Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Earth System Governance in Africa: knowledge and
capacity needs
Senay 1 Habtezion , Ibidun Adelekan2, 2 Emmanuel Aiyede ,
Frank Biermann3, Margaret Fubara4, Christopher Gordon5,
Kwabena Gyekye5, Emmanuel Kasimbazi6, Robert Kibugi7,
Elaine 5 5 8 Lawson , Adelina Mensah , Chipo Mubaya ,
Felix Olorunfemi9, 10 Alexander Paterson , Debay Tadesse11,
Raheem Usman12 and Ruben Zondervan13
ARY 
Traditional approaches for understanding environmental
governance — such as environmental policy analysis or natural
resources management — do not adequately address the
gamut of human–natural system interactions within the context
of the complex biogeophysical cycles and processes of the
planet. This is perhaps more so in the African regional context
where the complex relationships between modern and
traditional governance systems and global change dynamics are
arguably more pronounced.The Earth System Governance
(ESG) Analytical Framework encompasses diverse systems
and actors involved in the regulation of societal activities and
behaviors vis-à-vis earth system dynamics. The concept
encompasses a myriad of public and private actors and actor
networks at all levels of policy and decision-making. The
existence of, and interaction among, these diverse actors and
systems, however, is under-researched in the African context.
Various research approaches taken to address crucial global
environmental change (GEC) challenges in Africa have proven
to be inadequate because they tend to overlook the complex
interactions among the various local actors, players, and
indigenous conditions and practices vis-à-vis GEC system
drivers and teleconnections. Similarly, the regional
peculiarities in terms of governance typologies and socio-
cultural diversity highlight the need for nuanced understanding
of the complex interactions and nexuses among multiple
actors and interests and Earth system processes. However,
this diversity and complexity has often been lost in generalized
enquiries. We argue that examination of the governance-GEC
nexus through the aid of the ESG Framework would provide a
much broader and more helpful insight.
Addresses
1 Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training (START)/
Hutchins Center, Harvard University, USA
2 University of Ibadan, Nigeria
3 Earth System Governance Project/VU University Amsterdam,
The Netherlands/Lund University, Sweden
4 Obafemi, Awolowo University, Nigeria
5 University of Ghana, Ghana
6 Makerere University, Uganda
7 University of Nairobi, Kenya
8 University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe
9 Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Nigeria
10 University of Cape Town, South Africa
11 Institute for Security Studies, Ethiopia
12 University of Ilorin, Nigeria
13 Earth System Governance Project/Lund University, Sweden
UNIVERSITY OFCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205 Corresponding author: Habtezion, Senay (shabtezion@start.org,
senay_zion@fas.harvard.edu)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205
This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue
Edited by Eduardo S Brondizio, Rik Leemans and William D Solecki
Received 12 December 2014; Accepted 26 June 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.009
1877-3435/# 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The impacts of global environmental change (GEC) vary
regionally, and Africa is exceptionally prone to the more
adverse impacts. Governance deficits, heavy dependence
on natural resources and climate sensitive economies,
high levels of population growth and urbanization, pov-
erty, conflicts, a hefty disease burden and similar stressors
weaken the capacity of many African countries to adapt to
these impacts [1,2].
While there has been significant amount of research on
governance in Africa (including governance aspects of devel-
opment), understanding of the complex relationships among
the different typologies, agents, scales and/or attributes of
governanceinthecontextofGECdynamics isdeficient[3].
Such gap in knowledge, among other things, has the effect
of limiting the utility of adaptive interventions in the region
and may as well limit the value of ongoing investigations and
assessments of ‘climatic and other global change processes,
teleconnections and feedbacks that occur across regions’ [4].
This paper identifies the governance implications of GEC
in Africa as a crucial area of research and makes the case
forsystematicexaminationofexistingknowledgebyemploy-
ing the analytical framework advanced by the Earth System
Governance(ESG)Project,andbyfosteringresearchcapacity
and a transdisciplinary pan-African research network in the
area of earth system governance.
