Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-13 (section)

== 13.8 Integrating Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development ==

<div id="h1-9-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

There is growing consensus that integration of adaptation and mitigation will advance progress towards sustainable development, and that ambitious mitigation efforts will reduce the need for adaptation in the long term ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#IPCC--2014a|IPCC 2014a]] ). There is no level of mitigation, however, that will completely erase the need for adaptation to climate change ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Mauritsen--2017|Mauritsen and Pincus 2017]] ). It is therefore urgent to design and implement a multi-objective policy framework for mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development that considers issues of equity and long-term developmental pathways across regions ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Jordan--2018|Jordan et al. 2018]] ; [[#Mills‐Novoa--2019|Mills‐Novoa and Liverman 2019]] ; [[#Wang--2019|Wang and Chen 2019]] ). This section explores the logic behind the integration of adaptation and mitigation in practice ( [[#13.8.1|Section 13.8.1]] ), the approaches to this integration including climate-resilient pathways, ecosystem-based solutions, and a nexus approach ( [[#13.8.2|Section 13.8.2]] ); examples of the adaption and mitigation relationships and linkages ( [[#13.8.3|Section 13.8.3]] ); and enabling and disabling factors for governance of mitigation and adaption.

<div id="13.8.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="synergies-between-adaptation-and-mitigation"></span>
=== 13.8.1 Synergies Between Adaptation and Mitigation ===

<div id="h2-25-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Integrated climate-development actions require a context-specific understanding of synergies and trade-offs with other policy priorities (Figure 13.6) with the aim of implementing mitigation/adaptation policies that reduce GHG emissions while simultaneously strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Klein--2005|Klein et al. 2005]] ; [[#IPCC--2007|IPCC 2007]] ; [[#Zhao--2018|Zhao et al. 2018]] ; [[#Mills‐Novoa--2019|Mills‐Novoa and Liverman 2019]] ; [[#Solecki--2019|Solecki et al. 2019]] ). Efficient, equitable and inclusive policies which also acknowledge and contribute directly to other pressing priorities such reducing poverty, improving health, providing access to clean water, and fostering sustainable consumption and production practices are helpful for mitigation/adaptation goals ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Landauer--2019|Landauer et al. 2019]] ; [[#Grafakos--2020|Grafakos et al. 2020]] ).

Adaptation and mitigation are deeply linked in practice – at the local level, for instance, asset managers address integrated low-carbon resilience to climate change impacts and urban planners do the same ( [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2018|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2018]] ; [[#Grafakos--2020|Grafakos et al. 2020]] ) (Table 13.3). Similarly, ecosystem-based (or nature-based) solutions, may generate co-benefits by simultaneously sinking carbon, cooling urban areas through shading, purifying water, improving biodiversity, and offering recreational opportunities that improve public health ( [[#Raymond--2017|Raymond et al. 2017]] ). Accurately identifying and qualitatively or quantitatively assessing these co-benefits ( [[#Stadelmann--2014|Stadelmann et al. 2014]] ; [[#Leiter--2018|Leiter and Pringle 2018]] ; [[#Leiter--2019|Leiter et al. 2019]] ) is central to an integrated adaptation and mitigation policy evaluation.

Some studies press the need to consider the complex ways that power and interests influence how collective decisions are made, and who benefits from and pays for these decisions, of climate policy and to be aware of unintended consequences, especially for vulnerable people living under poor conditions ( [[#Mayrhofer--2016|Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016]] ; [[#De%20Oliveira%20Silva--2018|De Oliveira Silva et al. 2018]] ). The specific adaptation and mitigation linkages will differ by country and region, as illustrated by Box 13.15.

<div id="Box 13.15 | Adaptation and Mitigation Syne" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="box-13.15-adaptation-and-mitigation-syne-rgies-in-africa"></span>
=== Box 13.15 | Adaptation and Mitigation Synergies in Africa ===

<div id="h2-55-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions and sustainable development that can enhance the quality and pace of development in Africa exist at both sectoral and national levels. Available data on NDCs show the top mitigation priorities in African countries include energy, forestry, transport and agriculture and waste, and adaptation priorities focus on agriculture, water, energy and forestry. The energy sector dominates in mitigation actions and the agricultural sector is the main focus of adaptation measures, with the latter sector being a slightly larger source of greenhouse gases than the former ( [[#Mbeva--2015|Mbeva et al. 2015]] ; [[#African%20Development%20Bank--2019|African Development Bank 2019]] ; [[#Nyiwul--2019|Nyiwul 2019]] ).

Renewable energy development can support synergies between mitigation and adaptation by stimulating local and national economies through microenterprise development; providing off-grid affordable and accessible solutions; and contributing to poverty reduction through increased locally available resource use and employment and increased technical skills ( [[#Nyiwul--2019|Nyiwul 2019]] ; [[#Dal%20Maso--2020|Dal Maso et al. 2020]] ). The Paris Agreement’s technology transfer and funding mechanisms could reduce renewable energy costs and providing scale economics to local economies.

