Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-8 (section)

== 8.6 Climate Resilient Development for the Poor and Pro-poor Adaptation Finance: Ensuring Climate Justice and Sustainable Development ==

<div id="h1-7-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

This section evaluates climate resilient development (CRD) focusing on potential synergies between adaptation and mitigation in different sectors, decision-making approaches and adaptation finance, especially for the poor. It examines whether climate change response options, meaning mitigation and adaptation, in different development sectors, create development synergies or trade-offs for low-income households and people living in poverty.

The link between development and climate change was not evaluated comprehensively until the first decades of the 21st century (Figure 8.13; [[#Klein--2005|Klein et al., 2005]] ; [[#Tol--2005|Tol, 2005]] ). Until recently mitigation and adaptation, the two primary approaches to climate action, have been dealt with separately in climate change science and policy ( [[#Landauer--2015|Landauer et al., 2015]] ). Nevertheless, synergistic ‘co-benefits’ between mitigation and adaptation may be enhanced, and trade-offs reduced, through the holistic empirical evaluation of actions for climate change response ( [[#Runhaar--2018|Runhaar et al., 2018]] ). The synergistic effect of mitigation and adaptation has been documented for a few interventions across the globe, however, evidence-based quantification of the synergies and trade-offs are rare.

<div id="_idContainer049" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:9484272e575c8263dc0a406c2de4797e IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_8_013.png]]

'''Figure 8.13 |''' '''Climate resilient development (CRD).''' Actions and strategies consider both climate compatible development (CCD) and climate action.

Where co-benefits have emphasised identifying mitigation–adaptation synergies, a key turn has been evaluating climate compatible development (CCD), ‘development that minimises the harm caused by climate change impacts, while maximising the many human development opportunities presented by a low emission, more resilient future’ ( [[#Mitchell--2010|Mitchell and Maxwell, 2010]] ). CCD calls for triple wins, resulting in synergies between mitigation–adaptation–development through single interventions (Figure 8.13; [[#Ellis--2019|Ellis and Tschakert, 2019]] ). CCD offers specific entry points for identifying ways on how to strengthen synergies between mitigation and adaptation, particularly within the context of low-income countries. Effective integration of emission reductions and accommodation actions for mitigation and adaptation can be win–win strategies, may be cost-efficient ( [[#Runhaar--2018|Runhaar et al., 2018]] ) and have the potential to create opportunities to foster sustainable development ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ).

This assessment identifies and evaluates approaches to CRD ‘that deliberately adopt mitigation and adaptation measures to secure a safe climate, meet basic needs, eliminate poverty and enable equitable, just and sustainable development’. The body of literature on the synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation, poverty, equity and sustainable development has grown steadily since the AR5 ( [[#IPCC--2014a|IPCC, 2014a]] ). The IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C ( [[#IPCC--2018c|IPCC, 2018c]] ), suggests that ‘Limiting warming to 1.5°C can be achieved synergistically with poverty alleviation and improved energy security and can provide large public health benefits through improved air quality, preventing millions of premature deaths.’

Implementing the integrative concept of CRD is expected to produce transformative benefits affecting the poorest populations primarily ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ; [[#Leal%20Filho--2019|Leal Filho et al., 2019]] ). The risks of transformative actions to the poor are diminished when undertaken in the context of good governance at multiple levels, within existing top-down and bottom-up processes, and making use of available levers of policy, technology, education and financial/economic systems ( [[#Stringer--2020|Stringer et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="8.6.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="synergies-and-trade-offs-between-adaptation-and-mitigation-in-different-sectors-with-implications-for-poverty-livelihoods-and-sustainable-development"></span>
=== 8.6.1 Synergies and Trade-offs Between Adaptation and Mitigation in Different Sectors with Implications for Poverty, Livelihoods and Sustainable Development ===

<div id="h2-16-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="8.6.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="climate-resilient-development"></span>
==== 8.6.1.1 Climate Resilient Development ====

<div id="h3-32-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

CRD relies on identifying synergies between different strategies and actions in the field of climate change, primarily between mitigation actions with adaptation benefits ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ), adaptation actions with mitigation benefits ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Sánchez--2017|Sánchez and Izzo, 2017]] ), processes that promote both mitigation and adaptation measures, and policies and strategies that promote integrated mitigation and adaptation measures ( [[#Zhao--2018|Zhao et al., 2018]] ). At the same time, adaptation and mitigation actions can be evaluated in terms of their co-benefits, the social, economic or other benefits of actions in addition to avoiding climate change impacts ( [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al., 2020]] ). The clearest co-benefits of mitigation are associated with economic development through low-carbon industrialisation ( [[#IPCC--2014c|IPCC, 2014c]] ; [[#Jakob--2014|Jakob et al., 2014]] ; [[#Lu--2017|Lu, 2017]] ). Co-benefits can include contributing to economic growth, reducing competition for resources, improved integration of scientific input to policy development and implementation, or improving political participation and social licensing in large-scale projects (e.g., hydropower) ( [[#Hennessey--2017|Hennessey et al., 2017]] ). Adaptation can support mitigation and contribute to co-benefits in various ways: ensuring development-based natural resource management ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Suckall--2015|Suckall et al., 2015]] ; [[#Reang--2021|Reang et al., 2021]] ), integrating water resources management ( [[#Liang--2016|Liang et al., 2016]] ; [[#Sharifi--2021|Sharifi, 2021]] ), practicing sustainable agriculture ( [[#Bustamante--2014|Bustamante et al., 2014]] ; [[#Duguma--2014a|Duguma et al., 2014a]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ; [[#Reang--2021|Reang et al., 2021]] ), ensuring the protection of ecosystem services ( [[#Pandey--2017a|Pandey et al., 2017a]] ; [[#Baumber--2019|Baumber et al., 2019]] ), conserving biodiversity ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ; [[#Loboguerrero--2019|Loboguerrero et al., 2019]] ; [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al., 2019]] ) and managing bioenergy resource ( [[#Dovie--2019|Dovie, 2019]] ).

The key challenge for CRD is addressing climate change from the perspective of development: addressing the fundamental development obstacles that limit capacity for adaptation. Where development is not sustainable, especially if it is not equitable, capacity for adapting is greatly reduced—a phenomenon known as the adaptation gap (Figure 8.14; [[#Birkmann--2021a|Birkmann et al., 2021a]] ; [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ). Figure 8.14 depicts the effect of development trajectories (as described in the SSPs framework) on capacity for adaptation, a key determinant of eventual outcomes. Achieving CRD through coupling adaptation with equitable sustainable development under and low emissions profiles that limit warming to 1.5°C (i.e., sustainability scenario) is necessary to close the adaptation gap. Even if emissions are kept low and 1.5°C emissions targets are achieved, if poverty and inequality remain high, then impacts are expected to remain high and may overwhelm capacity for adaptation. High poverty and high inequality in a society (i.e., inequality scenario) reduce the likelihood that countries are able to manage risk and avoid residual impacts, such as also documented in the assessment above (see Sections 8.2; 8.3; 8.4). Unsustainable development trajectories reduce capacity for adaptation and may result in highly unequally distributed residual impacts from climate change. Even despite rapid, equitable development and modest emissions reductions efforts necessary to limit warming to 2°C (i.e., the middle of the road scenario), there is still risk of unequal distribution of impacts. Under all high emissions scenarios (&gt;3°C warming), universal residual impacts are unavoidable.

<div id="_idContainer051" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:36e0a624eda4698829f155f27bcd1690 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_8_014.png]]

'''Figure 8.14 |''' '''Conceptual figure illustrating the link between sustainable development and the adaptation gap.''' Even if emissions are kept low, if poverty and inequality remain high, then impacts are expected to remain high and may overwhelm capacity for adaptation.

