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

=== 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>