Barriers to achieving these synergies include the absence of suitable macro-and micro- level policy environments for adaptation and mitigation actions; coherent climate change policy frameworks and governance structures to support adaptation; institutional and capacity deficiencies in climate and policy research such as on data integration and technical analysis; and the high financial needs associated with the cost of mitigation and adaptation ( [[#African%20Development%20Bank--2019|African Development Bank 2019]] ; [[#Nyiwul--2019|Nyiwul 2019]] ). Strengthening of national institutions and policies can support maximising synergies and co-benefits between adaptation and mitigation to reduce silos and redundant overlaps, increase knowledge exchange at the country and regional levels, and support engagement with bilateral and multilateral partners and mobilising finance through the mechanisms available ( [[#African%20Development%20Bank--2019|African Development Bank 2019]] ).

<div id="13.8.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="frameworks-that-enable-the-integration-of-adaption-and-mitigation"></span>

=== 13.8.2 Frameworks That Enable the Integration of Adaption and Mitigation ===

<div id="h2-26-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The IPCC’s ''Fifth Assessment Report'' (AR5) emphasised the importance of climate-resilient pathways – development trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation through specific actions to achieve the sustainable development goals ( [[#Prasad--2009|Prasad et al. 2009]] ; [[#Lewison--2015|Lewison et al. 2015]] ; [[#Fankhauser--2016|Fankhauser and McDermott 2016]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2016|Romero-Lankao et al. 2016]] ; [[#Solecki--2019|Solecki et al. 2019]] ) – from the household to the state level, since risks and opportunities vary by location and the specific local development context ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#IPCC--2014b|IPCC 2014b]] ; [[#Denton--2015|Denton et al. 2015]] ).

Synergies between adaptation and mitigation are included in many of the NDCs submitted to the UNFCCC, as part of overall low-emissions climate-resilient development strategies ( [[#UNFCCC%20Secretariat--2016|UNFCCC Secretariat 2016]] ). a majority of developing countries have agreed to develop National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) in which many initiatives contribute simultaneously to the SDGs ( [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper et al. 2020]] ) as well to mitigation efforts ( [[#Hönle--2019|Hönle et al. 2019]] ; [[#Atteridge--2020|Atteridge et al. 2020]] ). For example, developing countries recognise that adaptation actions in sectors such as agriculture, forestry and land-use management can reduce GHGs. Nevertheless, other more complex trade-offs also exist between bioenergy production or reforestation and the land needed for agricultural adaptation and food security ( [[#African%20Development%20Bank--2019|African Development Bank 2019]] ; [[#Hönle--2019|Hönle et al. 2019]] ; [[#Nyiwul--2019|Nyiwul 2019]] ) (Chapter 7). For some of the Small Islands Development States (SIDS), forestry and coastal management, including mangrove planting, saltmarsh and seagrass are sectors that intertwine both mitigation and adaptation ( [[#Duarte--2013|Duarte et al. 2013]] ; [[#Atteridge--2020|Atteridge et al. 2020]] ). Integrated efforts also occur at the city level, such as the Climate Change Action Plan of Wellington City, which includes enhancing forest sinks to increase carbon sequestration while at the same time protecting biodiversity and reducing groundwater runoff as rainfall increases ( [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al. 2019]] ).

To fully maximise their potential co-benefits and trade-offs of integrating adaptation and mitigation, these should be explicitly sought, rather than accidentally discovered ( [[#Spencer--2017|Spencer et al. 2017]] ; [[#Berry--2015|Berry et al. 2015]] ), and policies designed to account for both ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Caetano--2020|Caetano et al. 2020]] ). For example, the REDD+ initiative focus on mitigation by carbon sequestration was set up to provide co-benefits such as: nature protection, political inclusion, monetary income, economic opportunities. However, some unintended trade-offs may have occurred such as physical displacement, loss of livelihoods, increased human–wildlife conflicts, property claims, food security concerns, and an unequal distribution of benefits to local population groups ( [[#Bushley--2014|Bushley 2014]] ; [[#Duguma--2014a|Duguma et al. 2014a]] ; [[#Gebara--2014|Gebara et al. 2014]] ; [[#Kongsager--2015|Kongsager and Corbera 2015]] ; [[#Anderson--2016|Anderson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2016|Di Gregorio et al. 2016]] , 2017). Ultimately, ecosystem (or nature-based) strategies, such as the use of wetlands to create accessible recreational areas that improve public health while improving biodiversity, sinking carbon and protecting neighbourhoods from extreme flooding events, may lead to more efficient and cost-effective policies ( [[#Klein--2005|Klein et al. 2005]] ; [[#Locatelli--2011|Locatelli et al. 2011]] ; [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al. 2016]] ; [[#Mills‐Novoa--2019|Mills‐Novoa and Liverman 2019]] ).