IBADAN LIBRwww.sciencedirect.com
Earth System Governance in Africa Habtezion et al. 199
 IAn analytical framework for ESG research in
Africa
Traditional approaches for understanding environmental
governance — such as environmental policy analysis or
natural resources management — do not adequately ad-
dress the gamut of human–natural system interactions
within the context of the complex biogeophysical cycles
and processes of the planet [5]. In this context, the
analytical framework advanced by the Earth System
Governance (ESG) Project enables integrated under-
standing of ‘global transformations of social and natural
systems, including accelerating economic integration,
globalization in all its forms, internationalization of policy
processes, and multi-scale consequences of ecological
transformation’ [5 ]. It prioritizes five interdependent
analytical problems (Figure 1). These are the problems of
the overall architecture of earth system governance, of
agency beyond the state and of the state, of the adap-
tiveness of governance mechanisms and processes, of
their accountability and legitimacy and of modes of
allocation and access in earth system governance [5 ].
The ESG Framework encompasses diverse systems and
actors involved in the regulation of societal activities and
behaviors vis-à-vis earth system dynamics. The concept
encompasses a myriad of public and private actors and
actor networks at all levels of policy and decision-making
[5]. The existence of, and interaction among, these
diverse actors and systems, however, is under-researched
in the African context. Various research approaches taken
to address crucial GEC challenges in Africa have proven to
be inadequate because they tend to overlook the complex
interactions among the various local actors, players, and
indigenous conditions and practices vis-à-vis GEC system
 OFFigure 1
Architecture
Research Domains Such as
Agency • Food Systems
• Global Water System
Adaptiveness • Global Climate System
• Global Economic System
Accountability • Other Research Domains
Allocation & Access
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
ESG Analytical Framework.
www.sciencedirect.com 
UNIVER
POWER S
KNOWLEDGE IT
NORMS Y
SCALEdrivers and teleconnections [6]. Similarly, the regional
peculiarities in terms of governance typologies and
socio-cultural diversity highlight the need for nuanced
understanding of the complex interactions and nexuses
among multiple actors and interests and Earth system
processes. However, this diversity and complexity has
often been lost in generalized enquiries. We argue that
examination of the governance-GEC nexus through the
aid of the ESG Framework would provide a much broader
and more helpful insight.
Architecture
The first conceptual pillar of the ESG Analytical Frame-
work is Architecture — it refers to the institutional frame-
work for sustainable development across scales and
sectors and encompasses the interlocking web of widely
shared principles, institutions, and practices that shape
decisions  at all scales [5 ].
In most parts of Africa, governance architecture is made
up of traditional and modern layers of authority and
governance structures coexisting simultaneously, often
with overlapping jurisdictions. These layers of authority
and structures have varying levels of power (and com-
plexity) in GEC governance, depending on the geopoliti-
cal, historical and cultural context in which they operate.
Informal institutions feature prominently in the land-
scape of GEC governance in Africa, perhaps more strong-
ly than what obtains elsewhere in the world. In Africa,
architecture must thus be understood as a system of
multilayer authorities that exist at different levels and
exercise controls, sometimes informally.
At the regional level, three structures can be identified:
region-based organizations [e.g. Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS)]; biophysical or ecosys-
tem-based organizations (e.g. Lake Chad, Lake Victoria
and Nile Basin Commissions) and, continental organiza-
tions (e.g. African Union). While none of these organiza-
tions are set up to purposely address GEC, each is
mandated with development issues that intersect with
GEC. The fact that GEC is not the exclusive remit of
regional structures is partly explainable by the existence
of other regional priorities such as the high level of
poverty in the region.
At the national level, many countries in Africa now have
ministries and/or agencies with GEC governance functions.
A common feature of such government organs is that they
are often handicapped by lack of resources and capacity.
Lack of awareness in society-global change connections is
also a significant constraint (see Adaptiveness, Capacity
needs). The local scale is often more complex than the
national and continental scales since this is where the socio-
linguistic and ethnic divisions are more acute (see Agency).
The diversity of identities, actors and interests in
Africa makes understanding of the role of its institutions
BADAN LIBRARYCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205
200 Open issue
Table 1
Priority research questions
Architecture
 How can existing institutional frameworks be operationalized for the effective governance of earth systems through the use of available traditional
knowledge?
 There is a need for scientists to effectively interface with government and the local people through evidence-based research that has direct bearings
on the life of local people. How do we, therefore, reform the academia to better integrate research, policy and practice?
