Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-17 (section)

==== 17.3.3.5 Mitigation-adaptation Relations ====

<div id="h3-8-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The section will consider the links between mitigation and adaptation options in the context of sustainable development and the associated synergies and trade-offs. Cross-cutting conclusions will be drawn based on [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] and the sectoral chapters of AR6 WGIII and Chapter 18 of AR6 WGII. The focus will be on the following sectors: agriculture, food and land use; water-energy-food; industry and the circular economy; and urban areas.

IPCC AR6 WGII, concludes that coherent and integrated policy planning is needed in order to support integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation policies, and that this is a key component of climate-resilient development pathways. [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5|Section 4.5]] .2 assesses development pathways and the specific links between mitigation and adaptation, concluding that there can be co-benefits, and trade-offs, where mitigation implies maladaptation. However, adaptation can also be a prerequisite for mitigation. It is therefore concluded that making development pathways more sustainable can build the capacity for both mitigation and adaptation.

Climate actions, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, are highly scale-dependent, and solutions are very context-specific. Especially in developing countries, a strong link exists between sustainable development, vulnerability and climate risks, as limited economic, social and institutional resources often result in low adaptive capacities and high vulnerability. Similarly, the limitations in resources also constitute key elements weakening the capacity for climate change mitigation ( [[#Jakob--2014|Jakob et al. 2014]] ). The change to climate-resilient societies requires transformational or systemic changes, which also have important implications for the suite of available sustainable-development pathways ( [[#Kates--2012|Kates et al. 2012]] ; [[#Lemos--2013|Lemos et al. 2013]] ). [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti (2017)]] point to the need for social-ecological transformations to take place if synergies between mitigation and adaptation are to be captured, based on the argument that incremental adaptation will not be sufficient when climate change impacts can be extreme or rapid and when deep decarbonisation simultaneously involves social change (Chapter 18 in AR6 WGII).

As discussed in AR6 WGII, Section 18.4, there are synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and sustainable development, as well as between mitigation and sustainable development, which is supported by comprehensive assessments such as that by [[#Dovie--2019|Dovie (2019)]] and [[#Sharifi--2020|Sharifi (2020)]] . Links between mitigation and adaptation options are identified in Chapter 18 in AR6 WGII, such as expected changes in energy demand due to climate change interacting with energy-system development and mitigation options, changes to agricultural production practices to manage the risks of potential changes in weather patterns affecting land-based emissions and mitigation strategies, or mitigation strategies that place additional demands on resources and markets. This increases the pressures on and costs of adaptation or ecosystem restoration linked to carbon sequestration and the benefits in terms of the resilience of natural and managed ecosystems, but it also could restrict mitigation options and increase costs. [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] of AR6 WGIII similarly concludes that the connectedness and coherence of actions to mitigate climate change could support the conservation and adaptation of ecosystems and meet the Sustainable Development Goals more widely.

Options to reduce agricultural demand (e.g., dietary change, reducing food waste) can have co-benefits for adaptation through reductions in the demand for land and water ( [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al. 2019]] b). For example, [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. (2018)]] show that stringent climate-mitigation pathways without reliance on BECCS can be achieved through efficiency improvements and reduced energy service and consumption levels in high-income countries.

Agriculture, food and land use is the sector where most climate policy options can simultaneously generate impacts on mitigation, adaptation and the SDGs ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al. 2015]] ; [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al. 2016]] ). [[#Bryan--2013|Bryan et al. (2013)]] identified a range of synergies and trade-offs across adaptation, mitigation and the SDGs in Kenya, given the diversity of its climatic and ecological conditions. Improved management of soil fertility and improved livestock-feeding practices could provide benefits to both climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as increase income generation from farming. However, other improvements to agricultural management in Kenya, for example, soil water conservation, could only provide benefits across all three domains in some specific sub-regions.

