22 (2015) assert that there is a need to improve community knowledge of the importance of conservation practices and delivery of ecosystem services. Simultaneously, in improving the aforementioned knowledge, it ought to be noted that policy makers and researchers are only able to identify the benefits derived from ecosystems if they understand what local communities themselves perceive as benefits (Hartter et al., 2014). Climate change discourse has predominantly had a biophysical focus, and needs to incorporate a social science perspective to gain context specific understanding of threats and thus devise interventions that are specific to those communities. Therefore, the design of climate change adaptation and mitigation programmes need to be context specific, and unpack local community utilisation of ecosystem goods and services.
23 livelihoods (Pettengell, 2010). The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report estimates that 2.7 billion people, living under impoverished conditions, rely on natural resources for subsistence, sustenance and economic development purposes (Pettengell, 2010).
Furthermore, it is crucial to determine vulnerability by accounting for community socio- economic well-being, which is affected by increased climate change-related threats (Arthurson and Baum, 2015). These threats can further exacerbate vulnerabilities of community members and their households by reducing the capacity to respond to risk, thus requiring research to unpack household assets which can form part of designing climate-change adaptation initiatives (Shah et al., 2013). Paumgarten and Shackleton (2011) assert that examining socio- economic well-being allows for effective climate change policy design for both poverty alleviation and environmental protection. Also, it is necessary to place vulnerability within socio-economic contexts as the impacts are felt differently across these spatial and socio- economic gradients (Arthurson and Baum, 2015; Thorton et al., 2014).
The focus on vulnerability moves beyond income levels and incorporates broader socio- demographic characteristics. Additionally, this provides information for adaptation projects which are designed to respond to local community contexts in which households vary in their ability to engage in adaption projects (Arthurson and Baum, 2015; Haque et al., 2012).
Adaptation strategies can involve the establishment of reserves, the restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity which has been degraded by anthropogenic land use, and programmes which monitor the socio-ecological responses to climate change (Mori et al., 2013). According to Mori et al. (2013), mitigation and adaptation appear as separate strategies aimed at addressing climate change-related concerns, however, it has been noted that these two strategies are complementary. It is argued that mitigation ought to embrace the long-term vision of adjusting communities to climate change effects, which is often the distinctive characteristic of adaptation (Baker et al., 2012; Mori et al., 2013).
The integration of both mitigation and adaptation may have the potential to produce new opportunities for natural resource management and biodiversity conservation (Nyong et al., 2007). In developing countries, climate change adaptation is regarded as a necessary strategy given that local communities have been struggling to address the challenges of climate variability (Lisa and Schipper, 2007). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has stressed the importance of adaptation, stating that it is a necessary measure to address the unavoidable warming which has been caused by increased emissions (Lisa and Schipper, 2007).
24 Consequently, adaptation has been promoted as a complimentary response to climate change mitigation (Lisa and Schipper, 2007).
In carrying out these programmes, local level government is considered the responsible and legitimate state organ to address such concerns at the local level (Baker et al., 2012; Harlan and Ruddell, 2011; Measham et al., 2011). Baker et al. (2012) assert that local governments play a crucial role in translating international and national programmes for implementation within their own jurisdictions. Additionally, Harlan and Ruddell (2011) state that climate change-related threats manifest within specific local circumstances which vary in socio- economic, ecological and political conditions. According to Measham et al. (2011), local municipalities and other NGOs have three critical duties to carry out in relation to climate change adaptation or mitigation:
• The need to structure local responses to impacts, given their spatial proximity to local communities,
• mediate between individual and collective responses in relation to the vulnerability of communities, and
• to govern the delivery and provision of resources necessary for the facilitation of adaptation and mitigation.
Among the various global initiatives aimed at mitigating climate change-related concerns is the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) (Blom et al., 2010). Other examples of global initiatives which emphasise on climate change mitigation and adaptation include the UNFCCC, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and IPCC (Vijaya- VenkataRaman et al., 2012). In conjunction, the above mentioned initiatives represent global efforts which seek to address the challenges presented by climate change, and the various strategies which can be adapted to local contexts. Similarly, the UN-REDD, or more commonly known as REDD+, is an overarching programme which seeks to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, while enhancing forest stocks in developing countries (Panfil and Harvey, 2015; Romijn et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2011). The enhancement of these forest stocks involve forest regeneration and rehabilitation, reducing emissions and rates of degradation, and carbon uptake and removal (Thompson et al., 2011). The programme was established in 2008 as a means to support developing countries in their attempts to reduce
25 emissions and engage in forthcoming REDD+ projects (Blom et al., 2010; Romijn et al., 2013).
Although the projects are centred on emissions reduction from deforestation and forest degradation, projects also incorporate aspects of conservation and sustainable management (Blom et al., 2010; Panfil and Harvey, 2015). In relation to governance, this represents a change of government and increase in different actors and structures in governance, taking into consideration how societies relate to forest conservation and management (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011).
The programme envisages meaningful stakeholder engagement with those who are directly reliant on forest goods and services for their livelihoods (Blom et al., 2010). The stakeholders include indigenous people and other affected communities whose socio-economic and cultural well-being is dependent on resources provided by forests (Blom et al., 2010; Groom and Palmer, 2012; Thompson et al., 2011). Such communities also play an important role in REDD+ as it is acknowledged that local communities have indigenous knowledge of and attachment to the forests (Blom et al., 2010). In relation to this study, indigenous knowledge can be a useful source of information to inform policy. Additionally, place attachment and changing one’s surroundings will influence the identity or the attachment these communities.
As such, it is important to gage these at the beginning to reduce potential negative influences or impacts on local communities. The programme proposes the involvement of stakeholders in various ways with regards to policy making:
• stakeholders need to be continuingly informed and updated about project goals and outcomes,
• there is a requirement for consultation with and invitation of all local stakeholders in both input and feedback of project outcomes,
• stakeholder views and concerns need to be incorporated in proposed project outcomes,
• all parties involved in collaborations and partnerships are seen as equals, and
• projects need to promote local community empowerment and consultative decision- making processes. (Corbera and Schroder, 2011)
Among the goals of REDD+ initiatives include cost-effectiveness when it comes to the implementation of mitigation projects, support for biodiversity conservation and provision of environmental services, poverty reduction, and improvement in livelihoods (Kanawski et al., 2011). The REDD+ programme has however been criticised for its particular emphasis on
26 forest carbon which might undermine biodiversity conservation, considering that the forest envisioned by the programme makes no clear separation between natural forests and plantations (Kanawski et al., 2011; Romijn et al., 2013). The lack of separation between the two is crucial as plantations are monoculture, lower in diversity than natural forests, less resilient to climate change and lower on carbon stocks (Harvey et al., 2010; Kanawski et al., 2011). Similarly, Harvey et al. (2010) argue that funding may unduly be directed to plantations and jeopardise the funding needed for REDD+ initiatives aimed at natural forests. Although climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives seek to address a biophysical phenomenon in the form of climate change, further research is needed to understand how these threats and responses manifest within the social context of communities, especially given the diversity within developing areas. Such insights can contribute to the design of initiatives that address climate change within complex and stressed socio-ecological systems.