 Traditional authority is respected in Africa, including in crucial environmental and natural resource issues such as water, land, and biodiversity. Why
do people respect local authority that was not appointed by them through democratic processes? Why are some traditional authority regimes more
effective than others? Which model of traditional systems is best suited for GEC governance — more assertive role for traditional authority (e.g.
Nigeria and Ghana) or weaker/ceremonial role (e.g. Uganda)
 How do we integrate government and faith-based organizations for effective GEC governance?
Agency
 What could be done to make national and local governments in Africa more responsive to GEC challenges? How can implementation of existing
national policies and frameworks be improved?
 What is the role of traditional authority in responding to GEC? How does this augment or limit action at national and local government scales? What
is the relevance of indigenous and traditional knowledge and knowledge systems in GEC response?
 How do we promote the meaningful inclusion of marginalized communities in identifying GEC challenges and response options?
 What are the needs and vulnerabilities of African cities and what can be done to address these vulnerabilities? What is the status of devolved
governance in Africa, and how does this affect adaptive, mitigative, and disaster risk reduction and management efforts in the region? How do we
empower cities to tackle GEC at their scale?
Adaptiveness
 What is the political context of adaptation to GEC and adaptiveness in Africa? Are there shared trends and tendencies?
 How does the political and institutional context of adaptation contrast with political undercurrents of development in the region and beyond?
 What factors promote or inhibit adaptiveness at the local government and city government scales? How do we leverage funding (e.g. climate
finance) to promote devolution in Africa?
 What is the role of traditional authority for adaptation and how does this role vary across state lines?
 What GEC governance schemes have been successful and what factors contributed to their success?
Accountability and legitimacy
 What are the sources of accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance in Africa? To what extent do democratic or non-democratic
processes affect accountability and legitimacy? To what extent does public participation improve accountability and legitimacy? What are the roles
of traditional authority and local communities in promoting accountability and legitimacy?
 How do we hold CSOs, NGOs and MNCs accountable in earth system governance given the increasing power they exercise in Africa? Are there any
workable mechanisms for holding non-state actors (CSOs, NGOs and MNCs) accountable for how their actions influence or impact GEC? How do
we make the operations of CSOs, NGOs and MNCs more transparent?
 What are the effects of different models of accountability and legitimacy on the efficiency of the performance of earth system governance?
 How do we ensure that decentralization translates into accountability and efficiency in earth system governance? How do we balance the
imperatives of decentralization with appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms?
Access and allocation
 What policy and regulatory tools would be helpful in ensuring effective and equitable handling or management of resources? How do we best
minimize corruption?
 How do we promote equitable sharing of the burdens (and benefits) of GEC in Africa? Given Africa’s minimal historical GHG contributions, how do
we frame the ethical obligation of developed countries to mitigate adverse effects of GEC that accrue to Africa? What more can Africa do on its part
in GEC mitigation?
 How do we provide clarity and tools to identify opportunities for financing for Africa?
 What is the best way to define the rules of access to (human and financial) resources and accompanying capacity and economic limitations facing
Africa?
VERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARYvis-à-vis GEC dynamics complex. One key area for re-
search is the current function and potential role of tradi-
tional knowledge systems and authority within the
broader milieu of GEC processes and responses that occur
in coupled human–natural systems (see Table 1 for a list
of questions identified by the authors as priority areas for
research on Architecture in Africa).
Agency
Agency is the second conceptual pillar of the ESG Ana-
lytical Framework — it describes the role of state and
non-state actors who prescribe or proscribe behavior that
impinges on society and ecosystems across scales [5,7].
UNICurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205 Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in
national institutions and policies that deal with GEC
impacts in Africa. For example, the Fifth Assessment
report of the IPCC observes that there are already adap-
tive and mitigative efforts underway, albeit at small scales,
to address the impacts of climate change [7]. Such effort is
demonstrated by the fact that 34 African least developed
countries (LDCs) and Cape Verde have adopted National
Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) under the
UNFCCC process. In addition to, or in lieu of, NAPAs,
countries like Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania,
Zimbabwe and Uganda, among others, have also initiated
or put in place climate change policies. However, whilewww.sciencedirect.com
Earth System Governance in Africa Habtezion et al. 201
 Iheadways have been made in terms of deliberate policy
making for GEC adaptation, more needs to be done to
implement what is on paper [8,9]. Besides, awareness,
financial and capacity constraints, institutional fragmen-
tation and lack of information limit the efficacy of adap-
tive policies and efforts.
