Original article by:
Jacques Rudy Oh-Seng, Sustainability and Climate Change Programme (SCCP), Université des Mascareignes
Carola Klöck, Associate Professor, Sciences Po Paris
Dr Prakash N.K. Deenapanray, Adjunct Professor, SCCP, Université des Mascareignes
Summary
Despite contributing less than 1 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are the most vulnerable to their climate impacts. A single extreme weather event can devastate an island economy and trigger physical and mental stress amongst its population. Building resilience is urgent for these nations to survive such external shocks. Achieving resilience requires going being technical solutions to simultaneously adjusting ecological, social, and economic systems. This requires an effective and efficient governance framework for enhancing policy-induced resilience, legislation, and coordination between different stakeholders. Looking into the literature published 1993 and 2023, this study finds that the governance architectures available to SIDS in the face of climate change and disaster risk reduction are generally weak. To remedy this, the researchers propose a three-tiered governance framework that encompasses:
- the three core pillars of governance: policy planning, institutional arrangements, and laws and regulations.
- the five principles of efficiency: transparency, accountability, equity, legitimacy, and subsidiarity, and
the rule of law and democratic processes, political commitment, and cultural and religious values (which together constitute the political economy of the macro environment).
Introduction
Global surface temperatures will continue to rise in the foreseeable future even if greenhouse gas emissions stop today [1]. Increasing global temperatures perturb the climate system and increase the severity of climate hazards. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are among the most vulnerable to these climate hazards despite contributing less than 1 percent of total global emissions [2,3]. Between 1970 and 2020, these nations lost an estimated $153 billion to climate and weather hazards for an average gross domestic product of just $13.7 billion [4]. A single extreme weather event can devastate an island economy, as seen when Cyclone Pam wiped out the equivalent of 64 percent of Vanuatu’s gross domestic product in 2015 [5]. Beyond gross domestic product, these nations suffer profound non-economic damages, including negative impacts on physical and mental health, as well as the loss of spiritual and cultural heritage [3,6].
To survive these external shocks, island nations must adapt and build resilience [7]. Adaptation means adjusting ecological, social, or economic systems to moderate potential damages from climate change [3]. Effectively responding to this collective action problem requires more than just technical solutions. It demands effective and efficient governance. Governments must coordinate multiple actors and create institutional setups, rules, and regulations to handle climate change and disaster risks [8]. Currently, we know very little about the actual governance architectures these vulnerable nations use to manage climate resilience.
To understand this governance gap, over 30 years of academic literature published between 1992 and 2023 was analyzed by the reserchers. Out of thousands of studies, only 37 directly examined how small island nations govern climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. This small number highlights a severe lack of research into the actual governance[SD1] of climate threats and disaster risks in these small territories. The existing research suggests that governance around climate adaptation in small islands is relatively weak and often hindered by a lack of long-term policy planning, inappropriate land use, and weak cross sector coherence.
Many institutional arrangements in these states are inherited from their colonial pasts. These top-down structures often lead to weak coordination and exclude local communities from participating in the integrated policy planning process – i.e. policy design and formulation, and monitoring & evaluation of implementation. Without a strong legal framework, institutions lack clear mandates, leading to an ineffective allocation of power and poor access to vital resources, including climate funding. The impacts of natural disasters are frequently magnified by previous bad decisions about land development and building standards. Saint-Martin is given as an example wherein historical social and political dynamics involving unsustainable development and settlement patterns, weakness of local institutions, population mistrust in public authorities, high social inequalities, and environmental degradation maintained a maladaptive trajectory. This highlights that many drivers of vulnerability are actually not related to the climate at all, but stem from unsustainable land use changes, poor management and social disparities.
A 3-Tier governance framework for Climate Change Adaptation in SIDS
Recognising these barriers, the research proposes a new, three-tiered governance framework for SIDS (also applicable for any developing country). To illustrate this framework, they use the analogy of a lotus flower. The lotus is a symbol of resilience and renewal that can flourish in different waters. Just like the plant, this governance framework must be contextualized to local environments to be effective.
Tier 1 – The three core pillars
The innermost layer of the lotus petals and its seed pod represent the first tier of the framework. This tier contains the three core pillars of governance: policy planning, institutional arrangements, and laws and regulations. Policy planning is the cornerstone, requiring governments to move away from short term political cycles and adopt long term, integrated strategies. Good institutional arrangements ensure that all stakeholders from the national government to grassroots communities can collaborate to build resilience. Finally, a strong legal framework establishes the rules of the game, setting clear mandates and responsibilities for everyone involved.
