 Gender issues around the ecosystem services discourse ________________________________ 9
4. Discussion ______________________________________________________________________ 10
5. Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ 12
Questions for guest lecturers __________________________________________________________ 13
References _______________________________________________________________________ 14
Annexes __________________________________________________________________________ 18
A1. Concepts of vulnerability and adaptation in IPCC Working Group II reports from 1990 to 2014 __ 18
A2. Role of governance and institutions in key ecosystem services reports from 2005 to 2013 _____ 19
1. Introduction
In terms of adverse climate events and degrading ecosystems, some regions and social groups are more
vulnerable than the others. In the context of such global environmental change, O’Brien et al. (2007) closely
tied this phenomenon to the interactions between contextual conditions (i.e. institutional, political, economic,
and social structures) and multiple biophysical processes. Ribot (2014) believed in social stratification that
induces unequal access to contribution to environmental change and resources, yields unequal patterns of
vulnerability. Adger (2006) considered that “vulnerability is driven by inadvertent or deliberate human action
that reinforces self-interest and the distribution of power in addition to interacting with physical and ecological
system.” It seems that we can or at least partly attribute the inequality of individual’s precocity to power
relations.
Power relations can include not only global north-south dynamics, but also local issues related to gender or
ethnicity, land or resources rights, topographic disposition, caste, class, or any other condition that enables
individuals or groups to exert some form of power over others. Social scientists have proposed several
conceptualizations of power whose validity across scales and contexts, however, ranges (Dowding, 2012).
Contrary to the traditional and extreme, but influential, views on power suggesting that power is “everywhere”
(Foucault, 2009 [1977-1978]) or occurs as a struggle between different societal classes (Marx, 1990 [1867]),
some modern day sociologists see power from an individualistic viewpoint, in which power is determined as
an individual actor’s possibilities to bring about outcomes or influence other actors’ incentives to bring about
outcomes (cf. Dowding, 1996). Such view would suggest that actors rationally choose from sets of choices
based on their expected costs and benefits. However, such individualistic views are often criticized for
neglecting the underlying political and economic control mechanisms that create and lead to asymmetry of
power between actors (Bryant, 1998, 1997).
Discourses and perceptions over the specification of problems, concepts, policies, and validity of knowledge
matter, and one should acknowledge the power embedded in scientific and political consensuses (Bryant,
1998). Consensus creation always includes a social process, of which influence on the key claims has
consistently been suppressed (Grundmann, 2007; Miller and Edwards, 2001). Such co-production could aim
to exert explanatory power, and refers to the production of scientific knowledge by individuals and institutions
equipped with sometimes vague motives, incentives, and understanding of the issues. However, what is
understood as scientific knowledge legitimizes and modifies the power of institutions (Jasanoff, 2004; Tengö
et al., 2014). Jasanoff (2004) further divides co-production into two branches that are concerned with the
maintenance (constitutive) and validity (interactional) of knowledge production. In other words, this concept
of power sees the ways of knowing the reality interconnected to actors’ ways of dismantling, organizing, and
controlling it.
Climate change and ecosystem services are the two encompassing and complementary sustainability
discourses that are vigorously being mainstreamed in global academia and policymaking to address
1
sustainability issues. This implies an increasing body of research and policy efforts, which have also been
able to gather great consensus on the most relevant issues, and engage various stakeholders other than
academia and policymakers (Bennett et al., 2015; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006; Oreskes, 2005).
Climate change science has dominated the 20th century with increasing and more convincing evidence
proving that the Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. Greenhouse gas levels in the
atmosphere have increased due to emissions from, among others, fossil fuels, agriculture, and deforestation.
In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to evaluate the existing
literature and provide policy strategies.
However, the scientific community has come to the realization that climate change is only one of the
anthropogenic global challenges that humanity will have to face in the imminent future, including dramatic
biodiversity loss and disruption of ecosystem functioning (Rockstrom et al., 2009). The holistic concept of
ecosystem services has thus gained great momentum in sustainability research and policy making as a
narrative emphasizing the societal and economic dependence on natural and semi-natural ecosystems with
the ultimate aim of conserving biodiversity (Primmer et al., 2015). The ecosystem services research has thus
in part phagocytized the climate change literature. After the popularization of the ecosystem services
discourse, an independent intergovernmental body that involved almost 100 governments was established
in 2012 to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services. The
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is considered
an effort to establish an “IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity” (Larigauderie and Mooney, 2010).
The common conclusions of the climate change and ecosystem services research are that the global
environmental crisis is going to exacerbate poverty, and current and future social inequalities (IPCC-WG2,
2014; MA, 2005). Nonetheless, several scholars, especially from the discipline of political ecology, have
argued that climate change and ecosystem services literature has been limited in accounting for the
elaboration of power relations among groups in the context of social-ecological changes (Bassett and
Fogelman, 2013; Bee, 2016; Bennett et al., 2015; Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015; Kosoy and Corbera, 2010;
Sovacool et al., 2015; Sultana, 2013; Taylor, 2015).
Previous research on the incorporation of power in these consensus discourses has been limited, or
emphasized a single dimension of power or social inequality such as the use of indigenous knowledge and
experience (Ford et al., 2015; Tengö et al., 2014). Thus, our aim is to analyze the most authoritative
discourses circulating the impact assessment of changing climate and degrading ecosystems to determine if
and to what extent power relations are included, and how these have evolved in time. We also operationalize
a more detailed analysis in a case that aims to shed light on the role of gender issues. Despite having been
an arbitrary decision to include these lines of sustainability research to some extent, we believe that the
aforementioned discourses have so far had a major influence on climate change and ecosystem services
research that will justify our selection.
