Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are a grouping of tropical island states which have banded together under the United Nations to address common sustainability challenges [1]. The vulnerability of SIDS to climate change impacts has been well documented and discussed in recent decades [2,3,4]. The Caribbean region is no exception, with Caribbean SIDS vulnerable to a wide range of climate change impacts including sea level rise, invasive species, ocean acidification, changes in rainfall patterns, increased temperatures, and changing hazard regimes including hurricanes, floods and drought [5,6]. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) has been highlighted as one approach to address declines in ecosystem health and enable sustainable adaptation to climate change [7].

This paper critically reviews the use of EbA approaches in Caribbean SIDS with particular attention upon methodologies used to integrate local and external knowledge to address climate change impacts. The importance is because local knowledge tends to be neglected, in particular because it is often viewed by locals and non-locals as being backward or irrelevant in the modern world, compared to external (usually technology-based) knowledge which is seen as being modern and representing the future. Even when locals wish to preserve their own knowledge, external lack of respect for local knowledge can mean that local views and ideas are disrespected and not included in development work.

That is not claiming that local knowledge is perfect and should dominate local decision-making. Instead, seeking a balance between local and external views is essential to achieve EbA. As such, this paper identifies key gaps, lessons learnt and suggested ways forward for integrating local and external knowledge within EbA in Caribbean SIDS. That contributes to providing policy and action advice for a region requesting support to implement formally EbA techniques that have long assisted Caribbean peoples with their livelihoods.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) outlines a decline in worldwide ecosystem health, thereby threatening the provision of ecosystem services [8]. Degradation of ecosystems and declines in ecosystem services will reduce people’s ability to adapt to and cope with, existing and anticipated climate change impacts, and threaten long term sustainability [9]. For example, an estimated one-third of Caribbean coral reef ecosystems are under threat from coastal development, and sediment and pollution from inland sources. 60% of reefs are threatened by overfishing, whilst marine based threats to coral reefs e.g., from shipping, ineffective management of protected areas, diseases and warming sea temperatures are widespread across the Caribbean [10]. In 2000, it was estimated that Caribbean coral reefs provided goods and services with an annual net economic value estimated at between US$3.1 billion and US$4.6 billion from fisheries, dive tourism and shoreline protection services [10]. Declines in coral reef ecosystem health would result in significant economic losses, particularly in Caribbean coastal areas through loss of fishing livelihoods, malnutrition due to lack of protein, the loss of tourism revenues and increased coastal erosion [10].

EbA is seen as an important approach for tackling these challenges. EbA is defined as “an approach that builds resilience and reduces the vulnerability of local communities to climate change…EbA integrates sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in a comprehensive adaptation strategy” [11] (see also [9]). The phrase EbA is relatively recent, with the terminology largely absent within relevant literature prior to 2009, although earlier uses of the phrase have been identified in, for instance, 2004 [12] and 2005 [13]. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), currently a key advocate and player in the field of EbA, prior to 2009 in their ‘Caribbean Work Program 2009–2012’ referred to ‘ecosystem management’ and not ‘EbA’ [14].

Previously (except for the few early uses of the phrase outlined above), key phrases used included ‘ecosystem-based management’ and ‘ecosystem management’ [15] which “reflect three common origins…protected areas, cooperative management, and management responses to complex demands and pressures”. Post-2008, use of the phrase EbA and the development of EbA approaches have expanded considerably (see [16] for a database of EbA examples), yet also with a narrowing that deliberately focuses on climate change. Reflecting this development, in June 2011 a group of international, mostly conservation organisations drafted some key principles for ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation including [17];

The call for integrating local knowledge with scientific knowledge is significant (point 5 above). Local people can hold vast amounts of information and experience of their environment built up over countless generations (see [18] for more information on the need to integrate local and external knowledge). Building upon local knowledge and non-infrastructural, or “soft” approaches is potentially more cost effective and accessible by poor and/or rural communities than measures based on purely external interventions or those highlighting engineering infrastructure [19,20,21]. This is especially important for smaller, more isolated communities, such as Caribbean SIDS, which might not have the population size or resources to continually build and maintain extensive infrastructure [22,23,24]. Healthy ecosystems and their services play a vital role in reducing climate risk and providing opportunities for sustainable development and livelihoods.