Mitigation planning has not sufficiently considered poverty reduction policies, the basis for narrowing the adaptation gap (see also Figure 8.14). Many synergies between climate change mitigation and poverty reduction have been identified, although sometimes with ''limited evidence'' . The mitigation measures that have been most evaluated include clean development mechanisms (CDM), programmes aimed at reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), voluntary carbon offsets and biofuel production. However, while these mitigation programmes stimulate economic growth, they may contribute to processes that trade-off against equitable development and threaten to further impoverish forest communities, such as large-scale land acquisitions ( [[#Carter--2017|Carter et al., 2017]] ; [[#Schaafsma--2021|Schaafsma et al., 2021]] ) and fortress conservation (see IPCC SR 1.5°C, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5|Chapter 5]] ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ); and see also [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6|Chapter 6]] of this report).

The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ) states that agriculture, food production and deforestation are major drivers of climate change and calls for coordinated action to tackle climate change that can simultaneously improve land, food security and nutrition, and help to end hunger. There are five land challenges identified including climate change mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security. This report identified three major categories of climate response options that show promise for achieving mitigation and increasing capacity for adaptation while addressing poverty: SLM options, value chain management and risk management options ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ). For example, programmes supporting no-till agriculture and residue retention allow small-scale farmers to participate in mitigation and adaptation activities, with long-term benefits to soil health and food, energy and water security ( [[#Wright--2014|Wright et al., 2014]] ). Likewise, the installation of a solar powered drip irrigation system simultaneously reduces emission, improves water security and increases farmers’ income ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). Response options in terms of SLM options, and value chain and risk management involve interlinkages between land-based climate strategies, synergies and trade-offs (see Chapter 6). On the other hand, a key trade-off is the potential for maladaptation, where one adaptation intervention at one time, location or sector could increase the vulnerability at another time, location or sector, or increase the vulnerability of the target group to future climate change ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Eriksen--2011|Eriksen et al., 2011]] ). A cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners is the understanding of maladaptation has changed subtly to recognise that it arises inadvertently, from poorly planned adaptation actions, but also from carefully deliberated decisions where wider considerations place greater emphasis on singular or short-term outcomes ahead of broader, longer-term threats, or discount, or fail to consider, the full range of interactions arising from the planned actions across scales ( [[#Eriksen--2021|Eriksen et al., 2021]] ). Research identifies the challenge of avoiding maladaptation as one of reducing long-term structural vulnerability. Accordingly, one can consider CCD and maladaptation as two sides of the same coin. Scholars of ‘sustainable adaptation’ define it as adaptation that contributes to socially and environmentally sustainable development pathways, which takes into account both social justice and environmental integrity ( [[#Eriksen--2011|Eriksen et al., 2011]] ). The parallels in maladaptation include the underlying drivers of vulnerability, namely socio-environmental processes such as conflict, marginalisation, economic restructuring, exploitation, institutional fragility and so forth ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018b|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018b]] ; [[#Neef--2018|Neef et al., 2018]] ).

Harnessing opportunities for mitigation, adaptation and development in an effective manner may lead to ‘triple wins’ under CRD, though empirical evidence is extremely rare for such triple win strategies that address mitigation, adaptation and development in an effective manner ( [[#Tompkins--2013|Tompkins et al., 2013]] ). Integration of mitigation, adaptation and development is being initiated and operationalised through projects by several developing countries to achieve main national development priorities, such as poverty reduction, increased employment opportunities, energy security and transportation ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Stringer--2014|Stringer et al., 2014]] ). Important follow-on questions are pressing social questions about how trade-offs are deliberated, who wins and loses and who decides (see [[#8.4|Section 8.4]] and [[#Ellis--2019|Ellis and Tschakert, 2019]] ). Likewise, the efficiency, effectiveness and feasibility trade-offs of climate policies must be considered (i.e., can programmes in developing countries be economically efficient and provide opportunities to achieve sustainable development targets for developing countries?) ( [[#Dang--2003|Dang et al., 2003]] ). Moreover, questions about co-benefits must consider the benefit–cost ratio of mitigative versus adaptive action for assets saved from destruction by climate impacts, for example ( [[#Stadelmann--2014|Stadelmann et al., 2014]] ). Implementing a mitigation or adaptation option may positively or negatively, directly or indirectly, affect the feasibility and effectiveness of other options, such as soil management leading to soil organic carbon ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ; [[#de%20Coninck--2018|de Coninck et al., 2018]] ). Farmers and local people are often also being encouraged to undertake mitigation and adaptation activities leading to long-term benefits, such as cultivation of no-till wheat with residue retention leading to low emissions along with saving energy and water ( [[#Wright--2014|Wright et al., 2014]] ).

Moreover, a regulatory structure for evaluation of mitigation and adaptation actions is required to understand the co-benefits of these two actions. For example, the choice of adaptation actions can be made according to their effectiveness per unit of money invested such as economic assets saved from destruction of climate change impacts and benefits can be evaluated in terms of economies, people and the environment, such as human lives and health protected rather than the emission reduction by mitigation strategies ( [[#Stadelmann--2014|Stadelmann et al., 2014]] ).

<div id="8.6.1.2." class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="climate-resilient-development-synergies-and-trade-offs-by-sector"></span>
==== 8.6.1.2. Climate Resilient Development Synergies and Trade-offs by Sector ====

<div id="h3-33-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Some sectors—such as agriculture, forestry, energy—are found to have more potential for CRD synergies than others, although trade-offs are also identified. CSA, carbon-forestry programmes and the water–energy–climate nexus show trade-offs across levels and sectors with identified winners and losers ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ). Mitigation can be designed to provide opportunities for enhanced adaptation with comparable co-benefits, even while adaptation portfolios can maximise co-benefits around sustainable resource management that reduce emissions ( [[#Dovie--2019|Dovie, 2019]] ). Climate policy integration can be considered as the integration of multiple policy objectives, governance arrangements and policy processes of climate change mitigation and adaptation along with other policy domains ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ), as well as sector policies integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation ( [[#England--2018|England et al., 2018]] ). Integrating climate policies may require balancing multiple sectoral goals, such as REDD+ projects, CSA, water sector strategies, national policies on climate change and national conservation plans ( [[#Duguma--2014a|Duguma et al., 2014a]] ). Within the scientific discourse, increasing attention is given to the question of the synergies and mismatches between mitigation and adaptation policies.

The assessed literature underscores that for synergies to be realised, mitigation and adaptation policies must be institutionally supported within a multi-level governance architecture (national to sub-national to municipal levels) with other priorities, and sustainable financing mechanisms identified within the country or via the international community ( [[#Dovie--2017|Dovie and Lwasa, 2017]] ). Integrating and mainstreaming adaptation and mitigation across agencies within countries can bridge the divide between climate policy and sustainable development ( [[#Venema--2007|Venema and Rehman, 2007]] ).

The Paris Agreement recognised that the agreement will reflect equity and CBDR-RC of national circumstances, ( [[#Voigt--2016|Voigt and Ferreira, 2016]] ) and should be broadened to include mitigation co-benefits ( [[#Dovie--2019|Dovie, 2019]] ). Integrating adaptation with mitigation may possibly contribute to amending or reducing the discursive rift between climate policy and sustainable development ( [[#Venema--2007|Venema and Rehman, 2007]] ).

Integrated climate change actions or responses can be inefficient and infeasible in the absence of enabling conditions, including the policy conditions that reinforce unified climate action, and sustainable financial mechanisms for implementation of the programmes and policies ( [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al., 2014b]] ). In the absence of strong coordination, integrating mitigation and adaptation may undermine the overall or individual objectives of either climate response ( [[#Kongsager--2018|Kongsager, 2018]] ). A lack of coordination in mitigation and adaptation may also exacerbate the threats of climate change to sustainable development ( [[#Ayers--2009|Ayers and Huq, 2009]] ; [[#Kongsager--2018|Kongsager, 2018]] ). Therefore, for successful integration of CRD, it is necessary to move beyond considering either adaptation or mitigation towards better understanding the linkages between adaptation and mitigation projects and policies at multiple levels of governance to identify potential trade-offs in projects and policies ( [[#Suckall--2015|Suckall et al., 2015]] ) and to identify the enabling conditions for designing and implementing action leading to synergies ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Kongsager--2018|Kongsager, 2018]] ).

