Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in the Land Use Sector: From Complementarity to Synergy

Abstract

Currently, mitigation and adaptation measures are handled separately, due to differences in priorities for the measures and segregated planning and implementation policies at international and national levels. There is a growing argument that synergistic approaches to adaptation and mitigation could bring substantial benefits at multiple scales in the land use sector. Nonetheless, efforts to implement synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures are rare due to the weak conceptual framing of the approach and constraining policy issues. In this paper, we explore the attributes of synergy and the necessary enabling conditions and discuss, as an example, experience with the Ngitili system in Tanzania that serves both adaptation and mitigation functions. An in-depth look into the current practices suggests that more emphasis is laid on complementarity—i.e., mitigation projects providing adaptation co-benefits and vice versa rather than on synergy. Unlike complementarity, synergy should emphasize functionally sustainable landscape systems in which adaptation and mitigation are optimized as part of multiple functions. We argue that the current practice of seeking co-benefits (complementarity) is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy. Moving forward from complementarity will require a paradigm shift from current compartmentalization between mitigation and adaptation to systems thinking at landscape scale. However, enabling policy, institutional, and investment conditions need to be developed at global, national, and local levels to achieve synergistic goals.

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects

“…Our analysis also shows that most PDDs use a complementarity approach (i.e., mitigation projects providing adaptation co-benefits and vice versa) rather than a synergy approach, described by Duguma et al (2014a) as holistic from the project design to its completion and leading to optimized adaptation and mitigation outcomes. With a synergetic approach, AFOLU projects would be designed to combine adaptation and mitigation in a way that project components interact with each other to generate additional climate benefits compared to projects in which adaptation and mitigation are separated (Duguma et al 2014b).…”

“…Mainstreaming climate compatible development (i.e., adaptation, mitigation, and development) may avoid that projects respond to adaptation and mitigation urgencies separately. Scarce resources could be more efficiently spent, for instance, by not establishing separate institutions and processes to support adaptation and mitigation, and by avoiding conflicting policies (Suckall et al 2015), because a current major challenge in integrating adaptation and mitigation is the institutional complexity (Duguma et al 2014a). …”

“…Considering both adaptation and mitigation in climate change initiatives could help avoid trade-offs that could occur otherwise (Suckall et al 2014;Harvey et al 2014;Duguma et al 2014a;Berry et al 2015). For example, a forest plantation project that sequesters carbon for mitigation can reduce water availability for downstream populations and increase their vulnerability to drought.…”

“…For example, integrating adaptation into mitigation projects may increase their resilience to climate variations, the permanence of carbon storage, and their acceptance by local communities, as adaptation responds to local issues (Locatelli et al 2011(Locatelli et al , 2015Duguma et al 2014a;Suckall et al 2015). Project developers could access alternative sources of adaptation and mitigation funding and, if mitigation projects produce adaptation outcomes, carbon funding could bridge the adaptation funding (AF) gap (Matocha et al 2012).…”

“…Given that the separation of adaptation and mitigation in policies and funding is mirrored at the project level (Duguma et al 2014a;Suckall et al 2015), most climate change projects are designed for only one of the two goals, which represents a missing opportunity to address climate change more efficiently and holistically. Knowledge is missing on whether these projects also consider the other goal or could contribute to it.…”