Conservation agriculture can yield mitigation co-benefits through improved fertiliser use or the efficient use of machinery and fossil fuels ( [[#Harvey--2014|Harvey et al. 2014]] ; [[#Pradhan--2018|Pradhan et al. 2018]] ; [[#Cui--2019|Cui et al. 2019]] ). Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) ties mitigation to adaptation through its three pillars of increased productivity, mitigation and adaptation ( [[#Lipper--2014|Lipper et al. 2014]] ), although managing trade-offs among the three pillars requires care ( [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al. 2016]] ; [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti 2017]] ; [[#Soussana--2019|Soussana et al. 2019]] ). Sustainable intensification also complements CSA ( [[#Campbell--2014|Campbell et al. 2014]] ). Enhanced sustainable adaption can lead to effective emission-reduction benefits, such as climate-smart agricultural technologies ( [[#Nefzaoui--2012|Nefzaoui et al. 2012]] ; [[#Poudel--2014|Poudel 2014]] ) and ecosystem-based adaptation. (Berry, P et al. 2015; [[#Geneletti--2016|Geneletti and Zardo 2016]] ; [[#Warmenbol--2018|Warmenbol and Smith 2018]] ) have shown how increases in livelihoods can contribute to climate change mitigation in Europe.

Agroforestry can sustain or increase food production in some systems and increase farmers’ resilience to climate change ( [[#Jones--2013|Jones et al. 2013]] ). Some sustainable agricultural practices have trade-offs, and their implementation can have negative effects on adaptation or other ecosystem services. Agricultural practices can aid both mitigation and adaptation on the ground, but yields may be lower, so there may be a trade-off between resilience to climate change and efficiency. Interconnections within the global agricultural system may also lead to deforestation elsewhere ( [[#Erb--2016|Erb et al. 2016]] ). Implementation of sustainable agriculture can increase or decrease yields, depending on context ( [[#Pretty--2006|Pretty et al. 2006]] ) (Chapter 4).

Land-based mitigation and adaptation will not only help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the AFOLU sector, but also help augment the sector’s role as a carbon sink by increasing forest and tree cover through afforestation and agroforestry activities, and other eco-system-based approaches. Some of these options, however, can also have negative impacts on GHG emissions in the form of indirect impacts on land use (Córdova 2019) (for a more detailed discussion, see Chapter 7). If managed and regulated appropriately, the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector could play a key role in mitigation and be a key sector for emissions reductions beyond 2025 instead of contributing substantially to emissions reductions beyond 2025 ( [[#Córdova--2019|Córdova et al. 2019]] ; [[#Keramidas--2018|Keramidas et al. 2018]] ). However, the large-scale deployment of intensive bioenergy plantations, including monocultures, replacing natural forests and subsistence farmlands are likely to have negative impacts on biodiversity and can threaten food and water security, as well as local livelihoods, partly by intensifying social conflicts, partly by reducing resilience ( [[#Díaz--2019|Díaz et al. 2019]] ). Expansion on to abandoned or unused croplands and pastures nonetheless presents significant global potential, and will avoid the sustainability risks of expanding agriculture into natural vegetation ( [[#Næss--2021|Næss et al. 2021]] ).

Based on a literature review, (Berry, P et al. 2015) identified water-saving and irrigation techniques in agriculture as attractive adaptation options that have positive synergies with mitigation in increasing soil carbon, reducing energy consumption and reducing CH 4 emissions from intermittent rice-paddy irrigation. These measures could, however, reduce water flows in rivers and adversely affect wetlands and biodiversity. The study also concluded that afforestation could reduce peak water flows and increase carbon sequestration, but trade-offs could emerge in relation to the increased demand for water.

Fast-growing tree monocultures or biofuel crops may enhance carbon stocks but reduce downstream water availability and the availability of agricultural land ( [[#Harvey--2014|Harvey et al. 2014]] ). Similarly, in some dry environments, agroforestry can increase competition with crops and pastureland, decreasing productivity and reducing the yields of catchment water ( [[#Schrobback--2011|Schrobback et al. 2011]] ) (Chapter 7).

Hydropower dams are among the low-cost mitigation options, provided the cost of constructing the plant is taken into account, but they could have serious trade-offs in relation to key sustainable-development aspects, since in respect of water and land availability dams can have negative effects on ecosystems and livelihoods, thereby implying increased vulnerabilities. [[#17.3.3.2|Section 17.3.3.2]] on the water-energy-food nexus includes examples of trade-offs between the benefits of producing electricity from hydropower dams and the trade-offs with ecosystem services and using land for agriculture and livelihoods.