2
2. Methods
While the IPCC represents an epicenter of climate change research, the ecosystem services landscape lacks
such a centralized authority. The reviewed literature include three of the five IPCC Working Group II
assessment reports from 1990, 2001, and 2014, and two synthesis reports of MA and TEEB, and the two
scientific articles that set the foundations for IPBES (Table 1). To analyze if and to what extent power relations
have been taken into account in climate change and ecosystem services discourses, we performed a content
analysis (Krippendorff, 2013) on this milestone literature. The selected literature has benefited from the
contribution of numerous international experts and the support of intergovernmental and non-governmental
agencies, and has exercised a significant influence on research and policy-making agenda and goals.
Table 1. Key literature on climate vulnerability and ecosystem services discourses.
Climate vulnerability discourse
Year
Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment (Working Group II)
1990
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Working Group II)
2001
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Working Group II)
2014
Ecosystem services discourse
Year
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
2005
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodivers. Ecological and Economic Foundations 2010
The IPBES Conceptual Framework - Connecting Nature and People
Díaz et al., 2015a
A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s Benefits to People
Díaz et al., 2015b
For both climate change and ecosystem services literature, we aim at assessing how the discourses have
developed during a certain time period. We thus selected literature that covers a significant time span, i.e. 24
years for climate change and 10 years for ecosystem services literature. We focused on the definition of
vulnerability and adaptation and the evolution of their conceptualization over time; and on the significance of
power relations in determining vulnerability and adaptation capacity. To do so, we searched the documents
for keywords: adaptation, vulnerability, equal, poor, poverty, and power. We then extracted and analyzed
passages from the text that were particularly meaningful and representative.
Finally, in order to perform a more in-depth analysis of both climate change and ecosystem services literature,
we examined gender issues as an example of integration of a plausible inequality. We therefore searched
the literature for the following keywords: equal, gender, male, women. Note, the word “male” also includes
results for female.
3
3. Findings
3.1 Concepts of vulnerability and adaptation in climate change
After almost three decades of the activity, it seems reasonable to expect a certain degree of evolution in the
concepts and conceptual frameworks proposed by the IPCC. Our findings show in fact that both the concepts
of vulnerability and adaptation have changed across IPCC reports.
Early reports define vulnerability of individual or groups based on external characteristics, such as
geographical location or intensity of climate change impacts. The latest report, however, also acknowledges
that vulnerability can be predisposed by uneven power structures, and it is thus socially differentiated. The
concept of adaptation was introduced with the first report, but has been refined and deepened over time, from
almost exclusively technical solutions to more comprehensive, multi-faceted solutions, and with the further
definition of different types of adaptation. Nevertheless, while different vulnerabilities of various social, ethnic,
gender and age groups are discussed in the latest IPCC report, the underlying mechanisms and processes
are not thoroughly analyzed. Table 2 summarizes the evolution of the concepts that are derived from Annex
1, providing a more comprehensive overview.
Table 2. Concepts of vulnerability and adaptation in IPCC Working Group II reports from 1990 to 2014.
1990
2001
2014
Extrinsically-determined
VULNERABILITY
Intrinsically-determined
“The impacts will be felt most
“The role of inadequate
severely in regions already under
institutional support is frequently
stress, mainly the developing
cited in the literature as a
countries.”
hindrance to adaptation.”
Technical
ADAPTATION
“Vulnerability emerges from the
intersection of different
inequalities, and uneven power
structures, and hence is socially
differentiated.
Multi-faceted
Throughout the IPCC reports, the concept of vulnerability develops from extrinsically-determined to
intrinsically-determined attribute. The first IPCC report from 1990 analyzes vulnerability in the aspects of
climate conditions, geographical location, and economic capacity. It states that people are most vulnerable
when exposed to extreme natural hazards, located at more geographically risky or less developed areas, and
with low income. The 2001 report deepens the concept by describing vulnerability as a function that measures
how sensitive or responsive and adaptive a natural or social system is to the changes in climate. The 2014
IPCC report introduces social stressors including inequalities and uneven power structures, besides climate
hazard, that also bring adverse effects to vulnerability.
We applied two conceptualizations of vulnerability established by O’Brien et al. (2007) and Ribot (2014) in
order to demonstrate the evolution in the IPCC reports. O’Brien et al. (2007) distinguishes two main
interpretations of vulnerability, “outcome vulnerability” and “contextual vulnerability”. The above-mentioned
4
vulnerability concepts are a result of different framings of the climate change. “Outcome vulnerability” is
determined by the remaining effects of climate change after adaptation measures have taken place, thus
emphasizing technical and sectoral solutions, whereas “contextual vulnerability” is based on a more
multidimensional view of climate-society interactions and considers the institutional, biophysical, socioeconomic and technological conditions that affect the extent of exposure to climate changes, thus
emphasizing a more holistic approach and socio-political changes to address vulnerability. The scientific
framing, which is behind the “outcome vulnerability” approach, “is embedded in institutions with strong
influence over climate-change debates and research including [...] the IPCC [...]” (O’Brien et al., 2007).
However, the latest IPCC report has incorporated ideas from the human-security framing, which is behind the
“contextual vulnerability” approach. The 2014 IPCC report considers contextual conditions, e.g. political,
economic, dynamic social, institutional and technological structures affecting vulnerability. The report states
for example that “vulnerability [...] emerges from the intersection of uneven power structures, and hence is
socially differentiated.”