The ‘nexus’ approach is another widely used framework that describes the linkages between water, energy, food, health and other socio-economic factors in some integrated assessment approaches ( [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma 2016]] ). The Food-Energy-Water (FEW)nexus, for example, considers how water is required for energy production and supply (and thus tied to mitigation), how energy is needed to treat and transport water, and how both are critical to adaptable and resilient food production systems ( [[#Mohtar--2014|Mohtar and Daher 2014]] ; [[#Biggs--2015|Biggs et al. 2015]] ). Climate change impacts all these dimensions in the form of multi-hazard risk ( [[#Froese--2019|Froese and Schilling 2019]] ). Although integrative, the FEW nexus faces many challenges including: limited knowledge integration; coordination between different institutions and levels of government; politics and power; cultural values; and ways of managing climate risk ( [[#Leck--2015|Leck and Roberts 2015]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2017|Romero-Lankao et al. 2017]] ; [[#Mercure--2019|Mercure et al. 2019]] ). More empirical assessment is needed to identify potential overlaps between sectoral portfolios, as this could help to delineate resources allocation for synergies and to avoid trade-offs.

<div id="Box 13.16 | Latin America" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="box-13.16-latin-america-region-adaptation-linking-mitigation-redd-lessons"></span>
=== Box 13.16 | Latin America Region Adaptation Linking Mitigation: REDD+ Lessons ===

<div id="h2-55-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Thirty-three countries in the Latin American region have submitted their NDCs, and 70% of their initiatives have included mitigation and adaptation options focusing on sustainable development ( [[#Bárcena--2018|Bárcena et al. 2018]] ; [[#Kissinger--2019|Kissinger et al. 2019]] ). However, most of these policies are disconnected across sectors ( [[#Loaiza--2017|Loaiza et al. 2017]] ; [[#Locatelli--2017|Locatelli et al. 2017]] ). National governments have identified their relevant sectors as: energy, agriculture, forestry, land-use change, biodiversity, and water resources (see Figure 1 below). The region houses 57% of the primary forest of the planet. REDD+ aims to reduce GHG while provide ecosystems services to vulnerable communities ( [[#Bárcena--2018|Bárcena et al. 2018]] ). Lessons from successful REDD+ programmes include the benefits of a multilevel structure from international to national down to strong community organisation, as well as secure resources funding, with most of the projects relying on external sources of funding ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Loaiza--2017|Loaiza et al. 2017]] ; [[#Kissinger--2019|Kissinger et al. 2019]] ). However, there is limited evidence of effective adaptation co-benefits, which may be related to the lack of provision of forest standards; a disproportionate focus on mitigation and lack of attention to the well-being of the population in rural and agricultural areas ( [[#Kongsager--2015|Kongsager and Corbera 2015]] ).

Conflicts have emerged over political views, government priorities of resources (oil, bioenergy, hydropower), and weak governance among national and local authorities, indigenous groups and other stakeholders such as NGOs which play a critical role in the technological and financial support for the REDD+ initiative ( [[#Reed--2011|Reed 2011]] ; [[#Kashwan--2015|Kashwan 2015]] ; [[#Gebara--2014|Gebara et al. 2014]] ; [[#Locatelli--2011|Locatelli et al. 2011]] , 2017). a more holistic approach which recognises these social, environmental and political drivers would appear to have benefits but assessment is needed to allow evidence-based actionable policy statements.

[[File:4416bd3047bfb614cc47f18c404dabf6 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Box_13_16_Figure_1.png]]

'''Box 13.16, Figure 1 | Latin America and Caribbean: high priority sectors for mitigation and adaptation.''' Number of countries that name the following sector in their national climate change plans and/or communications. The purple and green bars represent adaptation and mitigation respectively. Source: reproduced with permission from [[#Bárcena--2018|Bárcena et al. (2018)]] .

<div id="13.8.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="relationships-between-mitigation-and-adaptation-measures"></span>

=== 13.8.3 Relationships Between Mitigation and Adaptation Measures ===

<div id="h2-27-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

There are multiple ways that mitigation and adaptation may be integrated. sets out those relationships broken down into four areas: adaptation that contributes to mitigation; mitigation that contributes to adaptation; holistic, sustainability first strategies; and trade-offs. The table shows that more holistic and sustainability-oriented policies can open up the possibility for accelerated transitions across multiple priority domains ( ''robust evidence'' , ''hi'' ''gh agreement'' ).

'''Table 13.3 | Relationships between adaptation and mitiga''' '''tion measures.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Policy/action

! Interrelation explained

! Reference

|-
| colspan="3"| ''Adaptation that contributes to mitigation''

|-
| '''Coastal adaptation and blue carbon; developing strategies for conservation and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems generating resilient communities and landscapes.'''

– '''Contributes to carbon storage and sequestration.'''

| Conservation of habitats and ecosystems, protect communities from extreme events, increase food security, and provide ecosystem services. At the same time, restoration of mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrasses have high rates of carbon sequestration, act as long-term carbon sinks, and are contained within clear national jurisdictions. '''Example:''' conservation programmes on Brazilian mangroves, Spanish seagrass meadows, the Great Barriers Reef in Australia, and Coastal Management Strategy in New Zealand.

| [[#Andresen--2012|Andresen et al. (2012)]] ; [[#Herr--2016|Herr and Landis (2016)]] ; [[#Duarte--2017|Duarte (2017)]] ; Doll and Oliveira (2017); [[#Howard--2017|Howard et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Gattuso--2018|Gattuso et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Cooley--2019|Cooley et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Karani--2020|Karani and Failler (2020)]] ; [[#Lovelock--2020|Lovelock and Reef (2020)]]

|-
| '''Nature-Based Solutions (Nbs); Nature-based solutions are interventions that use the natural functions of healthy ecosystems to protect the environment but also provide numerous economic and social benefits.'''