Local knowledge is also often referred to as ‘indigenous knowledge’, ‘traditional knowledge’, ‘indigenous technical knowledge’, ‘traditional environmental knowledge’ or ‘folk knowledge’ [25]. Throughout this paper the term ‘local knowledge’ is used as it better defines knowledge that has evolved within (inside) a specific community or area, but that has potentially incorporated or been shaped by outside knowledge in its continuous evolution [18]. In parallel, external knowledge is generally understood to involve technology or specific approaches developed outside a community. In many cases this knowledge has been empirically proven or developed using methods that are judged by scientific ‘experts’ of the time to be rigorous and in accordance with accepted practice [18].

Inhabited by approximately 40 million people, the Caribbean region is known for its natural beauty and unique cultures. The people of this region are heavily reliant upon the natural resource base for their livelihoods including fisheries, forestry, agriculture, mining and tourism [26]. Caribbean SIDS are diverse, ranging from small island tropical countries with economies dependent on agriculture and tourism such as St. Lucia, to larger less economically developed and more populated countries such as Haiti.

Despite this diversity, climate change significantly impacts all Caribbean SIDS, especially given the dependence on natural resources for many livelihoods, including most tourism-based livelihoods. Freshwater availability is of particular concern especially in light of climate change and increased population levels [27]. If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, the cost to Caribbean islands in terms of increased hurricane damage, loss of tourism revenue and infrastructure damage is projected to reach $22 billion by 2050 and $46 billion by 2100 or 10% and 22% of the current Caribbean economy [28].

Whilst negotiations continue at the international level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Caribbean community (CARICOM) recognises the need for urgent action to adapt to existing and anticipated climate change impacts [26]. Given the Caribbean’s fragile natural resource base and the high dependence on natural resources there has been an increased focus upon terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems and their interaction with people for adaptation to climate change [29]. With 70% of the world’s poor living in rural areas, a focus upon ecosystems and their importance for sustainable development is paramount [30]. Ecosystems and the services they provide (e.g., food, shelter, risk reduction, freshwater supply, medicines, and climate regulation) are essential components of life support on Earth [31]. They underpin much past and a good proportion of existing livelihood activity (off-shore financing is an example of current non-ecosystem livelihood in Caribbean SIDS) and are essential to achieving long-term sustainable livelihoods in the future [31,32].

In a recent review of current and planned adaptation action in the Caribbean many actions emphasised the need for an ecosystem-based approach to adaptation, specifically through integrated coastal zone management and integrated watershed management [33]. The review outlined that “there is clear national and regional recognition that ecosystem services can greatly reduce adaptation costs while providing numerous co-benefits (i.e., mangroves and reefs protect shorelines from erosion and supply fisheries; forests mitigate landslides, flooding and drought)” [33]. However, the majority of this action centred upon coastal ecosystems at a regional level, as opposed to the full range of diverse ecosystems in existence within Caribbean SIDS. This is especially important given the tight linkages between ecosystems in SIDS. In addition, no reference was given to the need to integrate local and external knowledge to develop appropriate context specific solutions.

That has resulted in large gaps with regard to EbA approaches to climate change adaptation (CCA) in Caribbean SIDS. Yet, as outlined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), EbA approaches are identified as widely applicable at different spatial and temporal scales, and across multiple sectors whilst incorporating different knowledge bases [34]. This section assesses to what extent EbA approaches using local and external knowledge are incorporated into CCA activities within Caribbean SIDS at regional, national and local levels. It builds upon and supplements the review undertaken by Medeiros et al. [33] which focused on the SIDS of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.

In the larger field of DRR including CCA, the importance of local, indigenous and/or traditional knowledge has long been recognised and stressed [42,43,44]. Building upon local knowledge and practices, and engaging those ‘at risk’ is a significant component of Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) and its subset of Community-based Adaptation (CBA) [43,45]. This recognises that whilst SIDS communities have suffered loss and hardship, in many instances they have displayed significant coping capacities developed over centuries to deal with societal and environmental change [46].

This local knowledge would be useful for developing EbA strategies. It is however, important not to over-romanticise local knowledge, aspects of which may also be contributing to increased vulnerability or ‘mal-adaptation’. It is essential that an assessment of both local and external knowledge is undertaken in order to integrate that knowledge, either local or external to a community which best strengthens community and ecosystem resilience [18,47].

There are a number of examples worldwide demonstrating the use of local and external knowledge in relation to ecosystem management [48,49]. In addition, whilst not always directly focused on ecosystems per se, yet nonetheless covering aspects of ecosystems, there are large numbers of case studies outlining use of local knowledge to address climate change impacts such as in Samoa [50], Kenya [51], Uganda [52], New Zealand [53], Mongolia [54], India [55] and Mexico [56]. The SIDS-specific case studies which directly invoke EbA are mostly found within reports from conservation organisations with IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, BirdLife International, Conservation International and WWF being key advocates of EbA for the Caribbean [11]. Table 2 outlines some examples of specific SIDS case studies from the Caribbean and beyond which use local and external expertise for EbA and/or CCA.

One of the key principles of EbA is combining different knowledge forms for local implementation [17,60]. Despite this, there is no single identified systematic way of integrating local and external knowledge for EbA, specifically in SIDS given their vulnerability to climate change impacts [61]. For the most part the projects in Table 2, whilst outlining a need to integrate local and external knowledge, do not outline specific methods or ‘ways of doing so’ beyond stakeholder consultation and discussion.

Through a desk-based literature review ten methodologies have been identified within the wider field of DRR and CCA which specifically address knowledge integration and could potentially be viable for EbA. These methodologies fall into two specific categories; (a) networks or consortia (for which two examples are given) and (b) participatory planning and techniques (for which eight examples are given).

There are a large number of networks and consortia addressing climate change and risk reduction issues, but there are few which focus on the need to integrate local and external expertise, especially for SIDS. One such network developed and established in 2005 is a consortium of organisations, researchers and policy makers from the Arctic and SIDS called ‘Many Strong Voices’ (MSV) [62]. MSV aims to advance mutual learning and exchange of knowledge, research and expertise on climate change within and between the Arctic and SIDS. The strengths of MSV include its community-driven nature, ensuring Arctic and SIDS voices are heard at international, national and local levels; the accessibility of forums to share and exchange knowledge; contributions to local organisational capacity building over extended time periods; engagement in policy-relevant integrated research incorporating local and external knowledge; and a recognition of linkages with natural resource management alongside the need to maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems [3]. MSV depends on interaction and facilitation of key member organisations to ensure local voices are heard. Furthermore, given its global nature it relies on a virtual network and electronic communication, not always accessible to SIDS and Arctic communities.

Addressing these limitations, further lessons for Caribbean SIDS could be drawn from the Arctic region’s ‘Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic’ (ELOKA). Similarly to MSV, although centred upon another region, the goal of ELOKA [63,64] is to facilitate the collection, preservation, exchange, and use of local observations and Arctic knowledge by providing data management and user support, and to foster collaboration between local and international researchers. Local knowledge and observations are documented in the language of choice by knowledge holders so nothing is lost ‘in translation’ and different methods are used for collection, e.g., drama, video, and photos. This ensures local knowledge remains within communities and all details are preserved, yet the use of different tools and methods often results in the production of many different but interrelated data sets. For example, a single observation/knowledge documentation could produce any or all of: text documents, ethical research documents, tables, works of art, articles of clothing, audio and video recordings, transcripts of records, photographs, animations, maps, Global Positioning System (GPS) tracks, local gazetteers, local dictionaries and other linguistic materials and local weather station data. This is in addition to complementary scientific information including topographic maps and satellite images.

Lessons could be learnt from MSV and ELOKA to create a ‘sub-network’ for Caribbean SIDS building upon local Caribbean knowledge and external expertise for EbA, and creating context specific tools and resources. Given a climate change coordination body, the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) already exists there is opportunity to directly engage local communities to build creative partnerships for EbA building upon lessons from MSV and ELOKA. In doing so, further thought needs to be given to the documentation and use of local knowledge for EbA.

ELOKA, for example, documents the local knowledge in depth but struggles to ensure this information is available to a wide variety of end users including local community members given each user group has different access needs and requires information in different formats. However, caution is needed in presenting local knowledge in the absence of its local and cultural context because it may not be applicable to all other situations [65]. This lends further support to the need for a regional Caribbean network hosting local and external knowledge for EbA. Significant technical and methodological support is required to establish effective and appropriate means of recording, storing and managing data and information resulting from the documentation of local knowledge and to link this information in a way that is intuitive and flexible with scientific information. As with MSV and ELOKA, the engagement between outside researchers, experts and community members needs to be sustained over extended time periods to ensure sustainability.

Additional methodologies for integrating local and external expertise revolve around participatory planning techniques. Eight specific methodologies are identified (see also Table 3), reflecting the integration of local and external expertise for CCA and/or DRR, therefore being potentially viable for EbA. These are:

Of these methodologies, RiVAMP was the only one developed specifically in a Caribbean SIDS (Jamaica) for EbA. RiVAMP was established to design an assessment tool accounting for ecosystem and climate change factors within disaster risk and vulnerability analysis [66]. The project aimed to assist national and local government decision makers in evaluating their development options effectively by recognising the role of ecosystems in reducing risk and adapting to climate change impacts. The targeted end users for RiVAMP were national and local level government decision makers, whereas for EbA the stress is on the need to involve ‘users of ecosystems’ and ‘local communities’ in local level decision making. The RiVAMP process has not appeared to strengthen the capacity of local community based organisations nor contribute to education to assist community members understand linkages between ecosystem restoration and conservation, and CCA.

RiVAMP, Adaptive Co-Management and Co-Research, Participatory Planning and the Process Framework are all forms of participatory planning methods within which methods including Scenario planning, Participatory Tools, P3DM and PGIS are used in attempts to reach acceptable solutions applicable to all stakeholders. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these methodologies are summarised in Table 3.

The overarching themes emerging are communication and the need to establish trust and linkages amongst wide varieties of stakeholders. That is alongside linking bottom-up and top-down actions. This is often a difficult task which needs to be sustained over long periods of time, made difficult by often short duration donor funded project periods in Caribbean SIDS. All the methodologies including the two networks outlined are consultative and encourage local level decision-making and action to address risk reduction including climate change impacts. In addition, all the methodologies recognise a need for sustainable natural resource management strategies, but this has not necessarily been connected to EbA (with the exception of RiVAMP). A need to validate local knowledge and ensure its accessibility to outside stakeholders has also been outlined although only P3DM, PGIS and to some extent ELOKA have made movements towards this.

Despite local support for the methods and their apparent advantages, there has been little in-depth analysis of them. In order to support EbA and its key principles, it is necessary to evaluate these approaches in more detail for Caribbean SIDS, identifying singular or mixed methods which would work within the Caribbean context for EbA. Taking advantage of the diversity of Caribbean SIDS would be particularly important in order to compare and contrast different sites to determine differences and similarities based on local distinctiveness. Furthermore, any local knowledge identified and recorded needs to be assessed for its efficacy and validity in addressing climate change impacts. In turn, external, scientific information needs to be provided in a format easily usable and understandable for local communities. That would contribute to achieving effective integration of knowledge forms to take place for EbA in Caribbean SIDS.

The review of CCA initiatives in the Caribbean SIDS outlined in this paper reflects experience in using EbA. As shown in presenting these initiatives, they are currently ad hoc without much of a uniform approach across the Caribbean, either at regional, national or local levels, especially with regards to integrating local and external knowledge. Whilst it is appropriately accepted that a ‘one size fits all’ attitude would be inappropriate due to local distinctiveness, there could be some benefit to consolidating existing approaches for comparative purposes, to learn from each other and to identify good practices—even while recognising their contextuality. Such an approach could provide some practical guidance to help improve implementation and knowledge integration across scales within Caribbean SIDS, especially if generic principles were identified which applied to numerous, disparate case studies.

This section identifies the main gaps and lessons from the material in this paper to indicate ways forward in the conclusions.

Gap 1: EbA stresses the need to build on local knowledge, yet integrating local and external knowledge for EbA rarely occurs in practice.

A wide range of CCA activities are underway or have been completed in Caribbean SIDS. Ranging from region-wide to local initiatives, many mention ‘ecosystems’ in some form [33]. Nevertheless, at the regional and national levels, little reference is given specifically to EbA and the integration of local and external knowledge.

In contrast, at the local level, EbA has been applied in SIDS such as Haiti and Belize to develop appropriate context-specific options based on local and external knowledge. As increased attention is being paid to local knowledge and the need to integrate this with external knowledge by International development and conservation organisations, along with government development agencies, many local level projects implemented by these donors and their local partners stress the need to incorporate local knowledge into project activities. How that is achieved in practice is not always fully articulated, despite the methods available discussed in Section 4. These methods all entail a high degree of interaction and communication amongst the project parties, based on mutual respect, trust, and understanding for different viewpoints. The methodologies outlined are starting points, yet to facilitate the integration of different knowledge bases for EbA, further evaluation, consolidation and development of these methodologies within SIDS would be useful.

There is a particular need to respect the cultural particularities of all communities, including Indigenous peoples, to ensure smooth implementation and local support [76]. With such principles already established in research and policy, coordination amongst stakeholders would assist in implementing them in practice, particularly with regards to the integration of local and external knowledge [77].

Gap 2: EbA is a modern term yet a wealth of past knowledge and actions have not been integrated into adaptation.

Expanding the term’s scope would be useful for drawing on past work which may have incorporated local and external knowledge. Since EbA is a modern term, applying it would benefit from building upon the vast literature available on ‘ecosystem-based management’ and ‘ecosystem management’, the breadth and depth of which is often not fully considered in contemporary approaches. The use of the term EbA as a ‘buzzword’ may suitably contribute to accessing available funds, yet organisations need to be mindful of literature and experiences developed prior to the introduction of the term ‘EbA’ and how local and external knowledge were incorporated within this. Recognising past contributions, and improving them, can assist in filling in other gaps in EbA and in identifying options for knowledge integration.

Gap 3: Work and studies on Caribbean SIDS focus upon coastal and offshore marine ecosystems, not highlighting the diverse range of ecosystems present within Caribbean SIDS, especially inland.

One significant area for improvement regarding EbA in Caribbean SIDS is that, whether specifically termed EbA or more generally termed CCA (which incorporates ecosystems), coastal and off shore marine ecosystems dominate the discussion. That is not unreasonable for SIDS. Yet SIDS also have inland ecosystems which should be part of EbA [86], especially since all ecosystems are tightly linked in small islands. As an example, coastal communities in Haiti experience exacerbated floods due to deforestation upstream [87]. Consequently, successful EbA along the coast would necessitate management of upland forest ecosystems. In turn this would require building upon the knowledge of local communities upstream and downstream in addition to relevant and applicable external knowledge. Further research regarding the diverse range of ecosystems in Caribbean SIDS and their interaction, alongside the identification of applicable local and external knowledge to facilitate the development of EbA is essential for developing EbA strategies, even for a coastal location.

Lesson 1: There is a need to identify and highlight information on local and external knowledge for EbA.

From such discussion, one overall lesson is that specifics on what does and does not exist regarding local and external knowledge for EbA are often lacking, instead lapsing into relatively generic descriptions of enacting EbA or community consultation. The ten methodologies reviewed in Section 4 go some way towards identifying ‘how’ to integrate local and external knowledge for action on the ground, with the references given often detailing step-by-step methods and providing raw data which are then analysed step-by-step. That provides a starting point for new projects, since any method would need to be contextualised for the community in which EbA is being implemented. In many cases, though, quite rightly, EbA activities are often not differentiated from non-EbA activities, instead recognising EbA as part of wider CCA processes and CCA as part of wider development processes.

Recognising these wider processes is important for engaging local people. Most people living in the Caribbean SIDS tend to have immediate life and livelihood concerns including health, water, and food. Thus, it can be challenging to engage them in EbA (or other development) projects on the basis of long-term benefits. Instead, some immediate gains need to be demonstrated. To show that, thereby encouraging community engagement, small-scale demonstration projects incorporating local and external knowledge with explicit, immediate benefits can be helpful. Examples to emulate are from a pilot project in Jamaica [66] and a full-scale project in Samoa [57].

Lesson 2: Use local champions.

EbA initiatives would also benefit from local champions. As MSV does and as is done within wider DRR, initiatives involving local community members can sometimes be enhanced by resident champions who promote the project, thereby generating enthusiasm within the community [88]. Local champions can be key to initiating and encouraging community engagement, educating community members and establishing links amongst community members, local government and other stakeholders to facilitate uptake of project ideas, integration of local and external knowledge and continuity of any intervention.

Lesson 3: Draw upon past development experience.

EbA initiatives should draw on past development experience, such as from protected area implementation, to better identify and resolve competing interests and goals within the community [89]. Frequently, false assumptions exist that communities are homogenous or that local knowledge is one coherent entity [65,90]. Instead, many different sectors hold different viewpoints and goals do not always align, especially regarding the integration of knowledge. Many of the techniques discussed in Section 4 are designed to air differing opinions, especially from minorities, so that perspectives can be acknowledged and integrated into final actions as best as feasible, usually with compromises required from all parties.