Despite the potential effectiveness and efficiency of integrating mitigation and adaptation under a common CRD framework, gaps persist in our knowledge about the enabling conditions for synergies, due to the limited number of examples and even fewer evaluations. Potential benefits may be achieved by pursuing multi-level governance approaches, that means integrating decision making at the local level with coordination at other levels, by actors and agencies simultaneously pursuing multiple other priorities (see [[#8.5.2|Section 8.5.2]] [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw et al., 2014]] ). For example, pursuing climate-resilient land use pathways integrating climate policy within the land use sector requires a governance policy environment that combines multiple policy aims, including urban growth, soil conservation and water management alongside mitigation and adaptation. Facilitating climate-resilient land use pathways combining the aims of climate change adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development requires a governance environment with: (a) internal climate policy coherence between mitigation and adaptation objectives and policies, (b) external climate policy coherence between climate change and development objectives; (c) vertical policy integration that mainstreams climate change into sectoral policies and (d) overarching governance structures that facilitate horizontal policy integration for cross-sectoral coordination ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ) as well as sector policies integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation ( [[#England--2018|England et al., 2018]] ).

Within sector policies and economic sectors (such as land use, transportation and technology), mitigation and adaptation have many positive, negative, direct and indirect linkages within and beyond the sector ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). The land use sector, for example, includes agriculture and forestry, and encompasses the management of a mosaic of interacting urban environments and ecosystems with a diversity of cultural and institutional attributes ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). The land use sector is key to climate adaptation, where policy coordination can enhance food production, regulate urban microclimates, affect water security and, in the case of mangroves, buffer the impacts of extreme climate events in coastal areas ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). City-level actions, such as zoning and planning that promotes green development and green and efficient energy use, can also be pivotal for reduction in emissions and improvement in resilience ( [[#UCLG--2015|UCLG, 2015]] ). Urban planning and transport policies, such as means of transportation, are crucial to support a transition towards a low-carbon and resilient future ( [[#Ford--2018|Ford et al., 2018]] ), as public and private transport facilities are crucial for emission reduction.

CRD may require multi-sectoral coordination, including public–private partnerships ( [[#Campbell--2018|Campbell et al., 2018]] ). In the food system, for example, under a CRD framework transformative actions may require (a) incentives for expanded private sector activities and/or public–private partnerships, (b) publicly backed credit and/or insurance, (c) public institutional support for strong local organisations and networking, (d) climate-informed weather advisories and early warning systems, (e) digital investments in technological transformation for agriculture (e.g., ‘digital agriculture’ and virtual markets), (f) investments in climate-resilient and low-emission practices and technologies ( [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al., 2014b]] ), (g) prioritisation and pathways of change, (h) capacity and enabling policy and institutions are crucial with careful consideration of trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation, and amongst other SDGs for achieving SDG13 ‘urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’ ( [[#Campbell--2018|Campbell et al., 2018]] ). Moreover, the risks of transformative actions to the farmers is addressed by strong good governance at multiple levels, combining top-down and bottom-up processes along with by a mix of levers that combine policy, technology, education and awareness raising, dietary shifts and financial/economic mechanisms, attending to multiple time dimensions ( [[#Stringer--2020|Stringer et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="8.6.1.2.1" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="agriculture-and-food-production"></span>
===== 8.6.1.2.1 Agriculture and food production =====

<div id="h4-5-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Integrated CRD approaches in agriculture, such as CSA, can reduce trade-offs and exploit synergies with biodiversity and food security to reduce the risk of climate change ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ; [[#Loboguerrero--2019|Loboguerrero et al., 2019]] ). There are many technologies and approaches in agriculture that leverage synergies relevant for CRD, including agroecology ( [[#Pandey--2017a|Pandey et al., 2017a]] ; [[#Saj--2017|Saj et al., 2017]] ), CSA, climate-smart landscapes, organic agriculture mitigating climate change, conservation agriculture, ecological intensification and sustainable intensifications, which in many cases aim to address both adaptation and mitigation to climate change simultaneously ( [[#Kongsager--2018|Kongsager, 2018]] ). From these approaches, a number of scalable agriculture technologies have emerged that simultaneously achieve mitigation and adaptation goals, such as reducing water consumption while maintaining grain yield, including alternate wetting and drying irrigation technology ( [[#Liang--2016|Liang et al., 2016]] ) and aerobic rice production ( [[#Wichelns--2016|Wichelns, 2016]] ). Likewise, a number of these approaches have been supported within international and national institutional frameworks (e.g., through incentives) to harness synergies ( [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al., 2016]] ).

CSA is discussed in the scientific literature as an approach that could transform agricultural production systems and food value chains in line with sustainable development and food security under climate change. However, concerns and criticisms have been raised, such as the insufficient consideration of access to entitlements within CSA and the question who wins and loses when applying CSA in different country contexts (see [[#Karlsson--2017|Karlsson et al., 2017]] ; [[#Sain--2017|Sain et al., 2017]] ). CSA has three main objectives: sustainably increase agricultural productivity and incomes, adapt and build resilience to climate change, and reduce and/or remove GHG emissions ( [[#FAO--2017|FAO, 2017]] ). Various CSA technologies are capable of improving crop yields, increasing net income, increasing input-use efficiencies and reducing emissions ( [[#Khatri-Chhetri--2017|Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2017]] ). However, uptake and adoption of CSA by local farmers in poor developing countries remains a challenge ( [[#Palanisami--2015|Palanisami et al., 2015]] ) due to the difficulty of identifying and prioritising of technologies suiting local climate risks and accommodating the farming practices of locals ( [[#Dougill--2017|Dougill et al., 2017]] ; [[#Khatri-Chhetri--2017|Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2017]] ). An analysis of CSA implementation in Mali, for example, identified major challenges to policymakers’ efforts to adopt CSA, including difficulties identifying CSA options and portfolios, valuing them and prioritising investments ( [[#Andrieu--2017|Andrieu et al., 2017]] ).

Potential opportunities from CSA may also result from integration of ‘technological packages’ ( [[#Totin--2018|Totin et al., 2018]] ), which include new market structures, knowledge infrastructure and agriculture extension services, capacity-building programmes ( [[#Dougill--2017|Dougill et al., 2017]] ; [[#Totin--2018|Totin et al., 2018]] ) and institutional support for key enabling programmes, such as crop insurance, agro-advisories and rainwater harvesting ( [[#Khatri-Chhetri--2017|Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2017]] ). CSA is able—if carefully designed—to achieve transformative ‘triple wins’ for climate and development when it is accompanied by new governance architectures that are socially inclusive and respectful of traditions and livelihoods, and accommodate traditional institutions that underpin the bargaining power of the poorest and most vulnerable groups ( [[#Karlsson--2017|Karlsson et al., 2017]] ).

Conservation agriculture (CA), another framework for achieving CRD, is based on three synergistic principles: (a) soil management to reduce soil physical disturbance and reduce its degradation, (b) crop management such as residue management to protect the soil top layers and (c) genetic management to increase agricultural systems’ biodiversity and therefore their resilience ( [[#DeLonge--2017|DeLonge and Basche, 2017]] ). In the cereal systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India, CA has increased crop yields, returns from crop cultivation and input-use efficiency, in spite of heat stress, while reducing GHGs emissions ( [[#Sapkota--2015|Sapkota et al., 2015]] ). However, challenges with CA are also documented in the scientific literature. For example, an evaluation of CA in Malawi noted that adoption of CA was challenged by weak integration of CA in agricultural policies, lack of institutional arrangements of promoters and farmers’ experiences ( [[#Chinseu--2019|Chinseu et al., 2019]] ).