– '''Contributes to carbon storage and sequestration using individual and clustered trees.'''

| NbS complement and shares common elements with a wide variety of other approaches to building the resilience of social-ecological systems. Policies at national and sub-national level include community-based adaptation, ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction, climate-smart agriculture, and green infrastructure, and often place emphasis on using participatory and inclusive processes and community/stakeholder engagement. '''Examples:''' Mexico and the United Kingdom provide support for NbS in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans some related to water management. UK launched the Green Recovery Challenge Fund to create jobs with a focus on tree planting and the rehabilitation of peatlands.

| [[#Doswald--2011|Doswald and Osti (2011)]] ; [[#Secretariat%20of%20the%20Convention%20on%20Biological%20Diversity--2019|Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2019)]] ; Ihobe – Environmental Management Agency (2017); [[#Zwierzchowska--2019|Zwierzchowska et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Seddon--2020|Seddon et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Choi--2021|Choi et al. (2021)]] ; [[#OECD--2021b|OECD (2021b)]]

|-
| '''Ecosystem-based Adaptation (Eba); use biodiversity and ecosystem services to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, aiming to maintain and increase the resilience and reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems and people.'''

– '''Contributes to carbon storage and sequestration.'''

| EbA involves the conservation, sustainable management and restoration of ecosystems, such as forests, grasslands, wetlands, mangroves or coral reefs to reduce the harmful impacts of climate hazards including shifting patterns or levels of rainfall, changes in maximum and minimum temperatures, stronger storms, and increasingly variable climatic conditions. '''Examples:''' some NDCs include EbA and NbS harmonising national policies (for example: National Adaptation Plan) with other national climate and development policy processes, such as: water resources management plan, disaster risk reduction strategies, land planning codes.

| IPBES (2019); [[#Doswald--2014|Doswald et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Secretariat%20of%20the%20Convention%20on%20Biological%20Diversity--2009|Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2009)]] ; [[#McAllister--2007|McAllister (2007)]] ; [[#Colls--2009|Colls et al. (2009)]] ; [[#Rubio--2017|Rubio (2017)]] ; [[#Raymond--2017|Raymond et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Duarte--2017|Duarte (2017)]] ; [[#Gattuso--2018|Gattuso et al. (2018)]]

|-
| '''Urban Greening; urban forestry, planting in road reserves and tree planting along main streets.'''

– '''Contributes to carbon storage and sequestration.'''

– '''Energy use reduction.'''

| Urban afforestation and reforestation produce cooling effect and water retention while helping to reducing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Green walls and rooftops increase energy efficiency of buildings and decrease water runoff and provide insulation for the buildings. '''Examples:''' Wellington City Council and other entities must comply with the New Zealand Emission Trading System regulatory framework that provides guidance and requirements of climate change planning and implementation for both mitigation and adaptation (M&amp;A).

| [[#Santamouris--2014|Santamouris (2014)]] ; [[#Sharifi--2016|Sharifi and Yamagata (2016)]] ; [[#Grafakos--2018|Grafakos et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Pasimeni--2019|Pasimeni et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Anderson--2016|Anderson et al. (2016)]]

|-
| '''Climate adaptation plans at city level; sub-national policies that would lead to carbon reduction to support climate mitigation. Contribution to mitigation:'''

– '''Carbon storage and sequestration.'''

– '''Energy use reduction.'''

– '''Renewable energy.'''

| Cities with Climate Actions Plans include urban spatial planning and capacity-building initiatives. Some cities with adaptation and mitigation combined climate change action plans are: Bangkok, Chicago, Montevideo, Wellington, Durban, Paris, Mexico City, and Melaka. And cities with A&amp;M actions are: Los Angeles, Vancouver, Barcelona, London, Accra, Santiago de Chile, Bogota, Curitiba, and other.

'''Co-benefits generated by climate actions at cities''' : heat stress reduction; water scarcity, stormwater and flood management; air quality improvement, human health and well-being, aesthetic/amenity, recreation/tourism, environmental justice, real estate value, food production, green jobs opportunities.

| [[#Garcetti--2019|Garcetti (2019)]] ; [[#Horne--2020|Horne (2020)]] ; [[#Barcelona%20City%20Council--2018|Barcelona City Council (2018)]] ; [[#Greater%20London%20Authority--2018|Greater London Authority (2018)]] ; [[#Accra%20Metropolitan%20Assembly--2020|Accra Metropolitan Assembly (2020)]] ; [[#Choi--2021|Choi et al. (2021)]] ; [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Nakano--2017|Nakano et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Peng--2018|Peng and Bai (2018)]] ; [[#Zen--2019|Zen et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Bai--2018|Bai et al. (2018)]]

|-
| colspan="3"| '''Mitigation that contributes to adaptation'''

|-
| '''Green Infrastructure; policies to support the design and implementation of a hybrid network of natural, semi-natural, and engineered features within, around, and beyond urban areas at all scales, to provide multiple ecosystem services and benefits.'''

