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

==== 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>