Locally appropriate agro-ecological practices have clear potential to increase the resilience of livelihoods and enhance adaptation to climate change at field and farm levels across a wide range of contexts, often with significant mitigation co-benefits ( [[#Sinclair--2019|Sinclair et al., 2019]] ). Relatedly, agroforestry systems are the intentional integration of trees and shrubs into crop and animal production systems to solve societal challenges including climate change ( [[#Raymond--2017|Raymond et al., 2017]] ). For example, in the tropics, such systems offer viable opportunities to mitigate and adapt to climate change for farmers by transitioning to resilient farming systems and improving farm economy while securing environmental benefits for local and global communities ( [[#Swamy--2017|Swamy and Tewari, 2017]] ). In Western Africa, the high plant functional diversity of agroforestry systems with a mix of trees and crops having different roles, such as shade provision, soil fertilization, fruit production or timber value, maximises benefits and allows alternative adaptation strategies ( [[#Tschora--2020|Tschora and Cherubini, 2020]] ). In spite of various benefits of agroforestry, the expansion of existing areas of agroforestry and the establishment of new agroforestry systems has remained limited ( [[#Martineau--2016|Martineau et al., 2016]] ), mainly due to a lack of institutional support, a lack of expert support to ensure adequate management, weak capacity for monitoring and regulation, and a lack of financial support ( [[#Hernández-Morcillo--2018|Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2018]] ).

The enabling conditions for the expansion of agroforestry include training and expert support programmes for managers and sharing of best practices ( [[#Ashraf--2015|Ashraf et al., 2015]] ; [[#Hernández-Morcillo--2018|Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2018]] ; [[#Tschora--2020|Tschora and Cherubini, 2020]] ). Other scalable frameworks integrating food and agriculture within CRD include sustainable intensification (SI), which emphasises sustainable practices to safeguard sustainable use of natural resources and meet the growing demand for agricultural production, while building resilience ( [[#Thierfelder--2018|Thierfelder et al., 2018]] ). Integrated agricultural systems aim to increase farm diversity and lower reliance on external inputs, enhancing nutrient cycling and increasing natural resource use efficiency ( [[#Smith--2017|Smith et al., 2017]] ), and may have the potential to enhance resilience against climate change impacts and risks ( [[#Gil--2017|Gil et al., 2017]] ). Policy frameworks that aim to integrate any of these approaches for climate action must account for the costs associated throughout the uptake and adoption process ( [[#Gil--2017|Gil et al., 2017]] ).

<div id="8.6.1.2.2" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="livestock"></span>
===== 8.6.1.2.2 Livestock =====

<div id="h4-6-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

As the consumption of animal protein and products rises along with global standards of living, CRD will require transformations in livestock-centred livelihoods. Livestock are a key contributor to global food security, especially in marginal lands where animal products are a unique source of energy, protein and micronutrients ( [[#FAO--2017|FAO, 2017]] ; [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ). However, they also contribute disproportionately to total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions globally and influence climate through land use change, processing and transport through emitting CO 2 , animal production by increasing methane emissions, and feed and manure production by emitting CO 2 , nitrous oxide, and methane, ( [[#Rojas-Downing--2017|Rojas-Downing et al., 2017]] ). Mitigation of livestock emissions can be achieved by implementation of various technologies and practices such as improving diets to reduce enteric fermentation, improving manure management and improving animal nutrition and genetics ( [[#Rojas-Downing--2017|Rojas-Downing et al., 2017]] ); altering land use for grazing and feed production, altering feeding practices, improving manure treatment and reducing herd size ( [[#Zhang--2017|Zhang et al., 2017]] ). Adaptation strategies in the livestock sector include changes in animal feeding, genetic manipulation, alterations in species and/or breeds ( [[#Zhang--2017|Zhang et al., 2017]] ), shifting to mixed crop–livestock systems ( [[#Rojas-Downing--2017|Rojas-Downing et al., 2017]] ), production and management system modifications, breeding strategies, institutional and policy changes, science and technology advances, and changing farmers’ perceptions and adaptive capacity ( [[#USDA--2013|USDA, 2013]] ).

Policies supporting sustainable rangeland management and the livelihood strategies of rangeland users have an outsized influence on both development and climate action ( [[#Gharibvand--2015|Gharibvand et al., 2015]] ). Climate change adaptation, mitigation practices and livestock production can be supported by policies that encourage diversification of livestock animals (within species), support sustainable foraging and feed varieties ( [[#Rivera-Ferre--2016|Rivera-Ferre et al., 2016]] ) and strengthen institutions such as agricultural support programmes, markets and intra- and inter-regional trade ( [[#Zhang--2017|Zhang et al., 2017]] ). For example, sustainable pastoralism can contribute to mitigation both by increasing carbon sequestration through improved soil management and by reducing methane emissions through changing the mix and distribution of the herd. Likewise sustainable pastoralism can also contribute to adaptation by changing grazing management, introducing alternative livestock breeds, improving pest management and modifying production structures ( [[#Joyce--2013|Joyce et al., 2013]] ). Another example of rangeland adaptation is diversifying the use of rangelands, such as supplementing with payments for ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, tourism or supplementary assistance for all land-based activities ( [[#Gharibvand--2015|Gharibvand et al., 2015]] ). However, challenges for climate-smart livestock production systems remain due to a lack of information, limited access to technology and insufficient capital ( [[#FAO--2017|FAO, 2017]] ). Smallholders in cropping and livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for example, face obstacles obtaining climate change mitigation and adaptation synergies due to poor access to markets and relevant knowledge, land tenure insecurity and the common property status of most grazing resources ( [[#Descheemaeker--2016|Descheemaeker et al., 2016]] ). Consequently, the appropriateness of these strategies and measures needs to be further evaluated, particularly in terms of their usefulness for the poor and most vulnerable.

Overall, different farming and pastoral systems can achieve reductions in the emissions intensity of livestock products. Depending on the farming and pastoral systems and level of development, reductions in the emissions intensity of livestock products may lead to absolute reductions in GHG emissions ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ) ( ''medium confidence'' ). Significant synergies exist between adaptation and mitigation, for example, through SLM approaches ( ''high confidence'' ).

<div id="8.6.1.2.3" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="forestry"></span>
===== 8.6.1.2.3 Forestry =====

<div id="h4-7-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Forests can support CRD in rural communities and households: they support consumption of energy, food and fibre, provide a safety net in cases of shocks, fill gaps during seasonal shortfalls and are a means to accumulate assets and provide support to emerge out of poverty ( [[#Angelsen--2014|Angelsen et al., 2014]] ; [[#Adams--2020|Adams et al., 2020]] ). Forest ecosystems are an essential element of climate change mitigation and adaptation, with the potential for synergy and conflict between the two climate action objectives ( [[#Morecroft--2019|Morecroft et al., 2019]] ). However, there are varied perspectives on the role of the forests, with some treating conservation and forest management practices as a barrier to livelihood resilience ( [[#Few--2017|Few et al., 2017]] ) despite the broader role of forest management in climate mitigation ( [[#Houghton--2012|Houghton, 2012]] ).

