While studying climate science and carbon management in university, I spent countless hours reviewing any and all ways to mitigate climate change.
At the same time, it has been equally emphasised that climate change is not an impending, looming threat, but rather one that we are already experiencing. It will also continue to get worse with time if the world fails to act swiftly. So, what can we do about these changes that have already happened, and the changes that are still yet to happen? The answer is, ultimately, that we must adapt.
For my MSc dissertation, together with my supervisor, ClimateXChange’s Director for Policy, Dr Kate Donovan, we explored the efficacy of two similar mechanisms in the UK used to address adaptation at multiple government levels: advisers and knowledge brokers.
Climate adaptation planning in the UK and Scotland
My dissertation started by analysing pieces of the UK’s National Adaptation Programmes (NAPs) and the Scottish National Adaptation Plans (SNAPs), which rely heavily on the input of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and ClimateXChange (CXC), respectively.
I then analysed the roles of the CCC and CXC in shaping and implementing these policies, which, albeit similar, perform distinct functions within the UK and Scottish governments. The key difference in these organisations arises in that the CCC is an independent, statutory adviser to the governments of the UK and its devolved nations. CXC, on the other hand, is a knowledge broker and centre of climate change expertise that supports the Scottish Government.
However, these types of roles – adviser and knowledge broker – are often presented as interchangeable despite their unique attributes and governance implications. While both supply crucial climate change expertise, an adviser provides specific policy recommendations, and a knowledge broker provides a neutral space for knowledge exchange.
The impact of advisers and knowledge brokers
With limited capacity for research and minimal climate specialists in government, climate change advisers and knowledge brokers are crucial for sound, impactful climate policies. However, what, if any, merit is there in distinguishing their roles?
Studying CXC, I used my dissertation to explore two primary research questions through policy analyses and expert interviews: (1) how have knowledge brokers and advisers each influenced the incorporation of science into adaptation policy and implementation, and (2) how are knowledge brokers and advisers each perceived across different levels of government?
I found the following:
- First, adaptation is a hyper-local issue, which therefore requires the active participation of local governments in implementing adaptation actions. However, local governments are often especially limited in their capacity for adaptation research, planning and implementation. Effective adaptation thus benefits from having both knowledge brokers and advisers: knowledge brokers can translate evidence and recommendations for local implementation, while independent, statutory advisers promote government accountability.
- Second, strong trust and relationships between knowledge brokers, advisers and local authorities are key for effective implementation. Specifically, policymakers should enact evidence-informed policies. Knowledge brokers and advisers should provide evidence and recommendations that are relevant to current policy issues.
As more research and innovation surfaces, knowledge brokers will become especially important to assist governments in navigating new evidence and policy recommendations from an objective standpoint.
Related links
UK’s Third National Adaptation Programme