Ribot (2014) distinguished two primary models of vulnerability analysis, “risk-hazards approach” and
“entitlements and livelihoods approach”. The former framework regards vulnerability as a “dose-response
relation” between climate-related risk and the undesired effects, while the later focuses on tracing the multiple
causes (e.g. poverty, policy, and security system) of single outcomes. To complement the two
conceptualizations, an integrative framework, “network political-ecology” approach is also raised and
assessed for identifying the “full array of causes”. The 1990 IPCC report demonstrates the “risk-hazards
approach”, while the latest IPCC report from 2014 embodies the integrative “political ecology approach”.
Interpretation of different vulnerability concepts is of great significance. As O’Brien et al. (2007) demonstrated
with the research in Mozambique, framings of vulnerability do matter as they “prioritizes production of different
type of knowledge, and emphasizes different types of responses to climate change”. Depending of the
conceptualization, the research questions differ, which leads to using different methods for assessing
vulnerability and hence affecting the identification of the “problem” and the recommended responses.
As for effort input to cope with climate stress, adaptation was introduced. Smit and Pilifosova (2001) defined
adaptation as “adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected
climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts”. When the term vulnerability makes us to think about the reasons
for the occurrence of vulnerable individual or groups, adaptation leads us to consider the response to climate
change (Ribot, 2011).
The concept of adaptation in IPCC reports develops from technical solutions towards a multi-faceted view.
Under an introductory chapter of the 1990 report (xxvii), adaptation is mentioned among short term measures
and strategies, for example assessing areas at risk from sea level rise and developing comprehensive
management plans to reduce future vulnerability. The 2001 report continues along the same lines. Adaptation
5
is conceptualized as “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” in an annex. Interestingly,
the 2014 report offers a more multi-faceted view of adaptation: throughout the second chapter it is
acknowledged that “adaptive capacity has been defined as the ability to adjust, to take advantage of
opportunities, or to cope with consequences. However, adaptive capacity is context-specific, related to both
availability of resources, capacity to learn, and governance measures”.
Considering the role of power relations in adaptation discussion, the 1990 report only mentions that countries
are not equally vulnerable to climate change: “the impacts will be felt most severely in regions already under
stress, mainly the developing countries”, but otherwise the role of power relations is not considered. In the
2001 report, however, non-climate forces and conditions in adaptation are acknowledged: “the role of
inadequate institutional support is frequently cited in the literature as a hindrance to adaptation”. It is also
noted that equality in capabilities, determined by e.g. income, social capital and access to public goods, should
be an international objective (p. 125).
3.2 Gender issues around the climate vulnerability discourse
Climate change will have different impacts on women and men, thus highlighting the significance of feminist
political ecology and geography (Sultana, 2013). The feminist research of climate change calls for greater
focus on power and a more contextual and complex view of gender, as this could lead to a better
understanding of the complexities that exist. This is why we examined more closely how the gendered power
relations have been included in the IPCC reports and how the gendered approach has evolved.
The first assessment report demonstrates a fairly mechanistic and linear approach on adaptation and
vulnerability. It acknowledges the impact of income inequality to vulnerability, but the ‘root cause’ or the social
factors leading to impoverishment are not analyzed: “The most vulnerable populations are in developing
countries, in the lower income groups, residents of coastal lowlands and islands, populations in semi-arid
grasslands, and the urban poor in squatter settlements, slums and shanty towns, especially in mega-cities”
(IPCC-WG2, 1990, p. 3).
In the third assessment report (IPCC-WG2, 2001), adaptation is determined as a function of wealth,
technology, information, skills, infrastructure, institutions, equity, empowerment, and ability to spread risk.
Deprivation of resources and marginalization from decision-making and social security are the main factors
of poverty that cause vulnerability. The report considers equity and recognizes that impacts among different
regions and social and economic groups are likely to be heterogenic. The question of gender is also brought
up: “Vulnerability is likely to be differentiated by gender – for example, through the “feminization of poverty”
brought about by differential gender roles in natural resource management (Agarwal, 1997). If climate change
increases water scarcity, women are likely to bear the labor and nutritional impacts” (IPCC-WG2, 2001, p.
939).
6
Even though the report observes that the differentiation in socio-demographic variables such as gender is
connected to the ability to cope with risk, it still misfires addressing the question of what are the underlying
social causes that make these certain groups more vulnerable.
The fifth assessment report has adopted a multidimensional and intersectional approach to power relations,
including gender-related inequalities. Gender figures throughout the report and there are even entire chapters
dedicated to gender and climate change. The gendered implications are also illustrated with numerous
examples and case studies. Vulnerability is framed as a multidimensional issue resulting from many
intersecting inequalities: “Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from
multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes […] People who are […]
marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation
responses. This heightened vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting
social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such
social processes include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and
(dis)ability” (IPCC-WG2, 2014).
The IPCC report from the year 2014 also remarks, that in the context of vulnerability, gender is not determined
through biology, but by the social structures, institutions and rule systems. The tendency to extrapolate
vulnerability to all women universally underestimates the complex, dynamic and intersecting power relations
behind it. Portraying deprived women as solely victims denies women’s agency and emphasizes their
vulnerability as their intrinsic problem. The IPCC report takes into account that the current adaptation plans
have a tendency to overemphasize technological and infrastructural measures at the expense of addressing
poverty and gender issues. The literature cited in the IPCC report “points to how inequalities, trade
imbalances, intellectual property rights, gender injustice, or agricultural systems, inter alia, cannot be
addressed with development focusing solely on increasing economic growth”. These remarks can be seen
as subtle marks of a shift towards a more transformative adaptation approach. Finally, the report highlights
that more research needs to be done on how simultaneous and intersecting inequalities determine climate
change impacts. Gender differences in vulnerability and adaptation should also be recognized in order to
ensure gender-sensitive responses that reduce the vulnerability of both women and men.