Forestry mitigation projects such as forest conservation, reduced deforestation, protected area management and sustainable forest management, can promote adaptation and can also have consequences for the development objectives of other sectors (e.g., expansion of farmland) ( [[#Smith--2014|Smith et al., 2014]] ). REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, fostering conservation and sustainable management of forest and enhancement of carbon stocks) is a payment programme that may provide adaptation benefits by enhancing households’ economic resilience ( [[#Sills--2014|Sills et al., 2014]] ; [[#Duchelle--2018|Duchelle et al., 2018]] ) and also produce positive livelihood impacts through the employment benefits of supporting conservation and sustainable management of forests ( [[#Caplow--2011|Caplow et al., 2011]] ). Furthermore, the management of ecosystem services may contribute to both mitigation and adaptation. For example, REDD+ projects, such as mangrove conservation and restoration, simultaneously contribute to carbon storage and diversification of incomes and economic activities. At the same time, mangroves protect coastal areas against flooding and hydrological variations, improving capacity for adaptation in local livelihoods ( [[#Locatelli--2016|Locatelli et al., 2016]] ).

However, while studies of existing REDD+ programmes noted the moderately encouraging impacts for mitigation and small or insignificant impacts for adaptation options (especially well-being), they underscored the potentially damaging impacts to local livelihoods ( [[#Milne--2019|Milne et al., 2019]] ; [[#Skutsch--2020|Skutsch and Turnhout, 2020]] ). They suggested improved engagement with local communities, increased funding to strengthen the interventions on the ground, and more attention to both mitigation and adaptation outcomes in implementation for achieving the benefits of REDD+ programme ( [[#Duchelle--2018|Duchelle et al., 2018]] ). Moreover, to effectively counter local threats to forests and biodiversity and attain positive biodiversity and development outcomes, REDD+ programmes must be focused on better institutional support for governance, coordinating interventions and monitoring of plans, as well as making explicit linkages between REDD+ activities and national biodiversity conservation efforts ( [[#Panfil--2016|Panfil and Harvey, 2016]] ) and assuring a fair distribution of benefits to local communities ( [[#Myers--2018|Myers et al., 2018]] ). An analysis of country-specific REDD+ programmes in Cameroon looking at synergies of REDD+ with other national goals, such as poverty reduction, identified two principal modes of strategic interaction management among actors. The first priority relates to specific structures for designing REDD+ giving high priority to social safeguards. The second relates to programming that builds trust, communication and confidence of participants creating an environment for enabling management through commitment and behavioural interaction by creating an overarching institutional framework and unilateral management ( [[#Somorin--2016|Somorin et al., 2016]] ).

To achieve CRD, forestry conservation strategies need to be driven by climate action and forest management policies that benefit both ecological and human systems, and, above all, involve forest communities in programme and project implementation ( [[#Cordeiro-Beduschi--2020|Cordeiro-Beduschi, 2020]] ). Synergies between mitigation and adaptation of the forestry sector can be enhanced by considering on-the-ground contexts of constraints and social trade-offs that may undermine implemented actions ( [[#Few--2017|Few et al., 2017]] ). However, the lack of knowledge about trade-offs and synergies at the local level and between local and global scales makes this challenging.

Despite these constraints, forestry can serve as a foundation for CRD when adaptation and mitigation activities are effectively integrated from the stage of policy formulation with consideration of specific institutional structures and procedures that can help to facilitate such integration ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). Effectively integrated adaptation and mitigation activities can be achieved by encouraging collaboration between the two activities, promoting research on the impacts of the integrated activities, their cost-effectiveness and their synergies within the complex setting of risks and uncertainty concerning the magnitude of climate change impacts ( [[#Bakkegaard--2016|Bakkegaard et al., 2016]] ), along with facilitating participation of communities in the two activities and defining forest policies ( [[#Ngum--2019|Ngum et al., 2019]] ). Moreover, international donors and funds are also critical to guide countries to identify adaptation–mitigation synergies, through consultation processes, dialogue and awareness raising ( [[#Locatelli--2016|Locatelli et al., 2016]] ). Moreover, in order to be effective, nature-based climate solutions such as mixed species plantation, forest expansion and REDD+, must be people-centric and respond to the needs of the rural and Indigenous Peoples who manage ecosystems for their livelihoods, while at the same time supporting the biodiversity of the ecosystems ( [[#Temperton--2019|Temperton et al., 2019]] ; [[#Fleischman--2020|Fleischman et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="8.6.1.2.4" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="energy"></span>
===== 8.6.1.2.4 Energy =====

<div id="h4-8-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

The continued dependence on fossil energy sources for economic development is the primary source of increasing GHGs ( [[#Hansen--2017|Hansen et al., 2017]] ). There is emerging agreement in terms of the importance of the bioenergy sector for climate change mitigation ( [[#Jackson--2016|Jackson et al., 2016]] ; [[#Hansen--2017|Hansen et al., 2017]] ), however, the options and limitations in terms of transforming the energy systems to support both mitigation and adaptation are still contested.

About 1 billion people globally (12.5% of the world’s population) do not have access to electricity ( [[#World%20Bank--2021|World Bank, 2021]] ), and yet access to electricity is required for basic adaptation strategies, such as the use of air conditioning and fans in homes and working spaces to mitigate heat stress and enable healthier lives, daytime activities and night-time sleep quality. Electrification enables farmers to mechanically pump water from the underground to boost agricultural productivity, stabilise yields and make food security less reliant on erratic rainfall patterns and less vulnerable to dry spells. Access to electricity enables the spread of valuable information through television, radio, computers and smartphones, including weather forecasts and disaster prevention and response ( [[#Dagnachew--2018|Dagnachew et al., 2018]] ). The increasing access to electricity facilitates SDG 7 coupled with other SDGs and societal goals, including mitigation of climate change ( [[#van%20Vuuren--2018|van Vuuren et al., 2018]] ) through reducing energy consumption by the use of efficient technology and appliances. Electricity access can be an important enabler of adaptation action for different purposes in different sectors ( [[#Mastrucci--2019|Mastrucci et al., 2019]] ).

Low-carbon development strategies can also be compatible with ecological sustainability, as proponents of bioenergy have claimed. Bioenergy can contribute to reducing emissions and energy inefficiencies in agricultural food and bioenergy sectors, while safeguarding food and energy security. However, recent literature also points towards significant tensions and mismatches between increasing bioenergy on agricultural land and local livelihoods and food security ( [[#Yildiz--2019|Yildiz, 2019]] ). A growing list of studies have documented the detrimental trade-offs between smallholder food systems and large-scale biofuel production, which include dispossession and impoverishment of smallholder farmers, food insecurity, food shortages and social instability ( [[#Hunsberger--2017|Hunsberger et al., 2017]] ). Nevertheless, synergies between bioenergy and food security can be promoted by integrated resource management designed to improve both food and water security and access to bioenergy; investments in technology, rural extension, promotion of stable prices to incentivise local production; and use of double cropping and flex crops to provide food and energy ( [[#Souza--2017|Souza et al., 2017]] ).

Trade-offs of bioenergy can be minimised by replacing land-intensive first-generation biofuels (e.g., oil palm) with second and subsequent generations (e.g., microalgae). However, there are costs of relying on ‘sustainable biofuels’ as most of the agricultural and non-agricultural land would be needed for cultivation of biofuels along with reduction in patterns of energy consumption a significant reduction in population ( [[#Gomiero--2015|Gomiero, 2015]] ). Contrasting impacts on environmental, economic and social sustainability are reported for production and use of biofuels ( [[#Azapagic--2011|Azapagic and Perdan, 2011]] ), ranging from positive impacts, such as reduction in GHG emissions, energy security and rural development, to negative impacts, such as risks of increasing food prices, increasing GHG emissions through direct and indirect land use change from production of biofuel feedstocks, and degradation of land, forests, water resources and ecosystems ( [[#UNEP--2009|UNEP, 2009]] ). Biofuel production may cause loss of biodiversity ( [[#Jeswani--2020|Jeswani et al., 2020]] ) and may also impact various ecosystem services, such as land, water and food, and may pollute air, water and soil ( [[#Scovronick--2014|Scovronick and Wilkinson, 2014]] ). The collective benefits of biofuels could be realised by developing future policies based on integrated systems with a clear understanding about the interactions across sectors and land uses gained by analysing complete value chains ( [[#Jeswani--2020|Jeswani et al., 2020]] ).