Africa is characterized by strong central governments; local
governments are financially and politically relatively weak.
Thus far, devolved approaches to governance (with the
possible exception of South Africa) have not succeeded
even in countries that have constitutionally mandated
federal national political frameworks (e.g. Ethiopia and
Nigeria) [10,11] (see also Adaptiveness). Because adapta-
tion takes place primarily at the local level, better under-
standing of the local-central power dynamics and its
relationship to GEC impacts needs to be better understood.
Africa’s fractionalization along socio-ethnic, tribal, reli-
gious, political, and institutional lines, coupled with weak
institutions, could also have adverse effects on GEC
response [11,12,13]. There are numerous examples of
policies and programs that failed, in part or in full, due to
lack of buy-in from these informal networks (such as
religious and traditional groupings).
It is difficult to address agency issues in Africa in generic
terms given the evolving nature of current national and
subnational policy undertakings. More effort is needed to
understand the role of national and subnational organiza-
tions in GEC governance in the region (see also knowl-
edge and capacity needs). One key region-specific area of
research is the potential role of devolved governance to
address GEC impacts in the region (see Table 1 for a list
of questions identified by the authors as priority areas for
research on agency in Africa).
Adaptiveness
Adaptiveness — the third analytical pillar of the ESG
Analytical Framework — looks into the issue of respon-
sive adjustment by different actors and responses to
global change stimuli  at multiple levels [5 ,7].
The first major characteristic of adaptiveness in Africa is
arguably that response actions are often reactive rather
than proactive [12,13  ,14]. In most cases, adaptive deci-
sions and actions in the region are donor-driven and not
always based on robust knowledge and analysis [4]. Fur-
thermore, adaptation to GEC impacts, including climate
change, in most African countries is affected by fragmen-
ted, and sometimes inconsistent, policies, local politics
(including frictions with traditional authority). Lack of
focused or consistent policies and programs to enable
adaptiveness is also a major drawback. Many African
states lack legislative frameworks for dealing with
GEC impacts and, where such frameworks exist; there
is insufficient political will for proper implementation
UNIVERSITY OFwww.sciencedirect.com [9,15]. For example, the lack of success in adaptive efforts
in Kenya has been linked to the absence of a legal
framework on climate change [16]. Further, formal insti-
tutions in Africa have weak institutional capacity, often
manifested by inadequate financial and human resources.
Lack of political will, corruption, poverty, poor coordina-
tion among sector agencies, political instability, and mar-
ginalization of vulnerable groups have been highlighted
as impediments to adaptiveness in many parts of the
region [17–22].
Thus, weak coordination has been shown to have adversely
impacted adaptiveness of societies in Ghana [23]. Similarly,
weak local-central government relations have resulted in
lack of access to needed resources in countries with decen-
tralized governance structures particularly, resulting in
diminished adaptive capacities in Cameroon [24] and south-
ern Benin [25]. A related challenge is abuse of power in
electoral politics. Forexample, following the severe floods in
Mozambique in 2000, the flood-affected victims who did not
support the ruling party allegedly did not get adequate
support from the government [26]; a similar allegation has
also been made in connection with the 2010 storms in
Ibadan, Nigeria [27] (see also Accountability).
While there are ad-hoc studies across the region that
address different dimensions of ‘adaptiveness’, there is
a need for more systematic and robust understanding of
this pillar (see also knowledge and capacity needs). One
key theme for further enquiry is the socio-political dy-
namics that influence or are influenced by adaptation to
GEC and adaptiveness in the region (see Table 1 for a list
of questions identified by the authors as priority areas for
research on Adaptiveness in Africa).
Accountability and legitimacy
Accountability is the fourth pillar in the five ‘As’ of the
ESG Analytical Framework; it examines the democratic
quality of earth system governance across all scales, both
in public as well as private domains [28,29]. While ac-
countability and legitimacy are terms that lend them-
selves to a multitude of meanings, these notions bear
conceptual and practical kinship with the notion of dem-
ocratic governance [30].
