3.8 Article

Climate Change Adaptation from a Human Rights Perspective: Civil Society Experiences in Cambodia

期刊

FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 437-461

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08039410.2016.1199443

关键词

Cambodia; civil society; human rights; climate change adaptation; international development

资金

  1. Danish Defence and Security Funds
  2. CGIAR Programme on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development agencies which address climate change adaptation (CCA) are increasingly adopting human rights-based approaches (HRBAs) as central to their policies and principles. What, however, does that entail in practice? This qualitative case study examines whether and how development NGOs in Cambodia understand and apply HRBAs to CCA programming. We explore the themes of participation, transparency, accountability, and non-discrimination, and examine the experiences and implications of these efforts. An HRBA is a political agenda that is often assumed to challenge a dominant discourse which emphasises technical solutions and sidesteps structural factors of power, vulnerability, inequality, and responsibility. Despite agency commitments to HRBAs, however, this perspective is only cautiously being applied to climate change due to hesitance to critically engage in politics and governance. Linking CCA and human rights would require anchoring efforts within broader efforts related to the participation of vulnerable populations in national development, pressure for greater transparency, accountability of duty bearers, and spotlighting discriminatory governance practices. An HRBA, as currently perceived and applied, has yet to contribute to breaking down the ` silos' and other incentives to treat CCA as a technical concern rather than as an impetus for transformational change. Changes in Cambodia's political landscape may intersect with the global HRBA discourse to challenge dominant development approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据