Clean sources of energy, such as solar and wind, can facilitate both mitigation and adaptation. For example, in South Africa, clean sources of energy provide energy security with huge water savings along with creation of employment, proximity to point of use and, in many cases, less reliance on concentrated sources of energy ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ). Overall, the increased use of thermal solar panels contributes to reducing GHG emissions and improves air quality, as well as providing benefits to the community and the environment. The differential adoption of solar panels can be managed by simultaneous investment in other technologies that utilise renewable energy along with investment in solar panels ( [[#Kaya--2019|Kaya et al., 2019]] ). Development of a smart electricity grid connected to a renewable energy source reduces GHG emissions and decreases vulnerability to climate change by enhancing the response to changing conditions and providing a more reliable service to the population ( [[#Hennessey--2017|Hennessey et al., 2017]] ). Moreover, development of policies for a low-carbon and climate-resilient power system, a local nexus between mitigation and adaptation could be explored ( [[#Handayani--2020|Handayani et al., 2020]] ). For example, use of efficient fuel in urban areas facilitates air pollution reduction and also provides health benefits for urban populations ( [[#Ramaswami--2017|Ramaswami et al., 2017]] ). Green buildings substantially reduce energy consumption and also improve indoor environmental quality and thus contribute to mitigation and provide societal value in terms of health ( [[#MacNaughton--2018|MacNaughton et al., 2018]] ). In addition, green-roofed buildings contribute to keeping local temperatures cooler during hot days and thereby reducing energy use for air conditioning and thus contributing to both mitigation and adaptation ( [[#Sharma--2016|Sharma et al., 2016]] ).

Positive synergies between adaptation and mitigation in the energy sector can include changes in production technologies and utilisation of technologies by various industries, changes in consumer or corporate behaviour, and the development of policies that alter the energy sector activities sufficiently to achieve a combination of reduced GHGs emissions and increased benefits for communities ( [[#Morand--2015|Morand et al., 2015]] ). However, the policy perspective must be based on the country circumstances, especially urbanisation, economic growth and energy consumption matching with the income level of the country ( [[#Wang--2018|Wang et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="8.6.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="decision-making-approaches-for-climate-resilient-development"></span>
=== 8.6.2 Decision-making Approaches for Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

A range of different traditional economic decision support tools can be used to help guide resource allocation in relation to climate change adaptation (e.g., cost–benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-criteria analysis) (Watkiss et al., 2016), with a strong focus on monetary values and the present and near-term. There are also tools to assess uncertainty (e.g., iterative risk management) and to guide decision making under uncertainty over longer time frames (through, e.g., real options analysis, robust decision making involving substantial numbers of scenarios, portfolio analysis and rule-based decision support for uncertainty where maximum regrets are minimised). Use of these tools nevertheless requires human capital and skills, and more commonly they are applied to public rather than private (individual/ household) adaptation decision processes. Tools grounded in economics can lack sufficient consideration of which groups in society might gain and lose out from particular options ( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool et al., 2015]] ; [[#Stringer--2019|Stringer et al., 2019]] ), neglecting to appreciate non-monetary factors (like well-being) which are non-economic, less tangible and harder to put a value on (see [[#8.3|Section 8.3]] ).

This section lists several groups of strategies, including mainstreaming and coherence; dealing with complexities through broader and innovative governance; provision of funding and the associated cost and benefit analysis; and focusing on the community and addressing underlying equity through transformational adaptation.

<div id="8.6.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="policy-coherence-policy-integration-and-broader-governance-approaches"></span>
==== 8.6.2.1 Policy Coherence, Policy Integration and Broader Governance Approaches ====

<div id="h3-34-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Mainstreaming and policy coherence is one of the most proposed strategies for dealing with adaptation and mitigation as a coherent approach, in the context of good governance. Politics, power and interests influence the prospects of achieving integrated climate policy and development goals in practice ( [[#Naess--2015|Naess et al., 2015]] ). Institutional incoherence has led to inefficiency and ineffectiveness ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ). To achieve more coherent institutions and synergies, four major enabling conditions have been identified: (a) planned and/or existing national laws, policies and strategies, (b) existing and planned financial means and measures, (c) institutional arrangements in the country with specific reference to climate change issues and (d) planned and/or existing programmes and initiatives in the country ( [[#Kabisch--2016|Kabisch et al., 2016]] ). Another strategy offered is to develop a ‘dual track approach’ at local/municipality/city level by having a local climate plan and/or mainstreaming plan ( [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al., 2014b]] ). This can lead to effective implementation of climate actions and diffusion of climate issues into local sector policies ( [[#Reckien--2019|Reckien et al., 2019]] ). Effective climate policy integration (CPI) calls for four levels of coherence ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ), namely between internal coherence (mitigation and adaptation policies objectives and policies), external coherence (climate change and development objectives), vertical integration (mainstream climate change into sectoral policies) and horizontal integration (overarching governance structures for cross-sectoral coordination).

Progress of policy integration varies from the global to local level. Progress in mainstreaming and coherence is emerging globally and has slowly made it down to the national level ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ). Adaptation and mitigation should be mainstreamed into planning and implementation on food security programmes, and cross-cutting oversights are required to integrate land restoration, climate policy, food security and disaster risk management into a coherent policy framework ( [[#Woolf--2015|Woolf et al., 2015]] ).

There has been an increase in the literature examining adaptation and mitigation synergy in the Nationally Determined Contributions submitted by countries to the UNFCCC. Agriculture and energy are the two priority sectors for which there have been significant pledges and commitments from countries, with, to some extent, good alignment between adaptation and mitigation. This alignment can provide good opportunities to integrate both into national sectoral policies ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018a|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018a]] ). This suggests that inclusive and sustainable economic and social development can be achieved if national governments focus on developing coherent, cross-sector approaches that deliver potential triple wins of mitigation, adaptation and development.

Different governance approaches, such as polycentric governance, adaptive governance, multi-level governance, collaborative governance or network governance, are increasingly utilised to understand the processes of transitioning towards CRD. The potential of polycentric governance approaches for promoting both climate mitigation and adaptation is well established ( [[#Cole--2015|Cole, 2015]] ; [[#Abbott--2017|Abbott, 2017]] ; [[#Morrison--2017a|Morrison et al., 2017a]] ; [[#Warner--2018|Warner et al., 2018]] ). Polycentric governance deals with active steering of local, regional, national and international actors, and instigates learning from experience across multiple actors, levels of decision making and temporal scales ( [[#Ostrom--2010|Ostrom, 2010]] ). It is the source of power to achieve collective goals. Polycentric actors have the framing power, power by design and pragmatic power ( [[#Morrison--2017b|Morrison et al., 2017b]] ). Polycentric governance offers new opportunities for climate action through more opportunities for communication, trust-building, policy experimentation and learning ( [[#Cole--2015|Cole, 2015]] ). Adaptive governance is understood as various interactions between actors, networks, organisations and institutions towards achieving a desired state of social-ecological systems ( [[#Chaffin--2014|Chaffin et al., 2014]] ). It requires a structure of nested institutions, diversity at different levels, connected by formal and informal social networks ( [[#Dietz--2003|Dietz et al., 2003]] ). As [[#Brunner--2010|Brunner and Lynch (2010)]] observe, the emergence of community-based initiatives in addressing climate change marks the emergence of adaptive governance.