‘Accountability’ research in Africa — as with the other
pillars of the ESG framework — must address some pe-
culiar features of the region. First, it must recognize the
democracy deficits in Africa. Many African countries still
suffer from poor democratic governance. For example,
over 85% of countries in the region have witnessed coups
or coup attempts [31]. However, there have also been
significant improvements in the transition to democratic
governance in Africa. South Africa came a long way from
Apartheid to multi-party democracy. Countries like Cape
Verde, Ghana, Botswana, Senegal, Mauritius, Seychelles,
BADAN LIBRARYCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205
202 Open issue
Figure 2
Adaptation Cost as Percentage of GDP
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2% 2010-2019
1%
0% 2020-2029
ica
n
ea si
a
r if
ic
f b A
 A ib h Pa
c
anr a
r ut & 
ha n-
C So ia 
Sa ica t A
s
b- er as
Su Am E
tin
 
La
Based on “Costs to Developing Countries of Adapting to  Climate Change,” 
World Bank, 2009
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Cost of climate change relative to GDP. http://blogs.worldbank.org/
dmblog/archive/200911.
 
AN LIBRARYLesotho and Malawi have fairly functioning democracies.
Some are making notable progress (e.g. Rwanda, Sierra
Leone). Yet, there have been utter failures (Somalia) and
setbacks (e.g. Eritrea, Mali, Chad). Countries like
Nigeria, Central African Republic, Kenya, Uganda, and
Madagascar are also witnessing set backs on their democ-
racy on account of ethnic and religious strife. Where
governance is bad, resilience to GEC impacts is bound
to be poor. In many countries across Africa, governance
processes are characterized by lack of continuity in gov-
ernment; weak policies and programs and widespread
corruption. Deficits in democratic governance have con-
tributed towards conflicts over issues of fair representa-
tion and ownership and use of natural resources [32,33].
Lockwood [3] notes that ‘(t)here has been relatively
little thinking about the political context of climate
adaptation policy in subSaharan Africa, what this means
for the quality of governance, and the capacity to plan and
deliver what are often quite complex policies and pro-
grams. This is all the more surprising given the quantity
and depth of what is already known about politics and
governance in Africa’. One key theme for future research
in the region may be the ‘democracy’ — ESG nexus (see
also knowledge and capacity needs) (see Table 1 for a list
of questions identified by the authors as priority areas for
research on Accountability and legitimacy).
Allocation and access
The fifth pillar in the five ‘A’s’ of the ESG Analytical
Framework, ‘allocation and access’, looks into the way
GEC impacts are distributed and resources are allocated
in response to these impacts [34]. Access and allocation is
linked to the fourth pillar and is a perennial problem in
African politics. The cost associated with GEC response
Y OFFigure 3
% GDP lOSS
0 – 1%
1 – 2%
2 – 3%
3 – 5%
5 – 10%
>10% 2030
Cost of climate change in Africa expressed as a percentage of GDP loss. U
development of a comprehensive framework of African Climate change Pro
roa/Amcen/Amcen_Events/3rd_ss/Docs/Presentations/Ministerial-technical/E
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205 
UNIVERSITprovides a good window into the complexities posed by
the questions of access and allocation in Africa.
The cost of climate change impacts in the region is
significantly high relative to its means (see
Figures 2 and 3). Funding in climate change (mostly
external) has been steadily increasing over the past few
years [35]. But African countries have had difficulties with
access as the funds available do not provide direct access,
and the procedures and modalities for accessing the funds
are cumbersome. Also, the existing climate finance re-
gime has been critiqued as not having mechanisms in
IBAD2050 2100
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
nited Nations Environment Program (2010). Contribution to the
gram: Economics of climate adaptation in Africa’ http://www.unep.org/
conomics-CC.ppt.
www.sciencedirect.com
Earth System Governance in Africa Habtezion et al. 203
 Iplace to allow marginalized groups easy and sufficient
access to funds covering weather-related losses or to
service adaptation and mitigation technologies [36 ].
While it is true that the existing level of funding (both
domestic and international) does not meet demand, it is
still significant. It is important that these funds be used
properly and that the communities whose livelihoods are
most affected by climatic stresses be included in benefit
sharing. To maximize the effectiveness of available cli-
mate finance opportunities, more transparency, account-
ability, and equity are necessary, since large inflow of
resources and the imperative to spend may lead to misuse
of resources [37,38] (see Accountability).