3.3 Concept of governance in ecosystem services
Ecosystem services include, for instance, the capacity of ecosystems to provide food, fibers, and water,
regulate local and global climate, maintain soil and nutrient cycles, control pest and diseases, and generate
spiritual, aesthetic and cultural value (Fisher et al., 2009; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011). The concept of
ecosystem services was coined in the 1970s (Ehrlich and Mooney, 1983; Westman, 1977), but interest has
increased at the turn of the millennium (Balvanera et al., 2001; Costanza et al., 1997; Pagiola et al., 2005). A
milestone in ecosystem services literature is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a study on the global
status and importance of ecosystems to humans forwarded by the United Nations Environment Programme.
7
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity is also a key global initiative that has high relevance for the
ecosystem services research. The aim of this initiative is to qualitatively and quantitatively highlight the
relevance of biodiversity and ecosystems to human well-being and economy, which is central to the whole
concept as services are created only if there is somebody who benefits. In a way, ecosystem services is thus
a more holistic concept of biodiversity conservation that reflects people’s values to nature (Primmer and
Furman, 2012).
The baseline concept of ecosystem services has remained stable within the selected literature published in
the context of MA, TEEB and IPBES. Ecosystem services are generally defined as the benefits human beings
obtain from nature, and they are categorized in four groups, including provisioning, regulating, cultural and
supporting services. However, the relevance that is given to power relations vary. A summary is provided in
Table 3, and a more detailed overview in Annex 2.
Table 3. Role of governance and institutions in key ecosystem services reports from 2005 to 2013.
MA, 2005
TEEB, 2010
Díaz et al., 2015a, 2015b
Acknowledged
GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONS
Towards integration
“The harmful effects of the
degradation of ecosystem
“Stakeholder analysis in
services are being borne
ecosystem services valuation
“Institutions and governance
disproportionately by the poor,
can support the identification and
systems determine the access
are contributing to growing
evaluation of who wins and who
to, control, allocation, and
inequities, […] and are
loses when management
distribution of […] benefits to
sometimes the principal factor
strategies are implemented in a
people.”
causing poverty and social
social-ecological system.”
conflict.”
The MA report greatly focuses on assessing the status of global ecosystems and related services, but also
acknowledges that ecological degradation will affect societal groups disproportionately (e.g. the poor, women,
and indigenous peoples), and that such patterns have not been adequately accounted for.
TEEB (2010) focuses more on highlighting the links between ecological functioning of natural and seminatural systems and related benefits for humans. It also promotes the qualification and quantification of such
dynamics. Chapter 5 is dedicated to ecosystem services valuation, and the importance of stakeholder
analysis for the identification of “winners” and “losers” in the context of ecosystem management and decisionmaking. However, the influence of power relations is still limitedly acknowledged.
8
The IPBES conceptual framework seems to be more explicit in underlying the importance of institutions and
governance in “determining, to various degrees, the access to, and the control, allocation and distribution”
(Díaz et al., 2015a, p. 6). Overall, it is possible to observe an evolution of how the role of governance and
institutions is intended in the analyzed key literature: from an acknowledgment in the MA (2005) to a more
central integration in IPBES (Díaz et al., 2015a, 2015b).
3.4 Gender issues around the ecosystem services discourse
To complement the analysis in the subchapter 3.2, and to compare the inclusion of gender issues and
inequalities within and across the major lines of sustainability research, we went through all the three key
reports associated with the ecosystem services approach in close detail. Unlike climate research (Sultana,
2013; Tuana, 2013), our analysis explicitly shows that ecosystem services have not received much attention
in terms of the different genders’ vulnerability to changing provision of ecosystem services. In fact, only the
seminal MA (2005) laid more emphasis on the balance of power from a gendered viewpoint.
MA considers its goals in line the Millennium Development Goals of the UN, which includes tackling gender
disparity as a premise. Indeed, the importance of different genders and their impacts on the vulnerability to
change are acknowledged, but also integrated to some extent: “Significant differences between the roles and
rights of men and women in many societies lead to women’s increased vulnerability to changes in ecosystem
services. (...) Because the gendered division of labor within many societies places responsibility for routine
care of the household with women, even when women also play important roles in agriculture, the degradation
of ecosystem services such as water quality or quantity, fuelwood, agricultural or rangeland productivity often
results in increased labor demands on women. (...) Yet gender bias persists in agricultural policies in many
countries, and rural women involved in agriculture tend to be the last to benefit from - or in some cases are
negatively affected by - development policies and new technologies.” (p. 62). In addition, MA calls for more
gender-sensitive policies that are designed to empower women. This is deemed to require explicit analyses
of gender dynamics, and understanding of the links between gender and nutrition supply. However, the role
of knowledge that is occupied by different genders is still disregarded.
(TEEB, 2010) stands out of the two other papers by fully ignoring the wider issue of equity. Income distribution
is the only dimension of equity that is even briefly considered in the text. However, this notion is likely to reflect
the main focus of TEEB that lies in the area of monetary and non-monetary valuation of ecosystem services.
In a way, TEEB could thus be seen to represent the more individualistic view to power that, by definition,
disregards the underlying causes of power asymmetry in the society as stated already in the introduction of
our study.