<div id="8.6.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="the-waterenergyfoodnexus-approach"></span>
==== 8.6.2.2 The Water–Energy–Food–Nexus Approach ====

<div id="h3-35-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Increasing demands for water, energy, food and materials are putting pressure on resource supply, and hence the nexus approach can inform transition pathways for interlinked resource systems ( [[#Johnson--2019|Johnson et al., 2019]] ). The nexus approach, especially the water–energy–food nexus, is used to examine synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation ( [[#Howells--2014|Howells and Rogner, 2014]] ). As reviewed by [[#Wiegleb--2018|Wiegleb and Bruns (2018)]] , early use of the concept was by the World Economic Forum in 2008 where it was emphasised that issues of economic growth need to be considered within water, energy and food resource systems. This was later published as ''Water Security: The Water–Food–Energy–Climate Nexus'' . Another key activity was the Bonn2011 Nexus conference. Then, in 2015, The Nexus Dialogue Programme was held by the UN and EU Commissions as an approach to implement the SDGs. UN Water underscores the water–energy–food nexus as central to development ( [[#Newell--2019|Newell et al., 2019]] ). It notes that demand for water, food and energy are rising due to a growing population, rapid urbanisation, changing diets and economic growth, and in most cases, the lack of knowledge on the water–energy–food nexus has often led to mismatches in prioritisation and decision making which hinders sustainable development ( [[#Mitra--2020|Mitra et al., 2020]] ). However, the benefits of nexus approach are not always easily quantified and often accrue to local communities over time ( [[#Amjath-Babu--2019|Amjath-Babu et al., 2019]] ).

A well-coordinated and integrated nexus approach offers opportunities to build resilient systems while harmonising interventions, mitigating trade-offs and hence improving sustainability ( [[#Biggs--2015|Biggs et al., 2015]] ). This can be achieved through greater resource mobilisation and coordination, policy convergence across sectors and targeting nexus points in the broader landscape ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ). Studies utilising the nexus approach to climate change in different places show considerably different results. In the southern African region, climate change is already affecting water–energy–food resources and exerting further pressure on already scarce resources. It is proposed that adaptation can be achieved through cross-sectoral management of resources, by adopting water management practices, aiming to produce more food and energy with less water resources and adopting cleaner and renewable sources of energy. This will result in saving water and ensuring energy security in a region that depends on hydro and coal energy sources ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ). Applying the nexus approach to the Hindu Kush Himalayan region identified three challenges: increasing population and declining agricultural land, stagnating or declining food production and increasingly water- and energy-intensive food production despite water and energy scarcity ( [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ). Nexus smart adaptation policies need to be complemented with system-wide adaptation, policy coherence and sectoral coordination that targets poverty and vulnerability linkages ( [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ).

<div id="8.6.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="community-based-approach"></span>
==== 8.6.2.3 Community-based Approach ====

<div id="h3-36-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Another important strategy to better determine impacts of adaptation and mitigation and to promote inclusivity, transparency and accountability is the community-based approach. This approach also supports adaptation and mitigation indirectly through the strengthening of capacity and social capital. For example, in Bangkalan, Indonesia, the presence of high social capacity and readily available free agricultural inputs are two decisive factors for effective climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as for enhancing community livelihood ( [[#Sunkar--2018|Sunkar and Santosa, 2018]] ). The calls to consider Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous People to support integrated strategies in adaptation and mitigation are increasing ( [[#Ford--2016|Ford et al., 2016]] ; [[#Altieri--2017|Altieri and Nicholls, 2017]] ; [[#Brugnach--2017|Brugnach et al., 2017]] ). Detailed knowledge of local socio-ecological contexts may offer transformational processes to harness synergies ( [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti, 2017]] ). A study in the Ukraine on cooperatives shows that it offers a well-established livelihood strategy and means to support agriculture smallholders. Moreover, social capital fulfils key roles in the process of capacity building and implementation of sustainable measures ( [[#Kopytko--2018|Kopytko, 2018]] ). In Indonesia, a well-known programme focusing on community-led adaptation and mitigation activities is Proklim. It empowers communities to learn about climate change impacts, record data and plan actions for climate change (Muttaqin and Yulianti, 2019). Multi-stakeholder, participatory planning processes are beneficial to help farmers to screen and prioritise rural livelihood strategies in Indonesia. The necessity of CRD is reflected in standard development interventions: water management, intensification and diversification of agriculture and aquaculture, education, health, food security and skill building for farmers ( [[#Wise--2016|Wise et al., 2016]] ).

<div id="8.6.3." class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="future-adaptation-finance-and-social-and-economic-changes-within-the-context-of-poverty-livelihoods-equity-equality-and-justice"></span>
=== 8.6.3. Future Adaptation Finance and Social and Economic Changes within the Context of Poverty, Livelihoods, Equity, Equality and Justice ===

<div id="h2-18-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="8.6.3.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="coverage-of-adaptation-finance"></span>
==== 8.6.3.1 Coverage of Adaptation Finance ====

<div id="h3-37-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is still some debate on what qualifies as adaptation finance and how such finance should be measured ( [[#UNFCCC--2016|UNFCCC, 2016]] ). According to the Climate Policy Initiative, adaptation finance is ‘finance with the aim of improving preparation and reducing climate-related risk and damage, for both human and natural systems, as short-term climate impacts will continue to exact economic, social, and environmental costs even if appropriate mitigation actions are taken’ ( [[#CPI--2019|CPI, 2019]] ). According to UNEP, the annual costs of adaptation in developing countries could range from USD 140 billion to USD 300 billion by 2030. Globally, adaptation costs are estimated to be even greater, with up to USD 500 billion yr −1 by 2050 under a Business-As-Usual scenario ( [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ). While global climate finance flows reached USD 579 billion on average over the 2017/18 period, there has been a continued heavy imbalance in favour of mitigation finance, with adaptation finance totalling around USD 30 billion (compared to USD 532 billion for mitigation), or 5% of tracked climate finance. The World Bank has, however, committed to increase direct adaptation finance to USD 50 billion over the 2020–25 period, putting the Bank’s adaptation finance in developing countries on par with its mitigation investments ( [[#World%20Bank--2019a|World Bank, 2019a]] ). Adaptation finance is also growing alongside finance for actions with both mitigation and adaptation benefits, for example in forestry or agriculture, which rose to just over USD 12 billion ( [[#CPI--2019|CPI, 2019]] ), as well as increasing focus on adaptation and cross-sectoral projects. Looking only at climate finance flows from developed to developing countries, the OECD estimates a total of USD 78.9 billion mobilised in 2018, with mitigation accounting for 70% (USD 55 billion) of the total, adaptation 21% (USD 16.8 billion) and cross-cutting finance making up the remainder ( [[#OECD--2020a|OECD, 2020a]] ).

Adaptation finance funds actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change, yet such actions are heavily context, scale and time specific. Many mitigation actions in the energy sector can be easily quantified and employed across different jurisdictions. For example, solar photovoltaic (PV) presents an established way across a multitude of countries to produce low-carbon energy at a profit and reduce global GHG emissions. Adaptation needs, however, vary greatly from location to location and short-term solutions, for example investments in irrigation technologies to improve water availability for specific crops in a growing season, may differ from longer-term solutions, for example, switching to different crops altogether. Benefits are not always easily quantified and often accrue to local communities over time rather than to investors looking for the kind of returns realised in mitigation actions.

Development finance institutions mainly draw on market-rate loans and, to a lesser extent, concessional lending and grants to finance adaptation actions. There are regional differences in the choice of instruments, too, owing to the degree of economic development: while most of the adaptation finance flowing to the Asia-Pacific is market-rate debt, the vast majority of adaptation finance flowing to sub-Saharan Africa is in the form of concessional debt or grants ( [[#Richmond--2020|Richmond et al., 2020]] ).