– '''Carbon storage and sequestration.'''

– '''Reduced energy consumption.'''

| Adaptation benefits: flood management, heat stress reduction individually, or jointly, coastal protection, water scarcity management, groundwater resources, ecosystem resilience improvement, air quality, water supply, flood control, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge. Social co-benefits: aesthetic, recreation, environmental education, improved human health/well-being, social cohesion, and poverty reduction. Policy examples: national building code guidelines, flood safety standards, local land-use plans, local building codes, integrated water management for flood control.

| [[#Atchison--2019|Atchison (2019)]] ; [[#Conger--2019|Conger and Chang (2019)]] ; [[#Schoonees--2019|Schoonees et al. (2019)]] ; [[#De%20la%20Sota--2019|De la Sota et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Choi--2021|Choi et al. (2021)]] ; [[#Zwierzchowska--2019|Zwierzchowska et al. (2019)]]

|-
| '''REDD+ Strategies; an incentive for developing countries to increase carbon sinks, to protect their forest resources and coastal wetlands. Mostly are national strategies led by the state with contribution of international donors.'''

– '''Contributes to carbon storage and sequestration.'''

– '''Re''' '''newable energy.'''

| REDD+ strategies aim to generate social benefits such as poverty reduction, and ecological services such as water supply, water quality enhancement, conserves soil and water by reducing erosion. For example, indigenous communities of Socio Bosque in Ecuador have sustained livelihoods and maintaining ties to land, place, space, and ''cosmovision'' . While in Cameroon, upfront contextual inequities with respect to technical capabilities, power, gender, level of education, and wealth have been barriers to individuals’ likelihood of participating in and benefiting from the projects.

| [[#McBurney--2021|McBurney (2021)]] ; [[#Tegegne--2021|Tegegne et al. (2021)]] ; [[#Anderson--2016|Anderson et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Busch--2011|Busch et al. (2011)]] ; [[#Bushley--2014|Bushley (2014)]] ; [[#Dickson--2012|Dickson and Kapos (2012)]] ; [[#Froese--2019|Froese and Schilling (2019)]] ; [[#Gebara--2014|Gebara et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Pham--2014|Pham et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Jodoin--2017|Jodoin (2017)]]

|-
| '''Household energy-efficiency and renewable energy measures; energy policies may improve socio-economic development.'''

– '''Energy use reduction.'''

| Energy Efficiency (EE) emerges as a feasible and sustainable solution in Latin America, to minimise energy consumption, increase competitiveness levels and reduce carbon footprint. Achieving high levels of EE in the building sector requires new policies and strengthening their legal framework. Microenterprise development contributes to poverty reductions as renewable energy stimulate local and national economies.

| [[#Chan--2017|Chan et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Silvero--2019|Silvero et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Zabaloy--2019|Zabaloy et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Alves--2020|Alves et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Nyiwul--2019|Nyiwul (2019)]] ; [[#Dal%20Maso--2020|Dal Maso et al. (2020)]]

|-
| colspan="3"| '''Sustainability first: holistic approaches'''

|-
| '''Integrated community sustainability plans.'''

| Climate change mitigation and adaptation are embedded in a plan to improve affordability, biodiversity, public health, and other aspects of communities.

| [[#Burch--2014|Burch et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Stuart--2016|Stuart et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Dale--2020|Dale et al. (2020)]]

|-
| '''Inclusive future visioning using social-ecological systems or socio-technical systems thinking.'''

| Participatory processes that highlight the cultural and social dimensions of climate change responses and synergies/trade-offs between priorities rather than an exclusive focus on technical aspects of solutions.

| [[#Gillard--2016|Gillard et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Krzywoszynska--2016|Krzywoszynska et al. (2016)]]

|-
| '''Climate Resilience Cities; integrating New Urban Agenda (NUA), SDGs, climate actions for A&amp;M, and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) for local and sub-national governments, and DRR within a multi-hazard approach based on Sendai Framework.'''

| Resilient cities are including SDGs, targets, A&amp;M options and DRR to build a resilient plan for urban planning, health, life quality and jobs creation.

Climate mitigation and sustainable energy actions adopted at the local level are interconnected. For instance, cities with Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan, which required the establishment of a baseline emission inventory and the adoption of policy measures, are already showing a tangible achievement regarding sustainable goals.

| [[#Barcelona%20City%20Council--2018|Barcelona City Council (2018)]] ; [[#Garcetti--2019|Garcetti (2019)]] ; [[#Accra%20Metropolitan%20Assembly--2020|Accra Metropolitan Assembly (2020)]] ; [[#Blok--2016|Blok 2016]] ; [[#Giampieri--2019|Giampieri et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Gomez%20Echeverri--2018|Gomez Echeverri (2018)]] ; [[#Long--2019|Long and Rice (2019)]] ; [[#Pasimeni--2019|Pasimeni et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2016|Romero-Lankao et al. (2016)]]

|-
| colspan="3"| '''Trade-offs'''

|-
| '''Land-use strategies; for mitigation or adaptation considered in isolation, may cause a conflict in land planning.'''