Surprisingly, IPBES (Díaz et al., 2015a, 2015b) that clearly intends to imitate IPCC and construct the
consensus discourse around ecosystem services, does not seem to perform any better in terms of gender
issues. Gender is mentioned in the two scientific articles only twice, whereas equity issues are reflected as
9
determinants of good quality of life without much further elaboration. The inclusion and validity of indigenous
knowledge and experience, however, has attracted a lot of attention in terms of IPBES, and different genders
are portrayed as important knowledge holders in this context: “Communities will often recognize that valid
knowledge comes from certain knowledge holders: person/s with the rights (e.g. gender, title-holding) and
skills (e.g. language, farming).” (Díaz et al., 2015a, p. 10). However, women are also portrayed as
“disproportionately vulnerable” to degrading ecosystems similar to the poor, despite the fact that all women
do not live in poverty. This suggests that the women are still portrayed as an oppressed group that only has
limited control over its own choices, actions, and destiny. Consciously or unconsciously, IPBES could thus
exert explanatory power in the society to preserve the status quo through constitutive co-production of
knowledge. In fact, IPBES has just recently evoked wider criticism in terms of the disciplinary imbalance, i.e.
lack of social scientists, among the members of the intergovernmental platform due to this imbalanced
attention paid on equity issues (Reuter et al., 2016; Vadrot et al., 2016).
To conclude this section, it can be said that gendering ecosystem services is still in its infancy. Since the
release of the (MA, 2005), gender inequalities have not been considered in the main texts aimed to inform
policymaking. However, our analysis revealed that the evolution of gender issues around ecosystem services
is moving to understanding the roles of genders in knowledge systems, and since knowledge is central to the
concept of power, this could lead to reduced asymmetries of power in modern societies. In scientific literature,
gender issues have not been actively studied either. The imbalances between genders in environmental
research are acknowledged (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014), but they have not yet been mainstreamed into the
research agendas that specifically focus on ecosystem services. Also, Kariuki and Birner (2015) recently
assessed the distributional impacts of the payments for ecosystem services (PES) as a major policy
implication associated with the ecosystem services research, revealing a widespread exclusion of gender
issues in such arrangements despite the fact that men and women experience different costs and benefits
from ecosystems, which in a way resembles our findings, but could also point the way forward for further
studies.
4. Discussion
Several scholars in both climate change and ecosystem services literature have pointed out that power
relations are not sufficiently investigated, while they are in fact key to understand how socio-ecological
changes affect different social groups.
According to a review study conducted by (Bassett and Fogelman, 2013) climate change literature and the
IPCC reports (until 2007) have greatly considered vulnerability to climate change as mainly driven by external
factors, e.g. geographical location or intensity of impacts. Likewise, adaptation is seen purely as an
adjustment to climate stimuli. In contrast, only a minor part of research focuses on the social, political and
economic causes of vulnerability. Less than one third of articles analyzed by Bassett and Fogelman somehow
adopt a “reformist” view of adaptation: these articles discuss vulnerability and changing the decision-making
10
processes, but they don't criticize the norms and principles that govern the rules. Only 3% of the articles
included in the study had an in-depth, transformative approach to adaptation. The authors conclude that these
structural causes call for adaptation as a transformative process, rather than as an adjustment.
In our analysis, we found that the latest IPCC report includes a more comprehensive definition of vulnerability,
which also acknowledges power structures: it is great step towards the reformist conceptualization of
adaptation to the impacts of a changing climate. Nonetheless, further work towards a better integration of
power relations in the conceptualizations of vulnerability and adaption is needed.
Political ecologists such as Taylor (2015) call for re-evaluation of the whole idea of climate change adaptation.
He argues that the mainstream adaptation framework paints a rarely questioned, but inadequate picture of
individuals, households, regions and economic sectors with different vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities
in the face of an external climate. However, different forms of power that shape how groups are made secure
or vulnerable are rarely discussed, as well as historical roots of vulnerability. Consequently, core questions of
historically shaped and hierarchically ordered control over land, water, capital and labor are sidelined, as are
unequally distributed risks and rewards. It seems that the idea of adaptation is still closely connected with
technocratic politics that seeks to contain the experienced threats caused by climate change within existing
order of things. (Taylor, 2015)
Therefore, despite the current consensus being “adaptation is necessary”, we should dig deeper into the
relations of power, dominance and resistance that are decidedly present. According to Taylor, we need to
understand the global environmental change in context of changing property relations, commercialization of
agriculture, the dynamics of state formation, migratory flows, forms of capital accumulation, and macroprojects of environmental engineering. He argues that climate change adaptation is not entirely superior to
these other forms of human activities, nor in a completely other category. It should also be noted that
mentioning poverty as a cause for vulnerability is not the same as analyzing power: we should further explore
the processes of “vulnerabilization”. Taylor concludes that climate change adaptation is fundamentally rooted
in questions of power and production -- it's not just adapting to external threat, but producing ourselves
differently. The main questions for future concern society, for example changing the world economy to a less
deadly course, and dealing land and water ownership in a more sustainable way.
Also in the ecosystem services literature, several authors have pointed out that social factors are poorly
addressed (Bennett et al., 2015; Davies et al., 2015; Fisher and Brown, 2015; Sikor et al., 2014). For example,
“management regimes, power relationships, skills, and values can [however] dramatically affect the definition
and delivery of ecosystem services” (Davies et al., 2015). Also, in a review on ecosystem services and poverty
alleviation, Suich et al. (2015) found that while consideration of governance and power relations are included
in many articles (e.g. on land and resource access and rights, gender, access to markets and information,
macroeconomic conditions and the quality of institutions), these are generally not systematically considered.
11
Notably, recent ecosystem services literature has attempted to address this research gap by proposing
conceptual frameworks which attempt to integrate power relations into the previous ecosystem services
conceptualizations (Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2014, 2013), emphasizing that access and control
of ecosystem services also influence how benefits are distributed across social groups. These research area,
however, still requires attention conceptually and empirically.