Tier 2 – The principles of efficiency and effectiveness
The second layer of lotus petals protects the core and represents the five principles necessary for these pillars to function efficiently and effectively. These principles are transparency, accountability, equity, legitimacy, and subsidiarity (these are also Rio Principles of Sustainable Development). Transparency ensures all stakeholders, including citizens have access to information about the policy-planning process, the implementation of the principles, and decisions that are taken. This is especially relevant as it aligns with the Enhanced Transparency Framework under the Paris Agreement, which mandates clear monitoring and reporting of climate goals, among others. Accountability builds trust by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different actors, and taking responsibility for the outcomes of decisions made. Equity, which includes gender and social fairness, guarantees that the burdens of climate action (or environmental remedial actions in general) do not disproportionately impact the most vulnerable groups in society; or appropriate safety nets are put in place where and when such outcomes cannot be circumvented. Legitimacy ensures that institutions have the accepted authority to lead, while subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be made at the lowest level where impacts are felt and local institutions are capable of managing them.
Tier 3 – The political economy of public decision-making
The outermost layer of the lotus flower represents the broader, systemic conditions of the country or what we refer to as the political economy. This third tier includes the rule of law and democratic processes, political commitment, the interplay of interest groups, and cultural and religious values. Representative democracy is vital for ecological and social inclusiveness. At the same time, high level political commitment (in both the public and private sector) is necessary to translate complex climate policies into action. Without strong political will, adaptation efforts often stall. Local populations in small island communities have long traditions of observing and learning from their environments. Incorporating these indigenous, cultural, and religious values significantly enhances social resilience and ensures local buy in for new policies.
Conclusion
Climate change is a significant threat for small island nations, and poses an existential threat in some cases. Addressing it requires moving beyond fragmented, project-based approaches to establish unified national policies and strategies. The lotus framework shows that governance is not a simple checklist. It is a comprehensive framing that connects policy, law, stakeholder coordination, principles and values, and political will. By prioritizing evidence-based, cross-sectoral policy planning, island states can construct societies that capitalize on resilient development models. Adopting this framework will allow island nations to better understand their own governance weaknesses, put in place an appropriate governance architecture to unlock climate finance, and deliver sustainable development. While the study has investigated governance of climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, the lotus framework is equally applicable to all environmental collective action problems (e.g., biodiversity loss, desertification and different forms of environmental pollution). Surviving the multiple environmental crisis depends largely on the ability of governments and citizens to work together equitably and effectively to build environmental resilience. The time is ripe for all of us to recognize that human wellbeing is intricately linked to the health of nature.
--
You can read the full article here: Oh-Seng, J. R., Klöck, C., & Deenapanray, P. (2025). Conceptualising a Governance Framework for Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Small Island Developing States Through a Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(22), 9965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17229965
References
1. IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 35–115.
2. Thomas, A.; Baptiste, A.; Martyr-Koller, R.; Pringle, P.; Rhiney, K. Climate Change and Small Island Developing States. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2020, 45, 1–27.
3. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; 3056p.
4. UNDP. The Climate Ambition. In Small Island Developing States; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2022. Available online: https://climatepromise.undp.org/sites/default/files/research_report_document/Climate%20Ambition-SIDS%20v2.pdf
5. Deo, A.; Chand, S.; Henessy, K.; Gully, G.; Hoeke, R.; Gooley, G.; Gregory, R.; Webb, L. Economic Assessment of Tropical Cyclone(TC) Hazards over Vanuatu. SPREPPROE. Available online: https://library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/Economic-Assessment-Tropical-Cyclone-Hazards-Vanuatu.pdf
6. McNamara, K.E.; Westoby, R.; Clissold, R.; Chandra, A. Understanding and responding to climate-driven non-economic loss and damage in the Pacific Islands. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 33, 100336.
7. UNCTAD. Small Island Developing States; UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
8. Vallamayor-Tomas, S.; Thiel, A.; Amblard, L.; Zikos, D.; Blanco, E. Diagnosing the role of the state for local collective action:Types of action situations and policy instruments. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 97, 44–57.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Main photo from Freepik
Disclaimer: To bridge the gap between complex research and accessible reading, we use AI to assist in our writing process. However, every summary is human-authored and must pass a validation check by the original study’s author before publication.
