Browsing by Author "Jones, Lindsey"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Working Paper Exploring Political and Socio-economic Drivers of Transformational Climate Policy: Early Insights from the Design of Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy(2013) Jones, Lindsey; Carabine, Elizabeth"In recent years, the label ‘transformational change’ has rapidly gained traction within the climate discourse. Much of this arises from the recognition that incremental adjustments may, in many contexts, be insufficient in addressing the dual challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change in the longer-term. This push has trickled through to the political arena. Policy-makers tasked with designing and implementing climate policies are increasingly referring to transformational change in justifying the scope of national climate strategies. The development of Ethiopia’s CRGE Vision and Strategy provides a number of useful insights into the political and economic drivers of transformational climate policy. Ethiopia stands as one of few developing countries to have embedded climate-related objectives into the heart of their development and growth model. A number of relevant factors point to this achievement, notably: strong leadership from politicians at the highest level of government; ownership, inclusion and interest from influential line ministries; the prospect of being an early pioneer of green growth and attracting international climate finance; and careful framing of the climate discourse around economic growth and development. However, the design of the CRGE points to notable concerns with regards to the institutional design and processes used in delivering transformational climate policy. A lack of internal capacity to provide key technical inputs towards the policy’s design, as well as failure to acknowledge important social, cultural and political implications of the CRGE’s actions have serious implications for its success and sustainability in the long-term. In addition, the separation of the Green Growth and Climate Resilient elements of the Strategy points to a failure to capitalise on potential overlaps and synchronicities between the two. More importantly, a failure to meaningfully engage stakeholders at all levels of society, particularly at the local level, raises key issues of equity, representation and recognition. The implications of which will be felt by those already politically and socially marginalised. Alongside other early assessments of political and economic challenges in the delivery of climate policy in developing country contexts, these findings point to delicate considerations and trade-offs in matching the need for delivering transformational change with a need to recognise the implication of the policies on complex social-economic and political realities at both national and local levels. Above all, it suggests that, alongside technical inputs, it is important to give consideration to ‘softer’ issues – vested interests, incentives, and power – and institutional processes within the design and implementation of transformational policy. Failure to do so risks not only underestimating the complex political and cultural factors that affect successful uptake of policy reform, but misalignment between the needs and interests of different stakeholders and communities - from the local to the national. Above all, the authors argue that alongside technical inputs, a more nuanced appreciation of the social and political implications of transformational climate policies is needed."Working Paper Measuring ‘Subjective Resilience’: Using Peoples' Perceptions to Quantify Household Resilience(2015) Jones, Lindsey; Jones, Lindsey"This paper advocates for the use of one such alternative: the measurement of ‘subjective’ resilience at the household level. The concept of subjective resilience stems from the premise that people have a good understanding of the factors that contribute to their ability to anticipate, buffer and adapt to disturbance and change. Subjective household resilience, therefore, relates to an individual’s cognitive and affective self-evaluation of their household’s capabilities and capacities in responding to risk.In this paper, we discuss the advantages of measuring subjective household resilience. A subjective approach challenges the notion that experts are best placed to evaluate other people’s livelihoods. It relies on people to self-assess and consider what characteristics are most important to the resilience of their household, providing a valuable opportunity to capture the perspectives of those who may know most about their own resilience: the people themselves. Thus, in some ways, the assessment of subjective resilience is more of a bottom-up process than traditional forms of ‘objective’ resilience measurement."Working Paper Overcoming Social Barriers to Adaptation(2010) Jones, Lindsey"This Background Note explores the influence of social barriers to adaptation using insights drawn from field work in rural subsistence communities in western Nepal, and findings from a related ODI project in rural India. It explores the role of social institutions in determining how individuals adapt to climate stress and shock, and examines how restrictive cultural environments can limit successful adaptation. It concludes by providing recommendations for adaptation policy interventions that seek to recognise, address and overcome social barriers to adaptation."Working Paper Strengthening the Food Systems Governance Evidence Base: Supporting Commensurability of Research through a Systematic Review of Methods(2016) Delaney, Aogán; Evans, Tom; McGreevy, John; Blekking, Jordan; Schlachter, Tyler; Korhonen-Kurki, Kaisa; Tamás, Peter A.; Crane, Todd A.; Eakin, Hallie; Förch, Wiebke; Jones, Lindsey; Nelson, Donald R.; Oberlack, Christoph; Purdon, Mark"Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis."