Risk-framing governmentalities in a changing climate: political rationalities and discursive fields

Abstract

This article analyzes de political rationalities and discursive fields informing the articulation between disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Through critical discourse analysis, the study examines regulatory frameworks, public policies and national plans adopted between 2015 and 2024. The research identifies four dominant discursive fields: evidence-based decision-making, urgent climate

action, common but differentiated responsibilities, and compensation for damages and losses. Findings suggest a multilevel epistemic coloniality, privileging global agendas, future climate scenarios, impact modeling, and risk financialization. As a result, technocratic approaches and reactive measures prevail, limiting the problematization of structural causes of vulnerability.

Keywords:
governmentality; risk management; climate adaptation; Andean Region

Resumen

Este artículo analiza las racionalidades políticas y los campos discursivos que enmarcan la articulación entre la gestión del riesgo de desastres y la adaptación al cambio climático en Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. Mediante un análisis crítico del discurso, el estudio examina los marcos regulatorios, las políticas públicas y los planes nacionales adoptados entre 2015 y 2024. La investigación identifica cuatro campos discursivos dominantes: la toma de decisiones basada en la evidencia, la urgencia de la acción climática, las responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas, y la compensación por daños y pérdidas. Los hallazgos sugieren una colonialidad epistémica multinivel, que privilegia las agendas globales, los escenarios climáticos futuros, la modelización del impacto y la financiarización del riesgo. Como consecuencia, prevalecen los enfoques tecnocráticos y las medidas reactivas que restringen la problematización de las causas estructurales de la vulnerabilidad.

Palabras clave:
gubernamentalidad; gestión de riesgos; adaptación climática; Región Andina

Resumo

Este artigo analisa as racionalidades políticas e os campos discursivos que informam a articulação entre a gestão de riscos de desastres e a adaptação às mudanças climáticas na Bolívia, Colômbia, Equador e Peru. Por meio da análise crítica do discurso, o estudo examina marcos regulatórios, políticas públicas e planos nacionais adotados entre 2015 e 2024. A pesquisa identifica quatro campos discursivos dominantes: tomada de decisão baseada em evidências, ação climática urgente, responsabilidades comuns, porém diferenciadas, e compensação por danos e perdas. As descobertas sugerem uma colonialidade epistêmica multinível, privilegiando agendas globais, cenários climáticos futuros, modelagem de impacto e financeirização de riscos. Como consecuencia, prevalecem abordagens tecnocráticas e medidas reativas, limitando a problematização das causas estruturais da vulnerabilidade.

Palavras-chave:
governamentalidade; gestão de riscos; adaptação climática; Região Andina

1. INTRODUCTION

Disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) have evolved as distinct yet intertwined analytical concepts and political rationalities. While both involve risk monitoring, vulnerability reduction, and resilience-building, they differ in purpose, temporal scales, knowledge bases, and governance frameworks (Birkmann & Teichman, 2010; Klein et al., 2015). DRM studies have challenged the nexus between risks, development models, and the environment, shifting the focus from hazards to vulnerabilities (Alcántara-Ayala, 2019; García-Acosta, 2005, 2018). The key message is that disasters are not natural (Maskrey, 1993). The #NoNaturalDisasters campaign seeks to reframe terminology, emphasizing that while hazards may be natural, disasters are human-made. The concern for disaster risk prevention stems from critical academic reflection, particularly from the Latin American Network for Social Studies in Disaster Prevention (founded in 1992), which has influenced national, regional, and international policies (Lavell, 1996). The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) further framed climate risk management, highlighting the interaction between climate variability, vulnerability, and exposure.

As a policy field, DRM adopts a broader perspective on potential hazards, requiring concrete actions to reduce vulnerability, address short-term risks, and respond to disasters. However, DRM often confronts pragmatic expectations from the field of extreme event management. Addressing the root causes of disasters clashes with the logic of public action, which tends to perpetuate the status quo rather than drive structural change (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). The critical dimension of vulnerability weakens as it becomes institutionalized and structures international action (Revet & Metzger, 2024). Some argue that its dilution as an analytical category is a condition for its global success as a category of action (Revet, 2021). Thus, the focus shifts to disaster risk governance, avoiding explicit public policies that reduce vulnerability (Stengers, 2013).

Meanwhile, the climate change narrative has dominated environmental issues, leading to a “climatization” of environmental concerns (Almeida et al., 2024). Climate change polarizes diverse public policies, from agriculture (Caldas & Massardier, 2020) to urban agendas (Carrión & Rebotier, 2025) and risk management (Aykut, 2020). However, the concrete implications of this pervasive narrative are heterogeneous (Hrabanski & Montouroy, 2022). Initially, mitigation emerged as a coordinated capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, followed by adaptation as a means of adjusting to global warming. Yet, after three decades of global negotiations, substantial progress in mitigation or adaptation commitments remains elusive. Faced with the inability to meet agreed-upon targets, scientific evidence of rising global temperatures, and increasing extreme climate events, the concept of “loss and damage” has emerged as a key governmentality (Jackson et al., 2023).

During global negotiations, the connections between these rationalities have not been straightforward (Lyster, 2020; Wen et al., 2023). For public action, climate change is linked to long-term systemic inertia, the incorporation of harmful impacts into social functioning, and the growing responsibility of local actors. In contrast, disaster risk management is characterized by vertical, institutionally structured interventions focused on events. In tandem, two institutional worlds are taking shape — from municipal governments to the United Nations system — introducing competition for resources, budgets, and the legitimacy of the dominant narrative.

However, there is increasing evidence that extreme and slow-onset weather events are linked to global warming, but disasters result from the materialization of latent conditions (Field et al., 2012; IPCC, 2023). The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) achieved some consensus among DRM and CCA experts (Cardona, 2012). Despite efforts to align positions around sustainable development and resilience, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework have fostered differential approaches among multilateral organizations and international cooperation. Global conferences, assessments, and strategies remain disjointed, with greater resources, funding, and accountability mechanisms associated with the climate regime.

The evolution of discursive fields has not been without criticism. The climatization of disasters includes labeling some crises as “climate change disasters,” naturalizing climate phenomena, distancing them from other risks, providing cover for administrative negligence, and creating a sense of urgency for financial aid (Grant et al., 2015). This obscures the root causes of vulnerability, while scientific knowledge claims and technocratic interventions take center stage. The goal becomes addressing the adverse effects of climate change and compensating victims, rather than questioning structural inequalities or politicizing risk management.

The strengthening of evidence-based management, detached from ideology, is an argument for more technical and practical perspectives. However, defending the absence of ideology is itself an ideology (Lefort, 2010), reinforcing asymmetries between discourses and the interest groups that promote them, favoring dominant groups. The discursive space of risks and responses is structured by rationalities that contribute to the hegemony of current technical, instrumental, and supposedly apolitical approaches. These rationalities correspond to frameworks of thought that structure regimes of truth and forms of authority. In line with the analytical axes introduced in this special issue (Porto de Oliveira & Maillet, 2024), this article examines how political rationalities and climate narratives in the Andean Region are configured within a multilevel governance framework, institutional capacities, and the circulation of policy instruments. By analyzing the articulation between disaster risk management and climate adaptation through the lens of governmentality, the research directly engages with the special issue’s themes regarding Latin American specificities, the centrality of policy instruments, and the production and circulation of climate knowledge.

2. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Theoretical Framework: Political Rationalities, Technologies of Government, and Strategic Action Fields

Michel Foucault introduced the concept of “governmentality” to describe “the ensemble formed by institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, calculations, and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific, albeit complex, form of power, which has as its target population, as its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security” (Foucault, 2006, p. 136). This term combines “government” and “mentality” to express the regimes of truth that underpin practices aimed at structuring the field of action of others, guiding their behavior and its potential effects (Dean, 2009; Foucault, 2000).

Rose and Miller (1992) propose studying governance in terms of political rationalities and technologies of government. Political rationalities are discursive fields within which the exercise of power is conceptualized, including moral justifications for appropriate political conduct, epistemological conceptions of the nature of governed bodies, and the intellectual machinery that makes reality thinkable. Dominant discourses reveal the reflections, objectives, and aspirations informing projects toward particular ends (Rose et al., 2006). Language plays a performative role, enabling the conceptualization and articulation of governance forms (Rose & Miller, 1992, p. 177).

Technologies of government include institutions, norms, structures, programs, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents, procedures, and practices that operationalize governmental ambitions (Rose & Miller, 1992, p. 175). The art of governing can be achieved at a distance, through domains outside formal politics—such as technical knowledge, philanthropy, or pastoral power (Rose & Miller, 1992, p. 188). In some cases, experts extract contested issues from the political sphere and relocate them within a discursive production of scientific truths. Expertise can also support processes that concentrate, intensify, and defend both power and authority.

Jessop (2008) proposes interpreting political rationalities in three moments: sketching the genealogy, understanding the trajectory, and identifying the emergent fields of strategic action. This involves exploring variations in objects, subjects, purposes, and government technologies; the selection of certain technologies and practices over others; and the retention of some as they integrate into state or class strategies with connected interests. The circulation and adoption of political rationalities and technologies of government require mechanisms of appropriation, questioning, and reinterpretation at the local level (Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018).

In this analysis, we propose incorporating the multifaceted matrix of coloniality to capture the diversity of mechanisms involved in political rationalities and government technologies. The circulation of power is also a function of the multiple structures of the social world (Lefort, 2010), where coloniality of being, knowledge, and power manifests. The social status of individuals, the hierarchy of knowledge, and the possibility of autonomous decision-making depend on a position within a modernity born from European colonialism that largely organizes the world (Quijano, 2007). A dual process of domination emerges — relations of force based on divergent interests and colonial domination based on different positions in Eurocentric modernity — shaping the specific circulation and experience of hegemonic environmental rationalities.

2.2. Methodological Framework: Discourse Analysis to Study Political Rationalities

Political rationalities and government technologies are expressed in public policy instruments, which define what is desirable and possible through governmental action. Discourse analysis helps recognize manifest and latent messages within texts, which must be deconstructed to explore their fields of power and dispute (Fairclough, 2003, 2013). The methodology examines documents to identify dominant narratives, understanding how a topic is constructed as a public problem requiring resolution. Thus, discourse analysis questions how certain concepts and discursive practices are used, normalized, and resisted in the ongoing construction of power across public management and among actors at different levels of government.

The research question is: What are the political rationalities and discursive fields underlying the construction of the public problem at the interface between disaster risk management and climate change adaptation? Two interpretations can be formulated. The first hypothesis is that the rationalities at play convey multilevel political positions. The discourses articulating disaster risk management with climate change adaptation adhere to a discursive field constructed at the global scale but evolving locally. They can be understood as technologies of power, shaping decisions, behaviors, and initiatives according to social scales and positions. A second hypothesis is the colonial dimension in the materialization of these rationalities, their circulation, and their hegemony at the expense of others. From Latin America, this can be understood as the “eclipse of the other” (Dussel, 1994), due to the disqualification of alternative representations and rationalities different from the dominant global frameworks pertaining to environmental management, strongly attuned to climate change concerns.

This study includes a review of regulatory frameworks, public policies, and national plans on climate change, risk management, and development planning in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, adopted between 2015 and December 2024. It seeks to highlight convergences, conflicts, and potential synergies between the rationalities underlying these instruments. This period is particularly important for understanding these rationalities, as it synthesizes the transformation and convergence between these two public policy sectors. Debates on CCA have evolved to reflect advances in scientific knowledge and social priorities in the face of global warming, which is increasingly present and demonstrable, with a greater sense of urgency in climate action. DRM regulations denote a shift from reactive approaches to extreme events toward a proactive management for risk reduction. Additionally, to understand the transmission of public policy across levels of government, the research includes methodological guides and guidelines for integrating DRM and CCA into subnational territorial planning and land-use management. The study draws on participant observation and pedagogical materials for training local leaders, enabling reflection on the resources and limitations local governments face in complying with national regulations.

3. TECHNOLOGIES OF GOVERNMENT: REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS, PUBLIC POLICIES, AND PLANNING GUIDELINES

The global commitments established in the Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, motivated transformations in regulatory frameworks, public policies, and planning guidelines. The objective was to create governance mechanisms in a rapidly developing sector (see Table 1). Initially, DRM and CCA developed independently, with few connections. However, the recognition of the systemic nature of risk and the growing evidence of climate event impacts have driven greater articulation between disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA), as highlighted by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), as cross-cutting issues in public management (Field et al., 2012; UNDRR, 2024a).

At the regional level, the Andean Community (2017) enacted the Andean Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (EAGRD), an instrument aimed at contributing to sustainable development by promoting and implementing policies, instruments, and measures to reduce vulnerability and improve resilience. These advances are supported by institutional innovations following major events such as El Niño, which spurred voluntary state action through programs like PREANDINO and PREDECAN. Concurrently, national disaster risk management laws were enacted in Peru (2011), Colombia (2012), Bolivia (2014), and Ecuador (2024). Regarding climate change, there is no regional regulatory framework. Countries independently formulated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) to meet international commitments and timelines (Comisión Europea, 2019; Montero & Veramatus, 2023).

Such transformation has two relevant contextual characteristics for this analysis. First, extreme events as La Niña in 2010 in Colombia, the 2016 earthquake in Ecuador, and the 2017 Coastal El Niño phenomenon reactivated public and legislative debates on the need for specific regulations and public policies for comprehensive disaster risk management, considering their impact on the domestic economy and highlighting the need to promote citizen participation, macroeconomic stability, and accountability mechanisms. However, risk management has limited resources to implement a programmatic agenda. Meanwhile, multilateral cooperation prioritizes humanitarian response to emergencies or funds associated with climate commitments.

According to the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), political reforms — both neoliberal and progressive — have promoted decentralization as a key principle for risk management and climate change adaptation (Almeida et al., 2022; GFDRR, 2022). Historically, DRM has been governed hierarchically by high national or local authorities. CCA, on the other hand, falls under environmental authorities but requires political leadership to strengthen existing capacities and explore inter-institutional synergies. However, the inclusion of DRM and CCA in the public policy agenda does not always translate into strengthened structures, capacities, and resources to effectively integrate these two programmatic agendas at the national or local level. Thus, institutional reforms face political priorities of the moment, with limited capacities to address structural problems. This is compounded by an unequal epistemic struggle associated with the advance of extractivism, local environmental degradation, and the global organization of environmental governance, which does not recognize environmental injustices at the territorial scale. In other words, the functional challenge is inconsistent with the scope of responsibilities, and the dilemma becomes evident as overlapping rationalities.

TABLE 1
DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TECHNOLOGIES OF GOVERNMET

Country	Technologies of Government	Disaster Risk Management	Climate Change Adaptation
Bolivia	Institutional Framework:	● National Council for Risk Reduction and Disaster/Emergency Response - CONARADE	● Plurinational Authority of Mother Earth
		● National System for Risk Reduction and Disaster/Emergency Response - SISRADE	● Ministry of Environment and Water
		● Ministry of Defense, Vice Ministry of Civil Defense - VIDECI
	Regulatory Frameworks, Public Policies, and Guidelines on Territorial Planning	● Risk Management Law (Law 602, 2014)	● Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well (Law 300, 2012)
		● National Disaster Risk Management Program of Bolivia (2017)	● Plurinational Climate Change Policy (2023); Nationally Determined Contribution 2021-2030 (2022)
		● Basic Guidelines and Tools for the Development of Municipal Emergency Plans (2016)	● Methodological Guidelines for the Formulation of Community Territorial Management Plans for Living Well (2016)
Colombia	Institutional Framework:	● National Council for Disaster Risk Management	● Intersectoral Commission on Climate Change (CICC)
		● National System for Disaster Risk Management	● National Climate Change System (SISCLIMA)
		● National Office for Disaster Risk Management	● National Authority: Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development
	Regulatory Frameworks, Public Policies, and Guidelines on Territorial Planning	● National Disaster Risk Management Policy and Law of the National Risk Management System (Law 1523, 2012)	● Guidelines for Climate Change Management (Law 1931, 2018); Climate Action Law (Law 2169, 2021)
		● National Disaster Risk Management Plan 2015-2030 (updated 2023)	● Nationally Determined Contribution (2020), National Adaptation Plan (2016)
		● Guide for the Integration of Disaster Risk Management in Territorial Development Plans 2020-2023; Guide for the Integration of Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Territorial Development Plans (2024)	● Guide for the Formulation and Implementation of Territorial Climate Change Management Plans (2022); Technical Guide for the Integration of Climate Variability with Disaster Risk Management at the Territorial Level (2018); Guide for the Integration of Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Territorial Development Plans (2024)
Ecuador	Institutional Framework:	● National Committee for Risk Reduction; Emergency Operations Committee	● Interinstitutional Committee on Climate Change
		● National Decentralized System for Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management	● National Authority: Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition (MAATE)
		● National Secretariat for Risk Management
	Regulatory Frameworks, Public Policies, and Guidelines on Territorial Planning	● Organic Law for Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management (ROS 488, 2024)	● Organic Environmental Code (2017)
		● National Comprehensive Security Plan - Specific Risk Management Plan 2019-2030 (2019)	● National Climate Change Strategy 2012-2025 (2013); Nationally Determined Contribution (2019), National Adaptation Plan 2023-2027 (2023)
		● Guidelines for the Inclusion of Disaster Risk Management in Development and Land Use Plans (PDOT) (2019)	● Guidelines for Climate Change Plans in Autonomous Governments (MAATE, 2014); Toolkit for the Integration of Climate Change Criteria in Development and Land Use Plans (MAATE, 2019)
Peru	Institutional Framework:	● National Council for Disaster Risk Management	● High Level Commission on Climate Change
		● National Disaster Risk Management System (SINAGERD)	● Ministry of the Environment of Peru (MINAM)
		● Secretariat for Disaster Risk Management (SGRD)
	Regulatory Frameworks, Public Policies, and Guidelines on Territorial Planning	● Law of the National Disaster Risk Management System (SINAGERD) (Law 29664, 2011)	● Framework Law on Climate Change (Law 30754, 2018)
		● National Disaster Risk Management Policy - 2050 (2021); National Disaster Risk Management Plan (PLANAGERD) (2022)	● National Climate Change Strategy (2015), Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) (2020), National Climate Change Adaptation Plan of Peru (PNA) (2020)
		● Methodological Guide for Developing Disaster Prevention and Risk Reduction Plans at the Three Levels of Government (2016)	● Methodological Guidelines for the Formulation and Update of Local Climate Change Plans (2022)

• Note: The table includes the institutional frameworks providing strategic guidance, as well as national regulations, public policies, and guidelines for integrating DRM and CCA in subnational government planning, in force as of 2024.
• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

4. POLITICAL RATIONALITIES: DISCURSIVE FIELDS FOR CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT

The rationalities articulating disaster risk management and climate change adaptation have evolved into discursive fields through four dominant discourses: 1) The need for scientific knowledge to assess, understand, and manage risks according to future climate scenarios; 2) The climate emergency as the greatest economic, social, and environmental threat to the planet and humanity; 3) The common but differentiated responsibilities for the adverse effects of global warming; 4) The compensation for loss and damage as a moral imperative to ensure that “no one is left behind” in the climate crisis. The evolution of these rationalities includes technologies of government to reorient governmental efforts but also confronts strategic fields of action, which sometimes connect with epistemic disputes pertaining to the development model (see Table 2).

TABLE 2
POLITICAL RATIONALITIES, DISCURSIVE FIELDS, TECHNOLOGIES OF GOVERNMENT, AND STRATEGIC FIELDS OF ACTION IN CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT

Political Rationalities	Discursive Fields (reflections, objectives, and aspirations, including moral justifications for appropriate political conduct).	Government Technologies (programs, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents, and procedures)	Multilevel Strategic Action Fields (including epistemic disputes at the local level, not visible in normative instruments)
Evidence-Based Decision-Making	Scientific knowledge is necessary to assess, understand, and manage risks in accordance with future climate scenarios.	Information systems for prospective modeling	Collaborative approaches to improve the science-policy interface
		Medium- and long-term planning instruments	Ontological disputes and languages that revalue the rights of nature and Mother Earth (Pachamama)
		Monitoring, reporting, and verification of climate commitments
Urgency of Climate Action	Climate emergency is the greatest economic, social, and environmental threat facing the planet and humanity. Urgent commitment is required to increase climate ambition to ensure a habitable future.	Global commitments	Pragmatic interventions focused on concrete environmental problems (e.g., nature-based solutions, ecosystem-based adaptation)
		National regulatory frameworks
		Local capacity development
		"Act Now" campaigns
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities	Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities come in place to address for the adverse effects and economic burden of global warming.	Climate financing to support mitigation and adaptation	Socio-environmental conflicts to denounce green capitalism or extractivism associated with the energy transition
		Risk transfer mechanisms
Compensation for Loss and Damage	Climate change increases the frequency and intensity of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of communities and individuals, who require compensation for loss and damage.	Early warning systems	Social mobilization for environmental justice
		Assessment of economic and non-economic losses
		Loss and damage fund	Strategic climate litigation

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

4.1 EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING

The need for scientific knowledge — with technical expertise for the assessment, understanding, and management of risks and future climate scenarios — prevails as a discursive field in efforts to achieve evidence-based decision-making, as proposed by the Sendai Framework. The objective is to provide data, mapping, and prospective models to guide public management in terms of climate change adaptation. Analyzing climate risks involves understanding the probability of consequences associated with global warming and climate variability. Identifying vulnerable and exposed populations could facilitate the adoption of preventive measures for risk reduction. More and better science has become a purpose of the academic community. Thus, science acquires symbolic performativity to inform political practices and position certain localities as champions within global commitments. However, the scientific basis of climate rationality is not always viable or available at the necessary scale to inform local-level decisions. Moreover, it is not the only approach.

For example, Colombia positions scientific research, data recording, and knowledge management as a central requirement for territorial planning at all levels of government, subsequently guiding policies, strategies, and practices for risk reduction and climate action. The country has developed the Colombian Environmental Information System (SIAC), the most comprehensive platform in the Andean Community. However, the disaggregation of information, technical analysis, and knowledge transfer from national to local institutions remains a challenge. Also, the government has issued guidelines for integrating disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) into territorial planning (UNGRD, 2024), as well as a strategy to support local governments in joining transnational municipal networks that facilitate capacity building, experience sharing, and the systematization of best practices.

At both national and local levels, there are two strategic fields of action. From an operational perspective, governments of intermediate and small cities cannot meet the demands of formulating climate action plans in accordance with national regulations. Alliances with transnational municipal networks and multilateral organizations help promote planning instruments (Carrión & Rebotier, 2025). In some cases, these plans take on a performative role to position localities within a discursive field, leverage visibility, and attract potential donors. Additionally, the procedural requirement to socialize action proposals and improve citizen participation opens opportunities for transformation. From a more radical perspective — though without truly transformative scope — collaborative approaches at the science-policy interface can encompass plural and ancestral knowledge, including non-academic perspectives based on ethical principles and valuation languages (UNDRR, 2022, 2024b).

4.2 Urgency of climate action

The certainty that climate change poses profound risks to the planet and that the pace of action is insufficient has gained traction amid the increase in disasters caused by extreme events over the past decade. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, stated: “Climate change is the defining issue of our time […] every day we fail to act is a day we move closer to a fate none of us wants — a fate that will resonate through generations in the damage done to humanity and life on Earth” (UNDRR, 2024c). Mitigation efforts remain insufficient, and development without a risk perspective could create new vulnerabilities or lead to maladaptation. Consequently, political rationalities shift toward the most pressing, achievable, and tangible impacts of climate events. While the “climatization” of disasters may be seen as a burden in conceptual debates, it also presents an opportunity for pragmatic interventions.

Language plays a crucial role in mobilizing climate action. The social construction of risks and the anthropogenic dimensions of climate change are discourses that do not necessarily permeate public management (Hrabanski & Montouroy, 2022). Scientific knowledge is not always available, and technical terms are difficult to understand. Rather than seeking coherence in policy frameworks, there is a selective and strategic approach to policy formulation. Government technologies thus favor instruments capable of raising public awareness, mobilizing political support, and coordinating interventions. Identifying specific programs or projects can highlight the connections between sustainable development, risk management, and climate adaptation. The design of environmental projects thereby becomes a mechanism for institutional coordination across levels of government, in collaboration with academia and environmental activists, to address issues related to informal settlements, conservation strategies, and land-use zoning in sensitive and risk-prone areas.

At the local level, the environmental dimension continues to prevail as an explanatory cause of disasters. From a capitalist perspective, efforts lean toward market-based public management instruments for risk transfer and macroeconomic stability. From a modernist stance, risk-based planning, the construction of resilient infrastructure, and structural reinforcement for risk reduction are prioritized. However, in vulnerable communities, daily priorities focus on habitability conditions and livelihoods. Therefore, undertaking comprehensive risk management programs that consider long-term scenarios becomes complex. Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation have gained popularity as preventive approaches to counter the socio-environmental crisis. While this may not seem like a radical epistemic dispute, recognizing opportunities for climate action remains necessary. In this context, small-scale projects become more attractive and feasible considering the capacities and resources of local governments, despite potential unexpected effects.

4.3 Common but differentiated responsibilities

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities has become a central element of climate negotiations. This principle acknowledges that those who contribute the least to global emissions are suffering the worst impacts of the climate emergency. Additionally, developing countries have limited fiscal capacity to address the climate crisis. Consequently, the economic burden of disasters is expected to increase due to prevailing vulnerability, continuous exposure, and cumulative risks associated with global warming and climate variability. Under these circumstances, solidarity from the international community — particularly from developed countries and multilateral banks — is sought to finance mitigation and adaptation actions. International commitments require developed countries to take the lead in addressing climate impact,s but do not question historical responsibilities or internal inequalities at the national level.

For example, Bolivia has emphatically called for greater commitment and cooperation from developed countries to provide financing, technology transfer, and capacity building to address climate adaptation and risk management. However, at the national level, the claim for differentiated responsibilities clashes with the extractivist dynamics promoted in the resource-based sector by the state itself (Gudynas, 2012). Faced with the need to respond to major development challenges and the challenges of a changing climate, pragmatic options conflict with the promotion of alternative principles that advocate for “living well in harmony with Mother Earth,” “protecting the rights of Mother Earth,” or demanding “payment of the historical climate debt” from Northern countries (Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra, 2023).

This case highlights the scalar dimension of both power relations and responsibilities. Levels of government are never homogeneous, and at each scale, power relations rooted in the social construction of risks and their management intervene (Blaikie et al., 2014; García-Acosta, 2005). The current climate perspective is no exception; it connects scales from the local to the global, often highlighting tensions and contradictions. Assuming development perspectives in a changing climate without fundamentally incorporating risks and their root causes can only reproduce — and even consolidate — inequitable relations and vulnerabilities in the social world and space (Lavell & Maskrey, 2014). For instance, considering responsibilities based on identified or anticipated losses and damages is limited, as it does not account for other inequitable mechanisms involved in both the construction of risks and the structuring of the social world.

4.4 Compensation for loss and damage

The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are causing extensive losses and damages to human and natural systems (IPCC, 2023). Beyond disasters, political discourse is based on the perception of the limits of adaptation. The IPCC (2022) notes that there is a “soft limit” when options are currently unavailable to avoid intolerable risks through adaptation measures, while a “hard limit” refers to the impossibility of adopting adaptation measures to avoid intolerable risks. This is where policies for risk management, disaster response, and compensation for loss and damage come into play.

For example, Peru defines climate change adaptation measures as “planned interventions by state and non-state actors, consisting of actions, practices, technologies, and services necessary to reduce or avoid severe disruptions, losses, and damages triggered by climate-related hazards affecting populations, livelihoods, ecosystems, watersheds, territories, infrastructure, goods, and services, among others; as well as to seize opportunities arising from climate change” (Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú, 2018). This leads to the definition of indicators aimed at reducing damage, potential disruptions, and current and future losses generated by climate-related hazards. Consequently, technologies of government emerge oriented toward disaster risk reduction (e.g., monitoring and early warning systems), the assessment and transfer of economic losses (e.g., insurance and financial protection mechanisms), and support for affected communities (e.g., funds for humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction).

However, the detection and attribution of causality remain uncertain; moreover, a focus on impacts can obscure other underlying factors of vulnerability. From a critical perspective, an epistemic dispute proposes to decolonize the relationships between humans and nature, as an ethical, political, territorial, and reciprocal action with non-humans (Santamaría, 2019). Therefore, demands for environmental justice and strategic litigation have become tactics to pressure governments to enact adaptation policies, remedy the negative effects of environmental degradation, or provide compensation to victims of climate-induced disasters (Tigre et al., 2023).

5. CONCLUSION

The political rationalities articulating disaster risk management and climate change adaptation invoke the utopia of a space that can be observed, modeled, planned, and controlled. This implies a dual process. First, the creation of “governable spaces”: landscapes must be studied, calculated, analyzed, categorized, divided, and normalized to understand their dynamics in variable scenarios. Technical knowledge constitutes a basic requirement for risk assessment and adaptation mechanisms to a changing climate. Second, “ technologies of government” are required to reduce the construction of new risks, protect livelihoods, and respond to potential disasters. This perspective emphasizes territorial planning processes but also prevention and regulation mechanisms in sensitive, vulnerable, or hazardous places to “manage” risks, as well as compensation mechanisms for quantifiable loss and damage. Hence, a set of discourses, institutions, regulations, and instruments is configured through which attention to disasters and emergencies acquires prevalence as a management field for climate change adaptation.

The dominant discursive fields introduce technologies of government that draw their narrative strength from global commitments but confront national and local practices. The way these discourses are structured and function, through state commitments, gives rise to a form of epistemic coloniality in public policy instruments. It becomes difficult to think and act outside these frameworks to formulate alternative agendas based on situated experiences and freed from the limits imposed by the international environmental discourse.

A critical understanding of disaster risk governmentality in a changing climate must transcend the prospective dimension of future climate impact assessments or the modeling of economic costs of climate phenomena to encompass a more robust questioning of the structural causes of vulnerability. Meanwhile, subaltern disputes blend with what is possible, disturbing language and redefining the meaning of climate adaptation discourses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Andrea Carrión acknowledges the Urban Studies Foundation for awarding an international visiting fellowship at the TREE Laboratory (USF-INT-230901).

APPENDIX - REFERENCES TO REGULATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICIES

Bolivia

Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional de Bolivia. (2012). Ley N° 300, ley marco de la Madre Tierra y desarrollo integral para vivir bien. Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. https://www.lexivox.org/norms/BO-L-N300.html

Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional de Bolivia. (2014). Ley N° 602, ley de gestión de riesgos. Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. https://www.lexivox.org/norms/BO-DS-N2342.html

Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra de Bolivia. (2023). Política plurinacional do cambio climático. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua. https://bit.ly/3Mm7vTm

Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. (2017). Programa nacional de gestión de riesgos 2017-2021. Ministerio de Defensa; Viceministerio de Defensa Civil. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/74876_pngrd2017.pdf

Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. (2022). Contribución nacionalmente determinada 2021-2030. Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/CND%20Bolivia%202021-2030.pdf

Ministerio de Defensa de Bolivia. (2016). Lineamientos básicos y herramientas para la elaboración del plan de emergencia municipal (Serie Municipios No. 4). Viceministerio de Defensa Civil. https://bit.ly/46i2UZ8

Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo de Bolivia. (2016). Lineamientos metodológicos para la formulación de planes de gestión territorial comunitaria para vivir bien (PGTC). https://mpd.planificacion.gob.bo/uploads/PGTC5F.pdf

Colombia

Congreso de la República de Colombia. (2012). Ley 1523 de 2012, por la cual se adopta la política nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres y se establece el Sistema Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres. Diario Oficial No. 48.411. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=47141

Congreso de la República de Colombia. (2018). Ley 1931 de 2018, por la cual se establecen directrices para la gestión del cambio climático. Diario Oficial No. 50.680. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=87765

Congreso de la República de Colombia. (2021). Ley 2169 de 2021, ley de acción climática. Diario Oficial No. 51.818. https://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?id=30043747

Departamento Nacional de Planeación de Colombia. (2016). Plan nacional de adaptación al cambio climático: Reduciendo los impactos del clima en el desarrollo de Colombia. Gobierno de Colombia. https://bit.ly/4kP3oeY

Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia. (2020). Contribución nacionalmente determinada de Colombia (NDC). Gobierno de Colombia. https://bit.ly/3ZSslg9

Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia, & Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (2022). Guía para la formulación e implementación de los planes integrales de gestión del cambio climático territoriales (PIGGT). Dirección de Cambio Climático y Gestión del Riesgo. https://bit.ly/4c9320K

Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres de Colombia. (2016). Plan nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres 2015-2025. Presidencia de la República. https://portal.gestiondelriesgo.gov.co/documents/pngrd-2015-2025-version-preliminar.pdf

Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres de Colombia. (2018). Guía técnica para la integración de la variabilidad climática con la gestión del riesgo de desastres a nivel territorial. Subdirección para la Reducción del Riesgo. https://pubhtml5.com/pxou/ikdb/basic/

Unidad Nacional para para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres de Colombia. (2020). Guía para la integración de la gestión del risco de desastres en los planes de desarrollo territorial 2020-2023. https://bit.ly/4cGo3Qn

Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres de Colombia. (2023). Actualización do plano nacional de gestão do risco de desastres. https://bit.ly/4b8Ux3J

Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres de Colombia. (2024). Guía para la integración de la gestión del riesgo de desastres y la adaptación al cambio climático en los planes de desarrollo territoriales. https://bit.ly/4c5vj8i

Ecuador

Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. (2017). Código orgânico del ambiente. Registro Oficial Suplemento 983. https://bit.ly/4s8Xwjq

Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. (2024). Ley orgânica para la gestión integral del riesgo de desastres. Registro Oficial Suplemento 488. https://bit.ly/3OqrjFL

Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. (2014). Lineamientos para planes de cambio climático en gobiernos autónomos descentralizados. Acuerdo Ministerial 137, Registro Oficial 287. https://bit.ly/4rpjtuu

Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. (2019). Herramienta para la integración de criterios de cambio climático en los planes de desarrollo y ordenamiento territorial. Subsecretaria de Cambio Climático. https://bit.ly/4rpjpLg

Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua y Transición Ecológica del Ecuador. (2012). Política de estado la estrategia nacional de cambio climático 2012-2025. Acuerdo Ministerial 95, Registro Oficial Edición Especial 9. https://bit.ly/3Mm70bW

Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua y Transición Ecológica del Ecuador. (2019). Primera contribución determinada a nivel nacional del Ecuador. República del Ecuador. https://bit.ly/3MBnltl

Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua y Transición Ecológica del Ecuador. (2023). Plan nacional de adaptación al cambio climático 2023-2027. https://bit.ly/4crSYAb

Servicio Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos y Emergencias del Ecuador. (2019a). Lineamientos para incluir la gestión del riesgo de desastres en los planes de desarrollo y ordenamiento territorial (PDOT). https://bit.ly/4rupmq9

Servicio Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos y Emergencias del Ecuador. (2019b). Plan nacional integral de seguridad: Plan específico de gestión del riesgo 2019-2030. https://bit.ly/3ZMnQDQ

Peru

Centro Nacional de Estimación, Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres del Perú. (2016). Guía metodológica para elaborar el plan de prevención y reducción del riesgo de desastres en los tres niveles de gobierno. Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros. https://bit.ly/4c3jEqB

Congreso de la República del Perú. (2011). Ley N° 29664, ley que crea el Sistema Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres (SINAGERD). Diario Oficial El Peruano. https://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/29664.pdf

Congreso de la República del Perú. (2018). Ley N° 30754, ley marco sobre cambio climático. Diario Oficial El Peruano. https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/423491/Ley_N__30754.pdf

Instituto Nacional de Defensa Civil del Perú. (2022). Plan nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres (PLANAGERD). Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros. https://bit.ly/4qUmRwd

Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú. (2015). Estrategia nacional ante el cambio climático. https://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ENCC-FINAL-250915-web.pdf

Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú. (2020a). Contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional del Perú: Reporte de actualización periodo 2021-2030. Comisión de Alto Nivel de Cambio Climático. https://bit.ly/4rZZceP

Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú. (2020b). Plan nacional de adaptación al cambio climático del Perú (NAP). https://bit.ly/4kV8zdI

Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú. (2022). Lineamientos metodológicos para la formulación y actualización de planes locales de cambio climático. Viceministerio de Desarrollo Estratégico de los Recursos Naturales. https://bit.ly/4kV8AhM

Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros del Perú. (2021). Política nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres al 2050. https://bit.ly/3Osa3zT

References

• Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2019). Time in a bottle: Challenges to disaster studies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Disasters, 43(S1), S18-S27. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12325
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12325
• Almeida, M. D., Eguino, H., Reino, J. L. G., & Radics, A. (2022, June). Decentralized governance and climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Proceedings of the 2022 ICePP-World Bank Public Finance Conference, Atlanta, GA, EUA.
• Almeida, P., González Márquez, L. R., & Fonsah, E. (2024). The forms of climate action. Sociology Compass, 18(2), Artigo e13177. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13177
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13177
• Aykut, S. (2020). Climatiser le monde Quae. https://www.quae.com/produit/1622/9782759230945/climatiser-le-monde
  » https://www.quae.com/produit/1622/9782759230945/climatiser-le-monde
• Birkmann, J., & von Teichman, K. (2010). Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Key challenges-scales, knowledge, and norms. Sustainability Science, 5(2), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0108-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0108-y
• Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2014). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Caldas, E. de L., & Massardier, G. (2020). La climatisation des politiques dans un contexte de fragmentation et sectorialisation des agendas et de la mise en œuvre des instruments. Confins, (46), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.4000/CONFINS.31691
  » https://doi.org/10.4000/CONFINS.31691
• Cardona, O. D. (2012). Un marco conceptual común para la gestión del riesgo y la adaptación al cambio climático: Encuentros y desencuentros de una iniciativa insoslayable. In F. Briones(Ed.), Perspectivas de investigación y acción frente al cambio climático en Latinoamérica (pp. 13-37). La Red; Centro de Investigación en Gestión Integral de Riesgos.
• Carrión, A., & Rebotier, J. (2025). Aproximaciones al urbanismo climático: Respuestas fragmentadas desde las ciudades andinas. In F. C. Mena & J. P. Pinto-Vaca(Eds.), La reinvención de lo urbano: Las ciudades latinoamericanas en el siglo XXI (pp. 103-129). Istituto di Studi Politici “S. Pio V”; FLACSO Ecuador.
• Comisión Europea. (2019). Avances en la acción climática de América Latina: Contribuciones nacionalmente determinadas al 2019 (Serie de Estudios Temáticos EUROCLIMA+ 13). Unidade de Operações Regionais: América Latina Continental e o Caribe.
• Comunidad Andina. (2017). Estrategia andina para la gestión del riesgo de desastres - EAGRD - Decisión 819 Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina. https://www.comunidadandina.org/StaticFiles/2017522151956ESTRATEGIA%20ANDINA.pdf
  » https://www.comunidadandina.org/StaticFiles/2017522151956ESTRATEGIA%20ANDINA.pdf
• Dean, M. (2009). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Dussel, E. (1994). 1492: El encubrimiento del otro: Hacia el origen del mito de la modernidad Plural Editores.
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research Routledge.
• Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis(pp. 9-20). Routledge.
• Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., & Dahe, Q. (Eds.). (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245
• Foucault, M. (2000). Governmentality. In J. D. Faubion(Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984 (pp. 201-222). New York Press.
• Foucault, M. (2006). Seguridad, territorio, población: Curso en el Collège de France: 1977-1978 Fondo de Cultura Económica.
• García-Acosta, V. (2005). El riesgo como construcción social y la construcción social de riesgos. Desacatos, (19), 11-24.
• García-Acosta, V. (2018). Vulnerabilidad y desastres: Génesis y alcances de una visión alternativa. In M. G. de la Rocha & G. A. Saraví(Eds.), Pobreza y vulnerabilidad: Debates y estudios contemporáneos en México(pp. 212-239). CIESAS.
• Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. (2022). Disaster risk management in Latin America and the Caribbean region: GFDRR country notes The World Bank. https://dipecholac.net/docs/files/521-drm-lac-countryprograms.pdf
  » https://dipecholac.net/docs/files/521-drm-lac-countryprograms.pdf
• Grant, S., Tamason, C. C., & Jensen, P. K. M. (2015). Climatization: A critical perspective of framing disasters as climate change events. Climate Risk Management, 10, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.09.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.09.003
• Gudynas, E. (2012). Estado compensador y nuevos extractivismos: Las ambivalencias del progresismo sudamericano. Nueva Sociedad, 237, 128-146. https://www.nuso.org/articulo/estado-compensador-y-nuevos-extractivismos-las-ambivalencias-del-progresismo-sudamericano/
  » https://www.nuso.org/articulo/estado-compensador-y-nuevos-extractivismos-las-ambivalencias-del-progresismo-sudamericano/
• Hrabanski, M., & Montouroy, Y. (2022). Les “climatisations” différenciées de l’action publique: Normaliser l’étude du problème “changement climatique”. Gouvernement et Action Publique, 11(3), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.3917/GAP.223.0009
  » https://doi.org/10.3917/GAP.223.0009
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Cambio climático 2014: Impactos, adaptación y vulnerabilidad Organización Meteorológica Mundial.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Global warming of 1.5°C: IPCC special report on impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2022 - Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the sixth assessment report Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
• Jackson, G., N’Guetta, A., de Rosa, S. P., Scown, M., Dorkenoo K., Chaffin, B., & Boyd, E. (2023). An emerging governmentality of climate change loss and damage. Progress in Environmental Geography, 2(1-2), 33-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687221148748
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687221148748
• Jessop, B. (2008). State power: A strategic relational approach Polity Press.
• Klein, R. J. T., Schipper, E. L. F., Vulturius, G., Thomalla, F., & Johnson, K. (2015). Climate change and disaster risk reduction Stockholm Environment Institute.
• Lavell, A. (1996). Degradación ambiental, riesgo y desastre urbano: Problemas y conceptos: Hacia la definición de una agenda de investigación. In M. A. Fernández(Ed.), Ciudades en riesgo: Degradación ambiental, riesgos urbanos y desastres en América Latina(pp. 21-59). La Red.
• Lavell, A., & Maskrey, A. (2014). The future of disaster risk management. Environmental Hazards, 13(4), 267-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.935282
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.935282
• Lefort, I. (2010). A quel prix la géographie est-elle soluble dans l’éthique?Géographie et Culture, (74), 11-25.
• Lyster, R. (2020). Climate negotiations. In P. Tortell(Ed.), Earth 2020: An insider’s guide to a rapidly changing planet(pp. 151-160). Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0193
  » https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0193
• Maskrey, A. (1993). Los desastres no son naturales La Red.
• Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú. (2018). Reglamento de la Ley Marco sobre Cambio Climático https://www.minam.gob.pe/cambioclimatico/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2018/12/REGLAMENTO-DE-LA-LEY-MARCO-SOBRE-CAMBIO-CLIMATICO_20.12.pdf
  » https://www.minam.gob.pe/cambioclimatico/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2018/12/REGLAMENTO-DE-LA-LEY-MARCO-SOBRE-CAMBIO-CLIMATICO_20.12.pdf
• Montero, R. D. P. A., & Veramatus, M. P. G. (2023). LEDSenLAC 2022: Hacia un desarrollo bajo en emisiones y resiliente al clima en Latinoamérica y el Caribe (4th ed.). Libélula Comunicación.
• Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
• Porto de Oliveira, O., & Maillet, A. (2024, November 12). Expanding the frontiers of research on climate public policy in Latin America: Issues, cases, and approaches. Revista de Administração Pública https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/announcement/view/351
  » https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/announcement/view/351
• Porto de Oliveira, O., & Pal, L. A. (2018). New frontiers and directions in policy transfer, diffusion and circulation research: Agents, spaces, resistance, and translations. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220180078
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220180078
• Quijano, A. (2007). Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social. In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel(Eds.), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 93-126). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Siglo del Hombre Editores.
• Revet, S. (2021). The international world of disasters: Beyond reflexivity, surpassing naturalism? In J. Rebotier(Coord.), Risks and the Anthropocene: Alternative views on the environmental emergency (pp. 99-117). ISTE; Wiley.
• Revet, S., & Metzger, P. (2024). Acteurs et discours de la réduction de la vulnérabilité: De l’internaitonal au local. In S. Rufat & P. Metzger(Eds.), Vulnérabilité, territoire, population: De la critique aux politiques publiques(pp. 249-271). ISTE.
• Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the State: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173-205. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315094021-9
  » https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315094021-9
• Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
• Santamaría, R. A. (2019). Los derechos humanos y los derechos de la naturaleza en el neoconstitucionalismo andino: Hacia un necesario y urgente cambio de paradigma. In L. E. Achury, C. Storini, R. M. Dalmau, & F. A. de C. Dantas(Eds.), La naturaleza como sujeto de derechos en el constitucionalismo democrático(pp. 103-125). Universidad Libre.
• Stengers, I. (2013). Au temps des catastrophes: Résister à la barbarie qui vient La Découverte.
• Tigre, M. A., Urzola, N., & Goodman, A. (2023). Climate litigation in Latin America: Is the region quietly leading a revolution? Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 14(1), 67-93. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2023.01.04
  » https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2023.01.04
• Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres de Colombia. (2024). Guía para la integración de la gestión del riesgo de desastres y la adaptación al cambio climático en los planes de desarrollo territoriales https://bit.ly/4c5vj8i
  » https://bit.ly/4c5vj8i
• United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2022). Words into action: Using traditional and Indigenous knowledges for disaster risk reduction https://www.undrr.org/words-into-action/traditional-and-indigenous-knowledges-drr
  » https://www.undrr.org/words-into-action/traditional-and-indigenous-knowledges-drr
• United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2024a). Informe de evaluación regional sobre el riesgo de desastres en América Latina y el Caribe (RAR 24) https://www.undrr.org/es/RAR24ALC
  » https://www.undrr.org/es/RAR24ALC
• United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2024b). Synergizing disaster risk reduction with efforts to build climate resilience https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/drr-focus-areas/climate-action-and-disaster-risk-reduction
  » https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/drr-focus-areas/climate-action-and-disaster-risk-reduction
• United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2024c). Words into action: The science-policy-society ecosystem for disaster risk reduction https://www.undrr.org/publication/words-action-guidelines-science-policy-society-ecosystem-disaster-risk-reduction
  » https://www.undrr.org/publication/words-action-guidelines-science-policy-society-ecosystem-disaster-risk-reduction
• Wen, J., Wan, C., Ye, Q., Yan, J., & Li, W. (2023). Disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and their linkages with sustainable development over the past 30 years: A review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 14(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00472-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00472-3

• DATA AVAILABILITY
  The dataset supporting the findings of this study is included within the article.
• ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USAGE
  The artificial intelligence tools Le Chat Mistral and Grammarly were used to assist in the translation from Spanish to English and in the grammatical review of the text.
• 13
  [Translated version] Note: All English quotes were translated by this article’s translator.
• Reviewers:
  Jackeline Amantino de Andrade, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6451-4049
• Reviewers:
  Marcia da Silva Mazon, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2953-1089
• Peer review report:
  The peer review report is available at https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/97853/90852

Edited by

• Editor-in-chief:
  Alketa Peci, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0488-1744

• Guest Editors:
  Osmany Porto de Oliveira, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7930-5784

• Guest Editors:
  Antoine Maillet, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4607-3964

Data availability

The dataset supporting the findings of this study is included within the article.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 June 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  25 Nov 2024
• Accepted
  25 Aug 2025