– '''Carbon storage and sequestration.'''

– '''Energy use reduction.'''

– '''Renewable energy.'''

| Increasing density of land use, land-use mix and transit connectivity could increase climate stress and reduce green open spaces. It may increase the urban heat island impacting human health, and expose population to coastal inundation. Some of the policies and strategies to minimise this are: land-use planning, zoning, land-use permits, mobilising private finance in the protection of watersheds, integrated coastal zone management, flood safety standards, and other. More assessment is needed prior to new land use to reduce or prevent actions which negatively alter ecosystem services and environmental justice.

| [[#O’Donnell--2019|O’Donnell (2019)]] ; [[#Bush--2019|Bush and Doyon (2019)]] ; [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Landauer--2015|Landauer et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Viguié--2012|Viguié and Hallegatte (2012)]] ; [[#Floater--2016|Floater et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Xu--2019|Xu et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Landauer--2019|Landauer et al. (2019)]]

|-
| '''Low-carbon, net zero and climate change resilient building codes that fail to account for affordability.'''

– '''Energy reduction.'''

– '''Renewable energy.'''

| Low-carbon or net zero emissions have multi-objective strategies, integrated policies, regulations, and actions at the national and sub-national levels. Trade-offs may be related to policy mechanisms that must be implemented comprehensively, not individually. However, different administrative levels and institutions may create a barrier to inter-sectoral coordination. For example: ‘Greening’ programmes may produce positive mitigation and adaptation outcomes but may also accelerate displacement and gentrification at city level.

| [[#Chaker--2021|Chaker et al. (2021)]] ; [[#del%20Río--2017|del Río and Cerdá (2017)]] ; [[#Choi--2021|Choi et al. (2021)]] ; [[#Papadis--2020|Papadis and Tsatsaronis (2020)]] ; [[#Wolch--2014|Wolch et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Garcia-Lamarca--2021|Garcia-Lamarca et al. (2021)]] ; [[#Haase--2017|Haase et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Sharifi--2020|Sharifi (2020)]] ; [[#Viguié--2012|Viguié and Hallegatte (2012)]] ; [[#del%20Río--2014|del Río (2014)]]

|}

<div id="13.8.3.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="governing-the-linkages-between-mitigation-and-adaptation-at-the-local-regional-and-global-scales"></span>
==== 13.8.3.1 Governing the Linkages Between Mitigation and Adaptation at the Local, Regional, and Global Scales ====

<div id="h3-25-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

International policy frameworks, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Disk Reduction, and the New Urban Agenda for sustainable urban systems, provide an integrated approach for both adaptation and mitigation, while promoting sustainable development and climate resilience across scales (from global, regional, to local government actions ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al. 2014b]] ; [[#Heidrich--2016|Heidrich et al. 2016]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al. 2017]] ; [[#Locatelli--2017|Locatelli et al. 2017]] ; [[#Nachmany--2018|Nachmany and Setzer 2018]] ; [[#Mills‐Novoa--2019|Mills‐Novoa and Liverman 2019]] ). Even so, the specific ways that these linkages are governed vary widely depending on institutional and jurisdictional scale, competing policy priorities, and available capacity ( [[#Landauer--2019|Landauer et al. 2019]] ).

Supranational levels of action such as the EU climate change policy have influenced the development and implementation of Climate Change Action Plans (CCAPs) at the sub-national level ( [[#Heidrich--2016|Heidrich et al. 2016]] ; [[#Villarroel%20Walker--2017|Villarroel Walker et al. 2017]] ; [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al. 2018]] ). While adaptation is gaining prominence and is increasingly included in the NDCs of EU nations, the implementation of adaptation and mitigation by EU states are at different stages ( [[#Fleig--2017|Fleig et al. 2017]] ). [[#Fleig--2017|Fleig et al. (2017)]] found that all EU states, with the exception of Hungary, have adopted a framework of laws tackling mitigation and adaptation to climate change. However, an assessment of climate legislation in Europe pointed out that there has been little coordination between mitigation and adaptation, and that implementation varies according to different national conditions ( [[#Nachmany--2015|Nachmany et al. 2015]] ). More recently, however, integrated adaptation/mitigation plans have been prepared in Europe under the Covenant of Mayors, in which synergies and trade-offs can be better revealed and assessed ( [[#Bertoldi--2020|Bertoldi et al. 2020]] ).