Lesson 4: Regular monitoring and evaluation is required.

The success of these approaches and of EbA and CCA more widely, requires on-going monitoring and evaluation focused upon the successes and challenges of approaches used to integrate local and external knowledge. Given how frequently EbA is mentioned without fully describing it, it is particularly important to determine how effective it is to just mention ‘ecosystems’ in project or program activity compared to detailing the ecosystems involved, the knowledge available and how this can contribute to CCA and wider development activities. Monitoring and evaluation require both internal and external input; that is, both locals and non-locals should be involved, providing their own observations and interpretations. Consequently, monitoring and evaluation to ensure effectiveness and continuity of any EbA work, needs to combine local and external knowledge, returning to the baseline of one of the main principles of successful EbA.

From this review of EbA in Caribbean SIDS, focusing on the integration of local and external knowledge, three main ways forward are suggested to address the identified gaps for EbA in Caribbean SIDS and potentially further afield.

First and foremost, there is a need to design more encompassing, more locally-based processes to integrate EbA with existing mechanisms and approaches for CCA in Caribbean SIDS communities. Research would involve further field testing and refinement of EbA approaches which explicitly integrate local and external knowledge in selected communities and for a diverse range of ecosystems are required in order to scale up successful EbA initiatives. Since Caribbean SIDS are diverse, an exciting opportunity exists to compare and contrast across locations which would help to indicate how contexts and local distinctiveness lead to different outcomes. That would provide scientific backing to identify good-practice case studies in Caribbean SIDS, indicating where problems resulted so that those problems could be solved would be a useful contribution to the scientific literature and for policy advice regarding knowledge integration.

In many instances, an important lesson is that relatively simple interventions, even in the form of networking and information/story sharing, can result in beneficial results [91]. Innovation should be promoted, but newness is not always a criterion to ensure that EbA integrating local and external knowledge works adequately. Often, a ‘back to basics’ approach—especially regarding the long history of knowledge on ecosystem management—involving all actors can yield solid results for EbA. Much earlier research has been neglected or forgotten, yet is now being made available [92], providing a resource for building on the past scientific foundation to extend research today.

The second way forward is to enhance information sharing across ecosystems and communities to ensure local and external knowledge is available in usable formats for all stakeholders. The cataloguing of knowledge and an assessment of knowledge efficacy in addressing climate change impacts would significantly enhance the development and subsequent implementation of EbA strategies. Methods need to be researched, piloted, and published before implementing them full-scale in practice.

Establishing strong ‘inter-community’ and ‘inter-island’ networks and exchanges to foster knowledge building and sharing on EbA would contribute to the identification and cataloguing of beneficial local knowledge for EbA. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of any approach implemented would enable lessons to be learnt and applied so that transferrable aspects of good practices could be replicated across other ecosystems and in other Caribbean SIDS.

The third way forward is to empower communities to act. There is a need to implement known means by which communities can enact EbA for themselves and access external knowledge across diverse ecosystems in Caribbean SIDS. The planning, development and implementation of a training-of-trainers programme promoting ‘community-to-community’ learning and exchange for EbA would contribute to an evidence base to support integrating local and external knowledge in Caribbean SIDS.

The development of research and practice tools, materials and guidance on incorporating ecosystem-based approaches integrating local and external knowledge into adaptation planning (or policies and structures) at local and national levels would enhance linkages with wider governance processes. These need to be specific and to discuss contextuality better than most current work. That is one need within research, in terms of more studies which select a specific case site, tailor methods to that site’s contextuality, and compare the contextualisation across different sites in order to glean an understanding on what site characteristics lead to similarities and differences for EbA. The applicability and relevance of such approaches should be demonstrated through using simple impact measurement indices at the local level. These should be developed and designed as applied research projects in partnership with communities in order to measure the success of EbA approaches integrating local and external expertise.

A coordination entity already exists in the form of the CCCCC which could take leadership. Whilst the CCCCC is an excellent coordination body, well representing the Caribbean region for climate change topics, there is sometimes limited mention of community consultation, or of specific mechanisms for community consultation, in developing large regional projects focusing on CCA and community benefits. Undertaking an in-depth analysis of EbA interventions integrating local and external knowledge would highlight the importance of EbA approaches and their ability to address climate change impacts, whilst situating them within wider CCA and development processes within Caribbean SIDS and beyond.