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

==== 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>