Local governments and cities are increasingly emerging as important climate change actors ( [[#Gordon--2015|Gordon and Acuto 2015]] ) ( [[#13.5|Section 13.5]] ). While cities and local governments are developing Climate Change Action Plans (CCAPs), plans that explicitly integrate the design and implementation of adaptation and mitigation are a minor percentage, with few cities establishing inter-relationships between them ( [[#Nordic%20Council%20of%20Ministers--2017|Nordic Council of Ministers 2017]] ; [[#Grafakos--2018|Grafakos et al. 2018]] ). Compared to national climate governance, local governments are more likely to develop and advance climate policies, generating socio-economic or environmental co-benefits, and improve communities’ quality of life ( [[#Gill--2007|Gill et al. 2007]] ; [[#Bowen--2014|Bowen et al. 2014]] ; [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al. 2014b]] ; [[#Mayrhofer--2016|Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016]] ; [[#Deng--2017|Deng et al. 2017]] ; [[#Hennessey--2017|Hennessey et al. 2017]] ). There may be a disconnect, however, between the responsibility that a particular jurisdiction has over mitigation and adaptation (city officials, for instance) and the scale of resources or capacities that they have available to bring to bear on the problem (regional to national provision of energy and transport) ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2019|Di Gregorio et al. 2019]] ; [[#Dale--2020|Dale et al. 2020]] ).

<div id="13.8.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="integrated-governance-including-equity-and-sustainable-development"></span>
=== 13.8.4 Integrated Governance Including Equity and Sustainable Development ===

<div id="h2-28-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Climate policy integration carries implications for the pursuit of the SDGs, given that it is nearly impossible to achieve the desired socio-economic gains if fundamental environmental issues, such as climate change, are not addressed ( [[#Gomez-Echeverri--2018|Gomez-Echeverri 2018]] ). Research on climate resilient development pathways ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. 2018]] ), for instance, argues for long-term policy planning that combines the governance of national climate and SD goals, builds institutional capacity across all sectors, jurisdictions, and actors, and enhances participation and transparency ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-4|Chapter 4]] and 17).

In the Global South, climate change policies are often established in the context of sustainable development and of other pressing local priorities (e.g., air pollution, health, and food security). National climate policy in these countries tends to give prominence to adaptation based on country vulnerability, climatic risk, gender-based differences in exposur to that risk, and the importance of local/traditional and indigenous knowledge ( [[#Beg--2002|Beg et al. 2002]] ; [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al. 2014b]] ). Despite the evidence that integrated mitigation and adaptation policies can be effective and efficient ( [[#Klein--2005|Klein et al. 2005]] ) and can potentially reduce trade-offs, there is still limited evidence of how such integrated policies would specifically contribute to progress on the SDGs ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Kongsager et al.2016; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al. 2017]] ; [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018|Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018]] ; De Coninck et al. 2018; [[#Campagnolo--2019|Campagnolo and Davide 2019]] ).

Where mainstreaming of environmental concerns has been attempted through national plans, they have had success in some cases when backed by strong political commitments that support a vertical coordination structure rather than horizontal structures led by the focus ministry ( [[#Nunan--2012|Nunan et al. 2012]] ). Such political commitments are therefore crucial to success but insufficient in and of themselves ( [[#Runhaar--2018|Runhaar et al. 2018]] ; [[#Wamsler--2020|Wamsler et al. 2020]] ). Integration of the budget process is particularly important, as are aligned time frames across different objectives ( [[#Saito--2013|Saito 2013]] ). Recognition of the functional interactions across policy sectors is improved by a translation of long-term policy objectives into a plan that aligns with integration goals ( [[#Corry--2012|Corry 2012]] ; [[#Oels--2012|Oels 2012]] ; [[#Dupont--2019|Dupont 2019]] ).

There are important links between inequality, justice and climate change ( [[#Ikeme--2003|Ikeme 2003]] ; [[#Bailey--2017|Bailey 2017]] ). Many of these operate through the benefits, costs and risks of climate action (distributive justice), while others focus on differential participation and recognition of sub-national actors and marginalised groups (procedural justice) ( [[#Bulkeley--2013|Bulkeley and Castán Broto 2013]] ; [[#Bulkeley--2013|Bulkeley et al. 2013]] ; [[#Hughes--2013|Hughes 2013]] ; [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al. 2018]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2019|Romero-Lankao and Gnatz 2019]] ).

Justice principles are rarely incorporated in climate change framing and action( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool and Dworkin 2015]] ; [[#Genus--2016|Genus and Theobald 2016]] ; [[#Heikkinen--2019|Heikkinen et al. 2019]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2019|Romero-Lankao and Gnatz 2019]] ). Yet, equity is salient to mitigation debates, because climate change mitigation policies can have also negative impacts ( [[#Brugnach--2017|Brugnach et al. 2017]] ; [[#Ramos-Castillo--2017|Ramos-Castillo et al. 2017]] ; [[#Klinsky--2018|Klinsky 2018]] ), exacerbated by poverty, inequality and corruption( [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al. 2018]] ; [[#Markkanen--2019|Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi 2019]] ). The siting of facilities and infrastructure that advance decarbonisation (such as public transit infrastructure, renewable energy facilities and so on) may have implications for environmental justice. Integrated attention to justice in climate, environment and energy, as well as involvement of host communities in siting assessments and decision-making processes, can help to avoid such conflict ( [[#McCord--2020|McCord et al. 2020]] ; [[#Hughes--2020|Hughes and Hoffmann 2020]] ). As a result, successful policy integration goes beyond optimising public management routines, and must resolve key trade-offs between actors and objectives ( [[#Meadowcroft--2009|Meadowcroft 2009]] ; [[#Nordbeck--2016|Nordbeck and Steurer 2016]] ).