Questions of allocation and access could be tricky as there
is varied understanding of these notions. However, having
regulatory tools and mechanisms in place to ensure equity
in access is a key principle to consider. Similarly, it is
important to ensure that systems of governance that seek
to promote equitable allocation and access do not compro-
mise efficiency. In this regard, it is crucial to have a clear
and well-enunciated regime, more so in federal and decen-
tralized systems (e.g. Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa) or
systems that give substantial autonomy to traditional au-
thority (e.g. Ghana, Mali) (see also knowledge and capacity
needs): (see Table 1 for a list of questions identified by the
authors as priority areas for research on architecture).
Knowledge and capacity needs
Knowledge needs
Global sustainability can only be achieved with robust
research that deepens our understanding of the function-
ing of the Earth system and how it relates to societal and
ecological dynamics. There are crucial knowledge gaps in
Africa on the connections of GEC dynamics and gover-
nance, discussed above using the five pillars of the ESG
Analytical Framework as a frame of reference (see also
Table 1). In this section, the goal is not to discuss any
further specific knowledge needs but to identify two
common threads that run through many of them.
First, Africa’s diverse and complex socio-economic and
governance landscape necessitates integrated research
with strong and well-supported scientific knowledge net-
works in the region (see capacity needs). There is a need
to rethink GEC-related research programs, research tools
and methods in existence from the vantage point of
relevance. Thus, politics and democracy in the region
should be seriously factored in the design of relevant tools
and methods (e.g. vulnerability assessments).
Second, how earth system governance research is carried
out, communicated and utilized is just as important, if not
more so, as what research needs to be done. African
universities and research centers are notoriously rigid in
their educational systems, which emphasize departments
UNIVERSITY OFwww.sciencedirect.com and disciplinary silos. There is a need to promote inter-
disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in ESG research across
institutions of higher learning and research. Related to this,
Africa lags behind when it comes to data sharing. While a
significant barrier in this regard is lack of information
sharing infrastructure, attitudes and culture on data sharing
also need to change. There is a strong need for promoting
open-data policy in Africa
Capacity needs
Earth System governance research in Africa will require
building capacity to identify, prioritize and design key
research areas (relevance, scale, and scope) and the ap-
propriate research methodologies that foster interdisci-
plinarity and transdisciplinarity. Capacity is also needed
to convert knowledge into usable information.
There is a need to work with universities to promote
integrated approaches on earth system governance re-
search and education through curricula revision and crea-
tion of research hubs and centers. Training (and
retraining) of African researchers in the use of integrated
research methodologies is also important.
A missing link in research on the governance implications
of global environmental change in Africa is lack of strong
knowledge networks that support and nurture robust
knowledge and capacity development [4]. There is a
need for creation of an overarching pan-African ESG
network, which shall act as a clearinghouse for ESG
governance research of relevance to Africa.
One of the priorities for fostering research and research
capacity of next generation of African researchers in ESG
is thus the need for resources, both within and without, to
support research in ESG. In this regard, there is a need to
also encourage private and multinational corporations and
philanthropies to fund ESG research in the region.
It is important to underscore that capacity building is in
itself an effective adaptation response to global change
impacts in the vulnerable region.
Conclusion
Efficient, accountable and equitable governance systems
and processes for GEC response is key to sustainable
development in Africa. Robust research and research
capacity that underpin such systems and processes is
equally important, if not more so. However, the degree
to which deficits in Africa’s governance systems and
processes stress, or perhaps drive, GEC is understudied.
The ESG Analytical Framework could provide a broader
and more helpful insight for future efforts in knowledge
generation in this crucial area of research.
This paper presents context to priority areas for research
using the ESG Framework. It presents a series of research
BADAN LIBRARYCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205
204 Open issue
 
questions for the ESG community and also suggests
approaches and capacity as well as network needs for
addressing this significant knowledge need. Given the
scope of this need, there is a need to foster productive
strategic partnerships with the private, public, non-gov-
ernmental, and research sectors.
Acknowledgements
We greatly appreciate two anonymous reviewers and the editor, Prof.
Eduardo S Brondizio, for their constructive comments to improve the
manuscript. The article is based on a scoping workshop organized by the
Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research, and Training (START), in
collaboration with the Earth System Governance Project and the Institute of
Environmental and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, with financial
support provided by the U.S. Global Change Research Program,
administered through the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant GEO-
0937206). Representing a diversity of disciplines, including political
science, law, geography, natural resources management and environmental
sciences, attendees of the workshop (all serving as authors of this article)
developed a comprehensive strategy paper on key research needs in ESG
research in Africa, of which this article presents the key insights in an
abridged version.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Boko M, Niang I, Nyong A, Vogel C, Githeko A, Medany M,
Osman-Elasha B, Tabo R, Yanda P: Africa. In Climate Change
(2007): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 31 Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Edited by Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van Der Linden PJ,
Hanson CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:433-
467.
2. Toulmin C: Climate Change in Africa. London: Zed Books; 2009.
3. Lockwood M: What can climate-adaptation policy in Sub-
 Saharan Africa learn from research on governance and
politics? Dev Policy Rev 2013, 31:647-676.
The paper dwells on the political economy of climate change adaptation
in Africa and argues that there is a need for improved understanding of
governance dynamic and the political context of adaption in the African
continent.
4. Virji H, Padgham J, Seipt C: Capacity building to support
knowledge systems for resilient development — approaches,
actions, and needs. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:115-121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.005.
5. Biermann F: Earth System Governance: World Politics in the
 Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014.
The author provides detailed analysis of global environmental politics in
terms of five dimensions of effective governance: agency, particularly
agency beyond that of state actors; architecture of governance, from
local to global levels; accountability and legitimacy; equitable allocation
of resources; and adaptiveness of governance systems.
6. Morgan WB: Introduction. In Sustaining the Future: Economic,
Social and Environmental Change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Edited by
Benneh G, Morgan WB, Uitto JI. Tokyo: United Nations University
Press; 1996.
7. Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J et al.: Earth System Governance:
People, Places and the Planet. Science and Implementation Plan of
the Earth System Governance Project. 2009,. see also Biermann F,
Betsill MM, Vieira SC, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D,
Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B, Yanda PZ, Zondervan R: Navigating
the Anthropocene: the Earth system governance project
strategy paper. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2010, 2:202–208 DOI:
10.1016/j.cosust.2010.04.005.
8. Hepworth N: Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation
Preparedness in Uganda. Heinrich Böll Stiftung; 2010.
UNIVERSITY OFCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205 9. Madzwamuse M: Climate Governance in Africa: Adaptation
Strategies and Institutions. A synthesis Report by Heinrich Böll
Stiftung. Cape Town; 2010.
10. Burgess M: Federalism in Africa: An Essay on the Impacts of
Cultural Diversity, Development and Democracy. The Federal Idea;
2012.
11. Mengisteab K: Ethiopia’s ethnic-based federalism: 10 years
after. African Issues 2001, 29:20-25.
12. Fosu AK: Terms of trade and growth of resource economies; a
tale of two countries. UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 2011/28.
2011.
13. Niang I, Ruppel OC, Abdrabo MA, Essel A, Lennard C, Padgham J,
 Urquhart P: Africa. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Barros VR,
Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE,
Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES,
Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
Press; 2014:1199-1265.
The IPCC chapter on Africa, among others, shows that national govern-
ments in Africa are initiating governance systems for adaptation,
responding to climate change, also underscoring that these systems
are far from effective when it comes to coordination of the range of
adaptation initiatives being implemented.
14. Ziervogel G, Zermoglio F: Climate change scenarios and the
development of adaptation strategies in Africa: challenges
and opportunities. Clim Res 2009, 40:133-146 http://dx.doi.org/
10.3354/2009cr00804.
15. Habtezion S: Adaptation Policies in Africa: Challenges and
Opportunities in the Application of Tools and Methods on
Climate Change. In Environmental Governance and Climate
Change in Africa: Legal Perspectives. Edited by Kotze, Mwebaza.
Institute for Security Studies; 2009:71-91. ISBN 978-1-920114-91-
6-2009.
16. Mutiba S, Mayieko S, Olum P, Wanyama K: Climate Change
Vulnerability and Adaptation Preparedness in Kenya. Nairobi:
Heinrich Böll Stiftung; 2010.
17. Adano R, Daudi F: Links between Climate Change, Conflict and
Governance in Africa. Issue 234. South Africa: Institute for Security
Studies; 2012.
18. Brown O, Hammill A, McLeman R: Climate change as the ‘new’
security threat: implications for Africa. Int Aff 2007, 83:1141-
1154.
