Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

=== 7.4.8 Enabling effective policy instruments – policy portfolio coherence ===

<div id="section-7-4-8-enabling-effective-policy-instruments-policy-portfolio-coherence-block-1"></div>

An enabling environment for policy effectiveness includes: (i) the development of comprehensive policies, strategies and programmes (Section 7.4); (ii) human and financial resources to ensure that policies, programmes and legislation are translated into action; (iii) decision-making that draws on evidence generated from functional information systems that make it possible to monitor trends, track and map actions, and assess impact in a manner that is timely and comprehensive (Section 7.5); (iv) governance coordination mechanisms and partnerships; and (v) a long-term perspective in terms of response options, monitoring, and maintenance (FAO 2017a) (Section 7.6).

A comprehensive consideration of policy portfolios achieves sustainable land and climate management ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Mobarak and Rosenzweig 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r885|885]]</sup> ; Stavropoulou et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r886|886]]</sup> ; Jeffrey et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r887|887]]</sup> ; Howlett and Rayner 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r888|888]]</sup> ; Aalto et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r889|889]]</sup> ; Brander and Keith 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r890|890]]</sup> ; Williams and Abatzoglou 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r891|891]]</sup> ; Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r892|892]]</sup> ; FAO 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r893|893]]</sup> ; Bierbaum and Cowie 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r894|894]]</sup> ). Supporting the study of enabling environments, the study of policy mixes has emerged in the last decade in regards to the mix or set of instruments that interact together and are aimed at achieving policy objectives in a dynamic setting (Reichardt et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r895|895]]</sup> ). This includes studying the ultimate objectives of a policy mix – such as biodiversity (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r896|896]]</sup> ) – the interaction of policy instruments within the mix (including climate change mitigation and energy (del Río and Cerdá 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r897|897]]</sup> )) (see Trade-offs and synergies, Section 7.5.6), and the dynamic nature of the policy mix (Kern and Howlett 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r898|898]]</sup> ).

Studying policy mixes allows for a consideration of policy coherence that is broader than the study of discrete policy instruments in rigidly defined sectors, but entails studying policy in relation to the links and dependencies among problems and issues (FAO 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r899|899]]</sup> ). Consideration of policy coherence is a new approach, rejecting simplistic solutions, but acknowledging inherently complex processes involving collective consideration of public and private actors in relation to policy analysis (FAO 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r900|900]]</sup> ). A coherent, consistent mix of policy instruments can solve complex policy problems (Howlett and Rayner 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r901|901]]</sup> ) as it involves lateral, integrative, and holistic thinking in defining and solving problems (FAO 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r902|902]]</sup> ). Such a consideration of policy coherence is required to achieve sustainable development (FAO 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r903|903]]</sup> ; Bierbaum and Cowie 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r904|904]]</sup> ). Consideration of policy coherence potentially addresses three sets of challenges: challenges that exist with assessing multiple hazards and sectors (Aalto et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r905|905]]</sup> ; Brander and Keith 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r906|906]]</sup> ; Williams and Abatzoglou 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r907|907]]</sup> ); challenges in mainstreaming adaptation and risk management into ongoing development planning and decision-making (Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r908|908]]</sup> ); and challenges in scaling-up community and ecosystem-based initiatives in countries overly focused on sectors, instead of sustainable use of biodiversity and ES (Reid 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r909|909]]</sup> ). There is a gap in integrated consideration of adaptation, mitigation, climate change policy and development. A study in Indonesia found that, while internal policy coherence between mitigation and adaptation is increasing, external policy coherence between climate change policy and development objectives is still required (Di Gregorio et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r910|910]]</sup> ).

There is ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that a suite of agricultural business risk programmes (which would include crop insurance and income stability programmes) increase farm financial performance, reduce risk, and also reinforce incentives to adopt stewardship practices (beneficial management practices) improving the environment (Jeffrey et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r911|911]]</sup> ). Consideration of the portfolio of instruments responding to climate change and its associated risks, and the interaction of policy instruments, improve agricultural producer livelihoods (Hurlbert 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r912|912]]</sup> ). In relation to hazards, or climate-related extremes (Section 7.4.3), the policy mix has been found to be a key determinant of the adaptive capacity of agricultural producers. In relation to drought, the mix of policy instruments including crop insurance, SLM practices, bankruptcy and insolvency, co-management of community in water and disaster planning, and water infrastructure programmes are effective at responding to drought (Hurlbert 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r913|913]]</sup> ; Hurlbert and Mussetta 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r914|914]]</sup> ; Hurlbert and Pittman 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r915|915]]</sup> ; Hurlbert and Montana 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r916|916]]</sup> ; Hurlbert 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r917|917]]</sup> ; Hurlbert and Gupta 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r918|918]]</sup> ). Similarly, in relation to flood, the mix of policy instruments including flood zone mapping, land-use planning, flood zone building restrictions, business and crop insurance, disaster assistance payments, preventative instruments, such as environmental farm planning (including soil and water management (Chapter 6)) and farm infrastructure projects, and recovery from debilitating flood losses, ultimately through bankruptcy, are effective at responding to flood (Hurlbert 2018a) (see Case study: Flood and flood security in Section 7.6.3).

In respect of land conservation and management goals, consideration of differing strengths and weakness of instruments is necessary. While direct regulation may secure effective minimum standards of biodiversity conservation and critical ES provision, economic instruments may achieve reduced compliance costs as costs are borne by policy addressees (Rogge and Reichardt 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r919|919]]</sup> . In relation to GHG emissions and climate mitigation, a comprehensive mix of instruments targeted at emissions reductions, learning, and R&amp;D is effective ( ''high confidence'' ) (Fischer and Newell 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r920|920]]</sup> ). The policy coherence between climate policy and public financeis critical in ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of mitigation policy, and ultimately to make stringent mitigation policy more feasible (Siegmeier et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r921|921]]</sup> ). Recycling carbon tax revenue to support clean energy technologies can decrease losses from unilateral carbon mitigation targets, with complementary technology polices (Corradini et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r922|922]]</sup> ).

When evaluating a new policy instrument, its design in relation to achieving an environmental goal or solving a land and climate change issue, includes consideration of how the new instrument will interact with existing instruments operating at multiple levels (international, regional, national, sub-national, and local) (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r923|923]]</sup> ) (Section 7.4.1).

<span id="barriers-to-implementing-policy-responses"></span>