Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Seychelles: An Assessment Based on the Capital Approach

As a Small Island Developing State, Seychelles is disproportionately affected by climate change, and enhancing her adaptive capacity is a national priority. Identifying and integrating local capacity needs into policy measures can improve multilevel governance and the effective implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), given that local governments have contextual knowledge about their territories and the climate change challenges affecting them. Based on the Capital Approach Framework (CAF), this study carries out an analysis of local governance capacity needs for implementing climate change adaptation in Seychelles. Data were collected using two methods: (i) questionnaire-led interviews among twenty-four district administrators (DAs), and (ii) an interactive workshop involving thirty-one participants, of which twenty-six were DAs and five were members of the National Climate Change Committee. The CAF was measured in two ways: (i) through descriptive statistics such as frequencies based on interview data, and (ii) through the ranking of types of capital to assess their weightings across four categories using a consensus approach during the participatory workshop. The findings of this study indicate significant political, financial, and human resource capacity gaps, which collectively hinder local adaptation. The critical shortcomings identified include the low participation in national-level decision-making processes, the inability to access external funding sources, and the lack of technical know-how. Through a participatory approach involving the local government representatives and the National Climate Change Committee, ten recommendations for policy measures that can enhance the effectiveness of local governance in climate change adaptation were co-developed. Seven of these recommendations partly address issues related to political capital. These recommendations highlight that a siloed approach cannot effectively address the impacts of climate change. For example, one of the recommendations stated that land-use planning should be guided by location-specific vulnerabilities, as these differ across districts.