Adaptation and Mitigation: Relevant Governance and Risk Management Options for Pacific Island Countries

  • Arunesh Asis Chand


Adaptation and mitigation have recently become a major concern for the governments of the Pacific Island Countries in regards to the global environmental change and human security issues. Adaptation and mitigation need to be analyzed and addressed on different scales through multilevel governance perspective, and the responses must be multilevel and multi-actor – combining simultaneously local and global scales and involving public and private actors. The linkages between national, regional, and local policies should strengthen the multilevel, regional, and urban governance to more effectively address the challenges related to adaptation and mitigation in Pacific Island Countries. This chapter elaborates on how an appropriate governance system can help in effective designing, implementing, and in particular managing adaptation and mitigation policies at different levels of governments, non-state, and non-governmental actors. This chapter further incites important discussion on the availability of a wider range of options than those embodied in the international environmental regime to effectively design and implement adaptation and mitigation policies along with networks that draw together government actors.


Adaptation Mitigation Climate change Governance Policies 


  1. Barnett J (2001) Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: the problem of uncertainty. World Dev 29(6):977–993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooke M, Hepburn de L I and Trevelyan R J (2004) Henderson Island World Heritage Site: Management Plan 2004–2009. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. 25 October 12
  3. Cafiero C, Vakis R (2006) Risk and vulnerability considerations in poverty analysis: recent advances and future directions. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Christoplos I., Anderson S., Arnold M., Galaz V., Hedger M., Klein R.J.T., and Le Goulven K. (2009). The human dimension of climate adaptation: The Importance of Local and Institutional Issues. EditaSverige AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 20 October12
  5. Cutter S (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20(4):529–539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Loë R C, Armitage D, Plummer R, Davidson S and Moraru L (2009). From Government to Governance: A State-of-the-Art Review of Environmental Governance. Final report. Prepared for Alberta environment, environmental stewardship, environmental relations. Guelph, ON: Rob de Loë Consulting ServicesGoogle Scholar
  7. Godin B (2006) The linear model of innovation. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(6):639–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen J, Holm L, Frewer L, Robinson P, Sandøe P (2003) Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huq S, Rahman A, Konate M, Sokona Y, Reid H (2003) Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in Least Developed Countries (LDC). International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate Change 2001. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Chapters 10, 11, 17, and 18.Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCCGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein R (2004) Approaches, Methods and Tools for Climate Change Impact, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment. Keynote lecture to the In-Session Workshop on Impacts of, and Vulnerability and Adaptation to, Climate Change. Twenty-First Session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice, Buenos Aires, 8 December 2004. 25 October 12
  12. Lazarow N, Fearon R, Souter R, Dovers S (2006) Coastal management in Australia: key institutional and governance issues for coastal natural resource management and planning. CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, IndooroopillyGoogle Scholar
  13. Newell P (2004) Climate change and development: a tale of two crises. IDS Bull 35(3):120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Norman B (2009) Planning for coastal climate change: an insight into international and national approaches. Victorian Government Department of Planning and Community Development, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Malley P (2009) Governmentality and risk. In: Zinn J (ed) Social theories of risk and uncertainty. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 52–75Google Scholar
  16. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005) Conclusions of the Chair. Global Forum on Sustainable Development on Development and Climate Change, 11–12 November 2004, Paris, France. ENV/EPOC/GF/SD/RD (2004)15/FINAL. 20 October12
  17. Osborne D, Gaebler T (1993) Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Parry M, Nigel A, Tony M, Robert N, Pim M, Sari K, Matthew L, Cynthia R, Ana I and Gunther F (2001). Millions at risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets. Glob Environ Chang (11): 181–183. 25 October 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ProVention and ALNAP (2008), Slow-onset disasters: drought and food and livelihoods insecurity, Briefing Paper.,
  20. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Smit B and Benhin J (2004) Tools and methodologies for mainstreaming vulnerability and adaptation to climate change into sustainable development planning. A paper presented at the workshop integrating vulnerability and adaptation to climate change into sustainable development policy planning and implementation in Southern and Eastern Africa, 4 September 2004, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith T, Preston B, Gorddard R, Brooke C, Measham T, Withycombe G, Beveridge B. and Morrison C (2008) Regional workshops synthesis report: Sydney coastal councils’ vulnerability to climate change. Prepared for the Sydney Coastal Councils Group.
  23. Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur’s quadrant—basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Trench B (2008) Towards and analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng D, Claessens M, Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J, Schiele B, Shi S (eds) Communicating science in social contexts. New models, new practices. Springer, New York, pp 119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2004) Application of methods and tools for assessing impacts and vulnerability, and developing adaptation responses. Background paper to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, Buenos Aires, 6–14 December 2004. FCCC/SBSTA/2004/INF.13Google Scholar
  26. Wescott G (2009) Stimulating vertical integration in coastal management in a federated nation: the case of Australian coastal policy reform. Coast Manag 37(6):501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood D, Stocker L (2009) Coastal adaptation to climate change: towards reflexive governance. Int J Sci Soc 1(3):137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wynne B (1991) Knowledge in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(1):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes but missing the music? Community Genet 9(3):211–220Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arunesh Asis Chand
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Science Technology and Environment, School of Geography, Earth Science and EnvironmentUniversity of the South PacificSuvaFiji

Personalised recommendations