There are several potentially strong links between climate change adaptation in industry and climate change mitigation. Various supply chains can be affected by climate change, energy supply and water supply, and other resources can be disrupted by climate events. Adaptation measures can influence GHG emissions in their turn and thus mitigation because of the demand for basic materials, for example, as well as by influencing outdoor environments and labour productivity ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.1|Section 11.1]] 7.1.4).

Implementing adaptation options in industry can also imply increasing the demand for packaging materials such as plastics and for access to refrigeration. These are among the adaptation options that are dependent on temperature and storage possibilities, as well as being major sources of GHG emissions.

An increasing number of cities are becoming involved in voluntary actions and networks aimed at drawing up integrated plans for sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation, including cities in both high- and low-income countries around the world. ( [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al. 2019]] ; [[#Sanchez%20Rodriguez--2018|Sanchez Rodriguez et al. 2018]] ) concluded that cities are an obvious place for the development of plans that can capture several synergies between sustainable development and climate-resilient pathways. ( [[#Kim--2019|Kim and Grafakos 2019]] ; [[#Landauer--2019|Landauer et al. 2019]] ) similarly concluded that cities are an obvious platform for the development of integrated planning efforts because of the scale of policies and actions, which could potentially match the different policy domains. ( [[#Kim--2019|Kim and Grafakos 2019]] ) assessed the level of integration of mitigation and adaptation in urban climate change plans across 44 major Latin American cities, concluding that the integration of climate change mitigation and adaption plans was very weak in about half the cities and that limited donor finance was a main barrier. The authors also mention barriers in relation to governance and the weakness or lack of legal frameworks. The integration of SDGs with adaptation could help increase the willingness of politicians to implement climate actions, as well as provide stronger arguments for investing the required resources ( [[#Sanchez%20Rodriguez--2018|Sanchez Rodriguez et al. 2018]] ).

The local integration of planning and policy implementation practices was also examined by ( [[#Newell--2018|Newell et al. 2018]] ) in a study of 11 Canadian communities. It was concluded that, in order to put plans into practice, a deeper understanding needs to be established of the potential synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. A model was applied to the evaluation of key impacts, including energy innovation, transportation, the greening of cities and city life. The impact assessment came to the conclusion that multiple benefits, costs and conflicting areas could be involved, and that bringing a broad range of stakeholders into policy implementation was therefore to be recommended.

There are several links between mitigation and adaptation options in the building sector, as pointed out in Chapter 9. Adaptation can increase energy consumption and associated GHG emissions ( [[#Kalvelage--2013|Kalvelage et al. 2013]] ; [[#Campagnolo--2019|Campagnolo and Davide 2019]] ), for example, in relation to the demand for energy to meet indoor thermal comfort requirements in a future warmer climate ( [[#de%20Wilde--2012|de Wilde and Coley 2012]] ; [[#Li--2012|Li and Yao 2012]] ; [[#Clarke--2018|Clarke et al. 2018]] ). Mitigation alternatives using passive approaches may increase resilience to the impacts of climate change on thermal comfort and could reduce cooling needs ( [[#Wan--2012|Wan et al. 2012]] ; [[#Andrić--2019|Andrić et al. 2019]] ). However, climate change may reduce their effectiveness ( [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2014|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2014]] ).

Mitigation and the co-benefits of adaptation in urban areas in relation to air quality, health, green jobs and equality issues are dealt with in [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.2|Section 8.2]] , where it is concluded that most mitigation options will have positive impacts on adaptation, with the exception of compact cities, with trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation. This is because decreasing urban sprawl can increase the risks of flooding and heat stress. Detailed mapping between mitigation and adaptation in urban areas shows that there are many, very close interactions between the two policy domains and that coordinated governance across sectors is therefore called for.