Both climate change and ecosystem services literature were born from mechanistic (i.e. physics) type of
thinking, which can still be seen in the discourses (e.g. Turnhout et al., 2014). This is obviously necessary to
some extent, but such underlying issues as power relations should be better understood as they are likely to
dictate and transform the outcomes in such complex human-environment systems that have evolved
together. Power issues such as disciplinary and gender imbalances can also be found inside both of the “IPs”
studied here, and are reflected in the use of the explanatory power as our findings imply. Perhaps developing
indicators, e.g. a taxonomy of power relations based on a certain number of determinants drawn from
empirical research (cf. Gereffi et al., 2005), could become useful. However, such “measurementality” also has
its pitfalls by perhaps aiming to simplify the complex reality too much.
5. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to analyze key conceptualizations of climate change and ecosystem services to
determine if and to what extant power relations are included in these frameworks, and how this concept has
developed in time. Our analysis shows a trend towards integrating power relations within the climate change
and ecosystem services key conceptualizations, even though this appears to be a very recent development.
Taking power dynamics into account is fundamental especially to inform policy-making, otherwise the risk is
to ignore or exacerbate existing inequalities and conflicts (cf. Kosoy and Corbera, 2010). Thus, there is an
essential role for power within these discourses and a consistent need to further develop conceptual and
empirical research on such issues, also exemplified in our analysis of the inclusion of gender issues in these
discourses. The existence of this research gap in these major sustainability narratives and related literature
is severely pressing, considering that equity is a key goal in sustainability, as formulated by the UN 2015
Sustainable Development Goals. However, to what extent it should be integrated is a question that remains
as the issue of power may also become easily politicized and constrain more general advancement in these
global processes. Further studies should aim to assess, e.g., the knowledge production within IPCC and
IPBES by dismantling the reports in pieces and analyzing whether certain patterns of power have led to
certain types of written expressions in the texts.
12
Questions for guest lecturers
 How can power relations be further integrated in the climate change and ecosystem services
narrative? Should they? In a way, our report demonstrated that, yes, there is, but is there a risk that it
becomes too politicized or a simple constraint for advancing in negotiations that the human kind may
not be able to afford?
 How to best define and measure vulnerability or “vulnerabilization” to changing climate and/or
degrading ecosystems? Could a “multidimensional poverty index”, or “human development index” be
the same as a “multidimensional vulnerability index”?
 How to deal with uncertainty in the context of social-ecological changes?
 Could a taxonomy of power relations in the context global environmental change be elaborated?
13
References
Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 268–281. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Agarwal, B., 1997. Gender, environment, and poverty interlinks: Regional variations and temporal shifts in rural
India, 1971–1991. World Dev. 25, 23–52. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(96)00084-8
Balvanera, P., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Ricketts, T.H., Bailey, S.-A., Kark, S., Kremen, C., Pereira, H., 2001.
Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Science 291, 2047. doi:10.1126/science.291.5511.2047
Bassett, T.J., Fogelman, C., 2013. Déjà vu or something new? The adaptation concept in the climate change
literature. Geoforum 48, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.010
Bee, B.A., 2016. Power, perception, and adaptation: Exploring gender and social–environmental risk perception
in northern Guanajuato, Mexico. Geoforum 69, 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.006
Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B.N., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Krug, C.B.,
Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel, L., Martín-López, B., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H.A., Nel, J.L., Pascual, U.,
Payet, K., Harguindeguy, N.P., Peterson, G.D., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Reyers, B., Roebeling, P., Seppelt,
R., Solan, M., Tschakert, P., Tscharntke, T., Turner, B., Verburg, P.H., Viglizzo, E.F., White, P.C.,
Woodward, G., 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges
for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 76–85.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
Bryant, R.L., 1998. Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 22,
79–94. doi:10.1191/030913398674890974
Bryant, R.L., 1997. Beyond the Impasse: The Power of Political Ecology in Third World Environmental
Research. Area 29, 5–19. doi:10.2307/20003756
Costanza, R., Arge, R., DeGroot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Neill,
R.V.O., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., 1997. The value of the world ’ s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0
Davies, K.K., Fisher, K.T., Dickson, M.E., Thrush, S.F., Le Heron, R., 2015. Improving ecosystem service
frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecol. Soc. 20, 2. doi:10.5751/ES-07581-200237
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S.,
Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K.M., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A.,
Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G.M., Martin-Lopez, B., Okumura, M.,
Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Pérez, E.S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R., Sharma, N., Tallis, H.,
Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z.A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh, Y., Allahverdiyev, R.,
Amankwah, E., Asah, T.S., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, A.L., Caillaux, J., Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D.,
Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda, A.M.M., Fu, B., Gundimeda, H.,
Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W.A., Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo,
C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J.P., Mikissa, J.B., Moller, H., Mooney, H.A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H.,
Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A.A., Pataki, G., Roué, M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R.,
Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Yeo-Chang, Y., Zlatanova, D., 2015a. The IPBES Conceptual
Framework - connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W.M., Larigauderie, A., 2015b. A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s
Benefits to People. PLoS One 13, 1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040
14
Dowding, K., 2012. Why should we care about the definition of power? J. Polit. Power 5, 119–135.
doi:10.1080/2158379X.2012.661917
Dowding, K.M., 1996. Power. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota.
Ehrlich, P.R., Mooney, H. a., 1983. Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services. Bioscience 33, 248–254.
doi:10.2307/1309037
Felipe-Lucia, M., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., Comín, F.A., 2015.
Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS One 10, e0132232.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132232
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making.
Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Fisher, J.A., Brown, K., 2015. Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical
tool? Ecol. Econ. 117, 261–269. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.009
Fisher, J.A., Patenaude, G., Giri, K., Lewis, K., Meir, P., Pinho, P., Rounsevell, M.D., Williams, M., 2014.
Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual
framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002
Fisher, J.A., Patenaude, G., Meir, P., Nightingale, A.J., Rounsevell, M.D., Williams, M., Woodhouse, I.H., 2013.
Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty
alleviation research. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 1098–1111. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002
Ford, J., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Cunsolo Willex, A., Pearce, T., 2015. Including
indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 349–353.
doi:10.1038/nclimate2954
Foucault, M., 2009. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-1978. Picador, New
York.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Sturgeon, T., 2005. The governance of global value chains. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 12,
78–104. doi:10.1080/09692290500049805
Grundmann, R., 2007. Climate change and knowledge politics. Env. Polit. 16, 414–432.
doi:10.1080/09644010701251656
IPCC-WG2, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge Unviersity Press,
Cambridge.
IPCC-WG2, 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
IPCC-WG2, 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jasanoff, S., 2004. Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society, in: Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The CoProduction of Science and Social Order. Routledge, New York, pp. 25–98.
Kariuki, J., Birner, R., 2015. Are Market-Based Conservation Schemes Gender-Blind? A Qualitative Study of
Three Cases From Kenya. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29, 432–447. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1086461
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1228–
1236. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002
Krippendorff, K., 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Third edit. ed. SAGE, Thousand
Oaks. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Larigauderie, A., Mooney, H.A., 2010. The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and
15
Ecosystem Services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.006
Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., 2006. Environmental Governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31, 297–325.
doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
Marx, K., 1990. Capital, Volume I. Penguin Books, London.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Kovarik, C., Quisumbing, A.R., 2014. Gender and Sustainability. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 39, 29–55. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013240
Miller, C.A., Edwards, P.N., 2001. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental
Governance. The MIT Press, Michigan. doi:10.1093/envhis/10.1.140
O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L.P., Schjolden, a N.E., 2007. Why different interpretations of vulnerability
matter in climate change discourses. Clim. Policy 7, 73–88. doi:10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639
Oreskes, N., 2005. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science 306, 2004–2005.
doi:10.1126/science.1103618
Pagiola, S., Agostini, P., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., Ramírez, E., Rosales, M., Ruíz,
J.P., 2005. Paying for biodiversity conservation services: Experience in Colombia, Costa Rica, and
Nicaragua. Mt. Res. Dev. 25, 206–211. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0206:pfbcs]2.0.co;2
Potschin, M.B., Haines-Young, R.H., 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Prog.
Phys. Geogr. 35, 575–594. doi:10.1177/0309133311423172
Primmer, E., Furman, E., 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do
measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 85–92.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008
Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potschin, M., 2015. Governance of
Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 1–9.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002
Reuter, K., Timpte, M., Nesshöver, C., 2016. Disciplinary balance: How to engage social scientists in IPBES.
Nature 531, 173. doi:10.1038/531173c
Ribot, 2011. Vulnerability before Adaptation: Toward Transformative Climate Action. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21,
1160–1162. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.008
Ribot, J., 2014. Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. J. Peasant Stud. 41, 667–
705. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.894911
Rockstrom, J.E.A., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Al., E., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461,
472–475. doi:10.1038/461472a
Sikor, T., Martin, A., Fisher, J., He, J., 2014. Toward an Empirical Analysis of Justice in Ecosystem
Governance. Conserv. Lett. 7, 524–532. doi:10.1111/conl.12142
Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and
Equity, in: IPCC-WG2 (Ed.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 879–906.
Sovacool, B.K., Linnér, B.-O., Goodsite, M.E., 2015. The political economy of climate adaptation. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 5, 616–618. doi:10.1038/nclimate2665
Suich, H., Howe, C., Mace, G., 2015. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical
16
links. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 137–147. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.005
Sultana, F., 2013. Gendering Climate Change: Geographical Insights. Prof. Geogr. 66, 1–10.
doi:10.1080/00330124.2013.821730
Taylor, M., 2015. The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, agrarian change and the
conflicts of development. Earthscan, New York.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - Ecological and Economic Foundations.
Earthscan, London.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., 2014. Connecting Diverse Knowledge
Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 579–591.
doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Tuana, N., 2013. Gendering climate knowledge for justice: Catalyzing a new research agenda, in: Alston, M.,
Whittenbury, K. (Eds.), Research, Action and Policy: Addressing the Gendered Impacts of Climate
Change. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp. 17–31. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5518-5_2
Turnhout, E., Neves, K., De Lijster, E., 2014. “Measurementality” in biodiversity governance: Knowledge,
transparency, and the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services
(ipbes). Environ. Plan. A 46, 581–597. doi:10.1068/a4629
Vadrot, A., Jetzkowitz, J., Stringer, L., 2016. Social sciences: IPBES disciplinary gaps still gaping. Nature 530,
160. doi:10.1038/530160b
Westman, W., 1977. How much are nature’s services worth? Science 197, 960–964.
doi:10.1126/science.197.4307.960
17
Annexes
A1. Concepts of vulnerability and adaptation in IPCC Working Group II reports from 1990 to 2014
Key literature
IPCC-WG2, 1990
IPCC-WG2, 2001
Concept of adaptation
“Owing to these abilities of
adaptation, human beings can
live throughout the world.