Globally, the main sectors benefiting from adaptation finance to date include water and waste water management; agriculture, forestry, land use and natural resource management; disaster risk management; and infrastructure, energy, and other built environment ( [[#Oliver--2018|Oliver et al., 2018]] ). In recent years, this finance has moved away from concentrating on water and wastewater management to spread out more evenly across the sectors. Between 2015/16 and 2017/18, investment in water and wastewater management dropped from USD 11 billion to USD 9 billion, while investment in agriculture, forestry, land use and natural resource management grew from USD 5 billion to USD 7 billion, and investment in disaster risk management more than doubled from USD 3 billion to USD 7 billion ( [[#CPI--2019|CPI, 2019]] ). In addition, while mitigation actions are more easily delineated, for example wind farms in the energy sector, adaptation measures often need to be mainstreamed across a number of sectors and investment decisions.

There are strong interconnections between NBS, climate adaptation and mitigation actions. Ecosystem-based adaptation is a nature-based solution that uses ecosystem services to help communities adapt to climate change. Examples of such approaches were covered in [[#8.5.2.2|Section 8.5.2.2]] . For example, mangrove restoration provides both climate mitigation (as carbon sinks) and adaptation to climate change (increasing the resilience of coastal communities), while also supporting the implementation of a range of other SDGs (e.g., through increased food security). Research has found that without mangroves, global flood damage costs would increase by more than USD 65 billion a year ( [[#Menéndez--2020|Menéndez et al., 2020]] ). There is, therefore, an urgent need to invest in a range of NBS.

<div id="box-8.9" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 8.9 | Adaptation financing for the poor and the need for systems transition: Eastern Indonesian Islands'''
<div id="h2-19-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''Summary'''
A 4-year project in Nusa Tenggara Barat Province, Indonesia, aimed to stimulate an adaptation pathways process. The goal was to support CRD in a context with low stakeholder capacity, high poverty, and rapid environmental and social change. On these archipelagic islands, livelihoods are predominantly rural, far from political and urban centres. The project focused on integrated top-down and bottom-up development planning that could enable CRD at the local level, linked to provincial and national plans.

'''Lessons learnt'''
* Substantial gradients in both climate and livelihoods in the island geographies necessitate fine-scale planning and make it difficult to scale up.
* Infrastructural investments, including roads, ports and irrigation, are crucial to CRD. If not well designed, such investments are prone to maladaptation, such as exposure to sea level rise.
* Although some development interventions are delivering climate resilience, such outcomes are often haphazard, rather than strategically conceived, coordinated and delivered ( [[#Butler--2016|Butler et al., 2016]] ).

New financial instruments can help to support investment in, for example, ecosystem-based adaptation. For example, green bonds can raise significant amounts of capital in support of projects with environmental/climate benefits. The green bond market has quickly developed since the European Investment Bank launched the first green bond in 2007, with issuance growing to USD 257.7 billion in 2019, up more than 50% on the previous year ( [[#CPI--2019|CPI, 2019]] ). Most green bonds focus on energy, buildings and transport infrastructure but green bond issuance to support sustainable agriculture and forestry has grown from USD 208 million in 2013 to USD 7.4 billion in 2018 (Wilkins, 2019). The Seychelles issued the world’s first ‘blue’ bond in 2018 with the support of the World Bank. Similar to green bonds, blue bonds earmark the use of bond proceeds for specific purposes, here the sustainable use of marine resources (World Bank, 2018). In 2019, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development issued the world’s first ever dedicated climate resilience bond, raising USD 700 million. The 5-year bond will be used to finance the Bank’s projects in climate-resilient infrastructure (e.g., water, energy and transport), climate-resilient business, commercial operations, climate-resilient agriculture and ecological systems (Bennett, 2019). While these issuances are still small compared to the overall green bond market, their rapid growth points to enormous opportunities for ecosystem-based adaptation.

Despite the growth of official adaptation funding at international and national levels, for the world’s poorest, adaptation to the impacts and opportunities of climate change frequently occurs in response to L&amp;Ds at the individual or household scale, without coordination at larger institutional scales ( [[#8.3|Section 8.3]] , 8.4; [[#Barrett--2014|Barrett, 2014]] ). Discussions of adaptation finance often occur in the context of dwindling resources and trade-offs: triage decisions about other investments that societies can tolerate suspending ( [[#Warner--2013|Warner and Van der Geest, 2013]] ; [[#Tanner--2015|Tanner et al., 2015]] ). In many poor, vulnerable countries, complex governance challenges, such as budget austerity or corruption, hamper the provision of such support. In the absence of adaptation funding for the poor, coordinated at higher scales, the costs of adaptation are borne by the poor at community, kin-group and household scales. Bearing the cost of adaptation, thus, can become, in the short term, an erosive process of coping that ultimately increases the likelihood that communities and households will remain trapped in poverty ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018b|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018b]] ). In the long term, measures financing adaptation may be maladaptive, meaning they ultimately leave the poor at greater risk of experiencing climate change impacts ( [[#8.4.5|Section 8.4.5]] ; [[#Rahman--2019|Rahman and Hickey, 2019]] ). Such circumstances highlight the governance gap that drives the poorest to rely on extreme measures to finance adaptation.

Since the AR5, there is greater documentation of the extreme measures and high-risk income alternatives that the world’s poorest commonly take to finance adaptation ( [[#Dawson--2017|Dawson, 2017]] ; [[#Ahmed--2019|Ahmed et al., 2019]] ). While still a controversial topic, clear examples of extreme adaptation finance measures include:

* Unauthorised international migration ( [[#McLeman--2018|McLeman, 2018]] )
* Informal small-scale mining of precious metals and minerals ( [[#Hilson--2012|Hilson and Van Bockstael, 2012]] ; [[#Osumanu--2020|Osumanu, 2020]] )
* Illegal poaching of flora and fauna, including participation in illegal timber harvesting ( [[#Bolognesi--2015|Bolognesi et al., 2015]] )
* Illegal, unregulated or unreported fishing, including within marine protected areas, or the coastal zones of neighbouring countries ( [[#Tanner--2014|Tanner et al., 2014]] )
* Utilisation of livelihood resources, such as boats, in smuggling activities, including drug and arms trafficking ( [[#Belhabib--2020|Belhabib et al., 2020]] )
* Participation in piracy, extortion or kidnapping economies ( [[#Staff--2017|Staff, 2017]] ).

Enabling conditions for formal adaptation finance for the poorest are needed to reduce reliance on high-risk, extra-legal sources of income (see [[#8.5.2|Section 8.5.2]] ). In general, the antidote to this emerging problem is access to living wages that the poor can rely on to finance adaptation. There are few examples of pro-poor mechanisms, programmes or institutions that prioritise coordinated, access to credit for proactively adapting livelihoods of the poor ( [[#Agrawal--2009|Agrawal and Perrin, 2009]] ). Institutions can reduce incentives for vulnerable people to engage in high-risk activities by including them in the process of adaptation governance, which aims not only to support sustainable livelihood practices (such as farming, fishing and forestry), but also to guarantee land tenure ( [[#Wrathall--2019|Wrathall et al., 2019]] ). Also critical for risk reduction to the poor is the ability of authorities across multiple spatial and temporal scales to maintain social protection to reduce the dependency of illegal sources of income and facilitate adaptation ( [[#Tenzing--2020|Tenzing, 2020]] ). A range of tools exists for opening access to credit to poor and marginalised people whose livelihoods are most vulnerable ( [[#Ribot--2013|Ribot, 2013]] ): climate insurance tools that are designed and targeted at the poorest and which have been properly assessed to ensure that they do not undermine other coping strategies such as risk spreading, programmes that ease access or subsidise loans for adaptation, mobile banking and mobile-based financial and risk management tools, impact pay-outs in the form of direct transfers and institutional support for hometown associations. International governance arrangements, such as the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage, might aim primarily to clear the financing gap between global financial and risk management institutions and the pocketbooks of the poorest ( [[#Wrathall--2015|Wrathall et al., 2015]] ).

<div id="8.7" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="conclusion"></span>