The potential for transformative climate change policy that delivers both adaptation and mitigation is also shaped by a number of enabling and disabling factors tied to governance processes ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Burch--2014|Burch et al. 2014]] ) ( [[#13.9|Section 13.9]] ).

<div id="Box 13.17 | Enabling and Disabling Factors for Integrated Governance of Mitigation" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="box-13.17-enabling-and-disabling-factors-for-integrated-governance-of-mitigation-and-adaptation"></span>
=== Box 13.17 | Enabling and Disabling Factors for Integrated Governance of Mitigation and Adaptation ===

<div id="h2-56-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''Ensuring participatory governance and social inclusion.''' Interlinkages in the food-energy-water nexus highlight the importance of inclusive processes ( [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw et al. 2014]] ; [[#Nakano--2017|Nakano et al. 2017]] ; [[#Cook--2018|Cook and Chu 2018]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2019|Romero-Lankao and Gnatz 2019]] ). The cultivation of urban grassroots innovations and social innovation may accelerate progress ( [[#Wolfram--2016|Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016]] ), as may the development of carefully-designed climate and energy dialogues that enable learning among multiple stakeholders ( [[#Cashore--2019|Cashore et al. 2019]] ).

'''Considering synergies and trade-offs with broader sustainable development priorities.''' The explicit consideration of synergies and trade-offs will enable more integrated policy making ( [[#Dang--2003|Dang et al. 2003]] ; [[#von%20Stechow--2015|von Stechow et al. 2015]] ). Policy frameworks to do so are just emerging, such as analysis of trade-offs between energy and water policies and agriculture ( [[#Huggel--2015|Huggel et al. 2015]] ; [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018|Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018]] ).

'''Employing a diverse set of tools to reach targets.''' Building codes, land-use plans, public education initiatives, and nature-based solutions such as green ways may impact adaptation and mitigation simultaneously ( [[#Burch--2014|Burch et al. 2014]] ). Ecological restoration provides another suite of tools, for instance the Brazilian target of restoring and reforesting 0.12 million km 2 of forests by 2030, which can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services while also sinking carbon ( [[#Bustamante--2019|Bustamante et al. 2019]] ). Mandatory retrofits to improve indoor air quality can also increase energy efficiency and resilience to climate change impacts ( [[#Friel--2011|Friel et al. 2011]] ; [[#Houghton--2011|Houghton 2011]] ).

'''Monitoring and evaluating key indicators, beyond only greenhouse gas emissions, such as biodiversity, water quality, and affordability:''' An integrated approach requires robust process for collecting data on these indicators. Challenges are related to the limited evidence-base on synergies, co-benefits, and trade-offs across sectors and jurisdictions ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2016|Di Gregorio et al. 2016]] ; [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al. 2016]] ; [[#Locatelli--2017|Locatelli et al. 2017]] ; [[#Zen--2019|Zen et al. 2019]] ). Moreover, adaptation policies mostly lack measurable targets or expected outcomes increasing the challenge of designing an integrated framework ( [[#OECD--2017|OECD 2017]] ).

'''Iterative and adaptive management.''' Adaptive management helps to address the underlying uncertainty ( [[#Kundzewicz--2018|Kundzewicz et al. 2018]] ) that characterises implementation of integrated approaches to adaptation and mitigation. Policy integration needs to be considered iteratively along the process of development, implementation, and evaluation of climate policies.

'''Strategic partnerships that coordinate efforts.''' Strategic partnerships among diverse actors, therefore, bring diverse technical skills and capacities to the endeavour ( [[#Burch--2016|Burch et al. 2016]] ; [[#Islam--2017|Islam and Khan 2017]] ). However, realising strategic approaches for joint adaptation and mitigation require adequate financial, technical and human resources.

'''Participatory and collaborative planning approaches can help overcome injustices and address power differentials.''' Participatory and collaborative planning approaches can provide multiple spaces of deliberation where marginalised voices can be heard ( [[#Blue--2014|Blue and Medlock 2014]] ; [[#UN%20Habitat--2016|UN Habitat 2016]] ; [[#Castán%20Broto--2017|Castán Broto and Westman 2017]] ; [[#Waisman--2019|Waisman et al. 2019]] ). These tools organise climate and sustainability action by addressing its democratic deficit and facilitating the recognition of multiple perspectives in environmental planning alongside material limits of development ( [[#Agyeman--2013|Agyeman 2013]] ).

<div id="13.9" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="accelerating-mitigation-through-cross-sectoral-and-economy-wide-system-change"></span>