19. Fitzgibbon J, Mensah KO: Climate Change as a Wicked Problem:
An Evaluation of the Institutional Context for Rural Water
Management in Ghana. SAGE Open; 2012:: 1-14 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/2158244012448487.
20. Pasquini L, Ziervogel G, Cowling RM, Shearing C: What enables
local governments to mainstream climate change adaptation?
Lessons learned from two municipal case studies in the
Western Cape, South Africa. Clim Dev 2015, 7:60-70 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.886994.
21. Madzwamuse M: Climate Governance in Africa-Adaptation
Strategies and Institutions. 2011:. 110 pp. http://www.boell.de/en/
ecology/africa-climate-governance-in-africa-adaptation-
strategies-and-institutions-10914.html.
22. Sowers J, Vengosh A, Weinthal E: Climate change, water
resources, and the politics of adaptation in the Middle East
and North Africa. Clim Change 2011, 104:599-627.
23. Yaro JA, Teye J, Bawakyillenuo S: Local institutions and
adaptive capacity to climate change/variability in the northern
savannah of Ghana. Clim Dev 2015, 7:235-245 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17565529.2014.951018.
24. Brown HCP, Nkem JN, Sonwa DJ, Bele Y: Institutional adaptive
capacity and climate change response in the Congo Basin
forests of Cameroon. Mitig Adapt Strat Global Change 2010,
15:263-282.
IBADAN LIBRARYwww.sciencedirect.com
Earth System Governance in Africa Habtezion et al. 20525. Baudoin M: Enhancing climate change adaptation in Africa
 assessing the role of local institutions in Southern Benin. Clim
Dev 2014, 6:122-131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2013.844677.
On the basis of field researches led among farmers’ households in
Southern Benin, the author highlights the respect and trust that
traditional chiefs and local organizations enjoy (relative to govern-
ments) and argues that international support for adaptation should
better be geared towards supporting adaptive capacities at the local
level.
26. Nyong A, Fiki C, McLeman R: Drought-related conflicts,
management and resolution in the West African Sahel:
considerations for climate change research. Die Erde 2006,
137:223-248.
27. Adelekan IO: Vulnerability to wind hazards in the traditional city
of Ibadan, Nigeria. Environ Urban 2012, 24:597-617.
28. Biermann F, Gupta A: Accountability and legitimacy. An
analytical challenge for earth system governance. Ecol Econ
2011, 70:1854-1855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2011.07.017.
29. Biermann F, Gupta A: Accountability and legitimacy in
earth system governance: a research framework. Ecol Econ
2011, 70:1856-1864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2011.04.008.
30. Callamard A: Accountability, transparency, and freedom of
expression in Africa. Soc Res 2010, 77:1211-1240.www.sciencedirect.com 
UNIVERSITY OF I31. Lindemann S: Working Paper No. 80, Civilian Control of the Military
in Tanzania and Zambia: Explaining Persistent Exceptionalism;
Crisis States Research Centre, September: 2010.
32. Collier P, Elliot L, Hegre H, Hoeffler A, Reynal-Querol M,
Sambanis N: Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and
Development Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003:.
http://econ.worldbank.org/prr/CivilWarPRR/.
33. Osaghae EE, Osaghae VA: Rethinking democratic
accountability in Africa. Forum Dev Stud 2013, 40:393-412.
34. Gupta J, Lebel L: Access and allocation in earth system
governance: water and climate change compared. Int Environ
Agreements 2010, 10:377-395.
35. Nakhooda S, Caravani A, Bird N, Schalatek L: ‘‘Climate Finance in
Sub-Saharan Africa’’ November (Climate Finance Policy Brief).
Washington, DC: Heinrich Böll Foundation; 2011.
36. Schalatek L: Engendering climate finance. Perspectives
 (Political analysis and commentary from Africa – Mobilising Climate
Finance for Africa) No. 4/11. South Africa: Heinrich Böll
Foundation; 2011.
Forexample, ‘Of theroughly US$10billion of funding approved bymid-2011,
only US$ 350 million was devoted to climate change adaptation in Africa’
37. Transparency International: Global Corruption Report: Climate
Change. 2011.
38. United Nations Development Programme: Staying on Track:
Tackling Corruption Risks in Climate Change. 2011.
N LIBRARYCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:198–205
BADA