Editing Test:SRCCL/Chapter-1 (section)

== 1.4.1 Governance to enable the response ==

<div id="section-1-4-1-governance-to-enable-the-response-block-1"></div>

Governance includes the processes, structures, rules and traditions applied by formal and informal actors including governments, markets, organisations, and their interactions with people. Land governance actors include those affecting policies and markets, and those directly changing land use (Hersperger et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r858|858]]</sup> ). The former includes governments and administrative entities, large companies investing in land, non-governmental institutions and international institutions. It also includes UN agencies that are working at the interface between climate change and land management, such as the FAO and the World Food Programme that have inter alia worked on advancing knowledge to support food security through the improvement of techniques and strategies for more resilient farm systems. Farmers and foresters directly act on land (actors in proximate causes) (Hersperger et al. 2010) (Chapter 7).

Policy design and formulation has often been strongly sectoral. For example, agricultural policy might be concerned with food security, but have little concern for environmental protection or human health. As food, energy and water security and the conservation of biodiversity rank highly on the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, the promotion of synergies between and across sectoral policies is important (IPBES 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r859|859]]</sup> ). This can also reduce the risks of anthropogenic climate forcing through mitigation, and bring greater collaboration between scientists, policymakers, the private sector and land managers in adapting to climate change (FAO 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r860|860]]</sup> ). Polycentric governance (Section 7.6) has emerged as an appropriate way of handling resource management problems, in which the decision-making centres take account of one another in competitive and cooperative relationships and have recourse to conflict resolution mechanisms (Carlisle and Gruby 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r861|861]]</sup> ). Polycentric governance is also multi-scale and allows the interaction between actors at different levels (local, regional, national and global) in managing common pool resources such as forests or aquifers.

Implementation of systemic, nexus approaches has been achieved through socio-ecological systems (SES) frameworks that emerged from studies of how institutions affect human incentives, actions and outcomes (Ostrom and Cox 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r862|862]]</sup> ). Recognition of the importance of SES laid the basis for alternative formulations to tackle the sustainable management of land resources focusing specifically on institutional and governance outcomes (Lebel et al. 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r863|863]]</sup> ; Bodin 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r864|864]]</sup> ). The SES approach also addresses the multiple scales in which the social and ecological dimensions interact (Veldkamp et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r865|865]]</sup> ; Myers et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r866|866]]</sup> ; Azizi et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r867|867]]</sup> ) (Section 6.1).

Adaptation or resilience pathways within the SES frameworks require several attributes, including indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and trust building for deliberative decision-making and effective collective action, polycentric and multi-layered institutions and responsible authorities that pursue just distributions of benefits to enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable groups and communities (Lebel et al. 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r868|868]]</sup> ). The nature, source and mode of knowledge generation are critical to ensure that sustainable solutions are community-owned and fully integrated within the local context (Mistry and Berardi 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r869|869]]</sup> ; Schneider and Buser 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r870|870]]</sup> ). Integrating ILK with scientific information is a prerequisite for such community-owned solutions (Cross-Chapter Box 13 in Chapter 7). ILK is context-specific, transmitted orally or through imitation and demonstration, adaptive to changing environments, and collectivised through a shared social memory (Mistry and Berardi 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r871|871]]</sup> ). ILK is also holistic since indigenous people do not seek solutions aimed at adapting to climate change alone, but instead look for solutions to increase their resilience to a wide range of shocks and stresses (Mistry and Berardi 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r872|872]]</sup> ). ILK can be deployed in the practice of climate governance, especially at the local level where actions are informed by the principles of decentralisation and autonomy (Chanza and de Wit 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r873|873]]</sup> ). ILK need not be viewed as needing confirmation or disapproval by formal science, but rather it can complement scientific knowledge (Klein et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r874|874]]</sup> ).

The capacity to apply individual policy instruments and policy mixes is influenced by governance modes. These modes include hierarchical governance that is centralised and imposes policy through top-down measures, decentralised governance in which public policy is devolved to regional or local government, public-private partnerships that aim for mutual benefits for the public and private sectors and self or private governance that involves decisions beyond the realms of the public sector (IPBES 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r875|875]]</sup> ). These governance modes provide both constraints and opportunities for key actors that impact the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of policy implementation.

<span id="gender-agency-as-a-critical-factor-in-climate-and-land-sustainability-outcomes"></span>