Rebuilding and refurbishment after climate hazards can increase energy consumption and GHG emissions in the construction and building materials sectors, as it could make the existing building stock more climate-resilient ( [[#Hallegatte--2009|Hallegatte 2009]] ; [[#de%20Wilde--2012|de Wilde and Coley 2012]] ; [[#Pyke--2012|Pyke et al. 2012]] ) and thus also support implementation of the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction ( [[#United%20Nations--2015b|United Nations 2015b]] ). Climate change in the form of extremely high temperatures, intense rainfall leading to flooding, more intense winds and/or storms and sea level rises (SLRs) can seriously impact transport infrastructure, including the operations and mobility of road, rail, shipping and aviation; [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-10|Chapter 10]] assesses the impacts on subsectors within transportation. At the same time, these sectors are major targets for GHG mitigation options, and many countries are currently examining what to do in terms of combined mitigation-adaptation efforts, using the need to mitigate climate change through transport-related GHG emissions reductions and pollutants as the basis for adaptation action ( [[#Thornbush--2013|Thornbush et al. 2013]] ; [[#Wang--2019|Wang and Chen 2019]] ). For example, urban sprawl indirectly affects climate processes, increasing emissions and vulnerability, which worsens the ability to adapt ( [[#Congedo--2014|Congedo and Munafò 2014]] ). Hence greater use of rail by passengers and freight will reduce the pressures on the roads, while having less urban sprawl will reduce the impacts on new infrastructure, often in more vulnerable areas ( [[#IPCC--2019|IPCC 2019]] ; [[#Newman--2017|Newman et al. 2017]] ).

Despite many links between mitigation and adaptation options, including synergies and trade-offs, [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13|Chapter 13]] concludes that there are few frameworks for integrated policy implementation. One review of climate legislation in Europe found a lack of coordination between mitigation and adaptation, their implementation varying according to different national circumstances ( [[#Nachmany--2015|Nachmany et al. 2015]] ).

In developing and least-developed countries (LDCs), there are many examples of climate policies in the NDCs that have been drawn up in the context of sustainable development and that cover both mitigation and adaptation ( [[#Beg--2002|Beg 2002]] ; [[#Duguma--2014|Duguma et al. 2014]] )) (Chapter 13). However, there are many barriers to joint policy implementation. Despite the emphasis on both mitigation and adaptation policies, there is very limited literature on how to design and implement integrated policies ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al. 2017]] ; [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw et al. 2014]] ). For example, the links within the water-energy-food nexus require coordination among sectoral institutions and capacity-building in innovative frameworks linking science, practice and policy at multiple levels (Cook and [[#Chu--2018|Chu 2018]] ; [[#Nakano--2017|Nakano 2017]] ; [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw et al. 2014]] ).

Another challenge is the shortage of financial, technical and human resources for implementing joint adaptation and mitigation policies ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018b|Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Chu--2018|Chu 2018]] ; [[#David--2019|David and Venkatachalam 2019]] ; [[#Kedia--2016|Kedia 2016]] ; [[#Satterthwaite--2017|Satterthwaite 2017]] ). Several studies have stressed that the lack of finance for integrating policy implementation between sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation may constitute barriers to the implementation of adaptation projects to protect least-developed countries (LDCs) with many vulnerabilities.

( [[#Locatelli--2016|Locatelli et al. 2016]] ) come to similar conclusions regarding finance based on interviews with multilateral development banks, green funds and government organisations in respect of the agricultural and forestry sectors. International climate finance has been totally dominated by mitigation projects. Those who were interviewed were asked about their willingness to change this balance and to commit more resources to projects that address both climate change mitigation and adaptation. More than two thirds of those interviewed, however, raised concerns that integrated projects could be too complicated and that a greater alignment of financial models across different policy domains could entail greater financial risks. Another barrier mentioned in respect of finance was that mitigation projects were primarily aimed at GHG emissions reductions, while adaptation projects had more national benefits and were also more suitable for community development and promoting equality and fairness. In an assessment of 201 projects in the forestry and agricultural sectors in the tropics, ( [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al. 2016]] ), found that a majority of the projects contributed to both adaptation and mitigation or at least had the potential to do so, despite the separation between these two objectives by international and national institutions.

<div id="17.3.3.6" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="cross-sectoral-digitalisation"></span>