Therefore, it is necessary to
study the capacity for adaptation
to extreme climate.” (Chapter 5
p.28)
“Most at risk are those
communities in which the options
for adaptability are limited (e.g.
montane, alpine, polar, island
and coastal communities,
remnant vegetation, and heritage
sites and reserves) and those
communities where climatic
changes add to existing
stresses.” (Policymaker’s
summary p.3)
“Adaptation is considered here
as a key component of an
integrated and balanced
response to climate variability
and change (MacIver, 1998).
Adaptations, which can be
autonomous or policy-driven, are
adjustments in practices,
processes, or structures to take
account of changing climate
conditions.” (p.89-91)
Concept of vulnerability
“The most vulnerable human
settlements are those especially
exposed to natural hazards, e.g.
coastal or river flooding, severe
drought, landslides, severe wind
storms and tropical cyclones.
The most vulnerable populations
are in developing countries, in
the lower income groups,
residents of coastal lowlands and
islands, populations in semi-arid
grasslands, and the urban poor
in squatter settlements, slums
and shanty towns, especially in
mega- cities.” (Policymaker’s
summary p.3)
“Vulnerability is defined as the
extent to which a natural or social
system is susceptible to
sustaining damage from climate
change. Vulnerability is a function
of the sensitivity of a system to
changes in climate (the degree to
which a system will respond to a
given change in climate,
including beneficial and harmful
effects), adaptive capacity (the
degree to which adjustments in
practices, processes, or
structures can moderate or offset
the potential for damage or take
advantage of opportunities
created by a given change in
climate), and the degree of
exposure of the system to
climatic hazards.” (p.89)
Power relations
“Not all countries are equally
vulnerable and many will be only
indirectly affected by sea-level
rise, with limited impacts to a
particular sector of the economy
(e.g. fisheries, tourism) or
affecting the mechanisms of
trade and transportation (e.g.
waterways, ports, inlets).”
(Chapter 6 p.2)
“In addition to the unequal
regional pattern of critical types of
climatic change, there are
important inequalities in the
distribution of present-day
vulnerability to climate.“ (Chapter
2 p.3)
“The adaptive capacity of a
system or nation is likely to be
greater when the following
requirements are met: ...5) Social
institutions and arrangements
governing the allocation of power
and access to resources within a
nation, region, or community
assure that access to resources
is equitably distributed because
the presence of power
differentials can contribute to
reduced adaptive capacity.
“The adaptive capacity of lessdeveloped countries in the tropics
is limited by financial and
technological constraints that are
not equally applicable to more
temperate, developed countries.”
(p.84)
“Sen (1985) suggests that
equality in persons’ “capabilities”
that are determined by income
and access to public goods,
services, social capital, and
institutions should be a global
objective. Each of these
determinants clearly varies from
nation to nation.” (p.125)
“Countries, communities, and
individuals in the higher range of
economic well-being have
access to technology, insurance,
construction capital,
transportation, communication,
social support systems, and
other assets that enhance their
adaptive capacity. Those that do
not have access have limited
adaptive capacity. Unequal
access to adaptation options,
therefore unequal vulnerability,
are attributable largely to different
socioeconomic conditions.”
(p.370)
“Poverty and unequal distribution
of wealth may increase as a
result of the negative effects of
climate change.” (p.697)
18
IPCC-WG2, 2014
“Adaptive capacity has been
defined as the ability to adjust, to
take advantage of opportunities,
or to cope with consequences.
However, adaptive capacity is
context-specific, related to both
availability of resources, capacity
to learn, and governance
measures.” (Chapter 2)
“Vulnerability, or the propensity
or predisposition to be adversely
affected by climatic risks and
other stressors, emerges from
the intersection of different
inequalities, and uneven power
structures, and hence is socially
differentiated.” (p. 5)
“Privileged members of society
can benefit from climate change
impacts and response strategies,
given their flexibility in mobilizing
and accessing resources and
positions of power, often to the
detriment of others.” (p. 50)
A2. Role of governance and institutions in key ecosystem services reports from 2005 to 2013
Key literature
MA, 2005
TEEB, 2010
Díaz et al., 2015a, 2015b
Concept of ecosystem services
“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain
from ecosystems.” (p. 2)
“Adaptation is considered here as a key component of
an integrated and balanced response to climate
variability and change (MacIver, 1998). Adaptations,
which can be autonomous or policy-driven, are
adjustments in practices, processes, or structures to
take account of changing climate conditions.” (p.89-91)
“Adaptive capacity has been defined as the ability to
adjust, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope
with consequences. However, adaptive capacity is
context-specific, related to both availability of
resources, capacity to learn, and governance
measures.” (Chapter 2)
Power relations
“The harmful effects of the degradation of ecosystem
services (the persistent decrease in the capacity of an
ecosystem to deliver services) are being borne
disproportionately by the poor, are contributing to
growing inequities and disparities across groups of
people, and are sometimes the principal factor causing
poverty and social conflict.”
“The pattern of ’winners’ and ’losers’ associated with
ecosystem changes—and in particular the impact of
ecosystem changes on poor people, women, and
indigenous peoples— has not been adequately taken
into account in management decisions.”
“Biodiversity supports a range of good and services
that are of fundamental importance to people for health,
well-being, livelihoods and survival. Often it is the
people from the poorest regions in developing
economies that have greatest immediate dependency
on [ecosystem services].”
“Using stakeholders’ analysis in ecosystem services
valuation can support the identification and evaluation
of who wins and who loses when possible
management strategies are implemented in a socialecological system.”
“Various collections of institutions come together to
form governance systems, that include interactions
between different centres of power in society
(corporate, customary-law based, governmental,
judicial) at different scales from local through to global.
Institutions and governance systems determine, to
various degrees, the access to, and the control,
allocation and distribution of components of nature and
anthropogenic assets and their benefits to people.”
19