Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.5.6.5 Considering synergies and trade-offs to avoid maladaptation ====

<div id="section-7-5-6-5-considering-synergies-and-trade-offs-to-avoid-maladaptation-block-1"></div>

Coherent policies that consider synergies and trade-offs can also reduce the likelihood of maladaptation, which is the opposite of sustainable adaptation (Magnan et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1254|1254]]</sup> ). Sustainable adaptation ‘contributes to socially and environmentally sustainable development pathways including both social justice and environmental integrity’ (Eriksen et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1255|1255]]</sup> ). In IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) there was ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that maladaptation is ‘a cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners, where intervention in one location or sector could increase the vulnerability of another location or sector, or increase the vulnerability of a group to future climate change’ (Noble et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1256|1256]]</sup> ). AR5 recognised that maladaptation arises not only from inadvertent, badly planned adaptation actions, but also from deliberate decisions where wider considerations place greater emphasis on short-term outcomes ahead of longer-term threats, or that discount, or fail to consider, the full range of interactions arising from planned actions (Noble et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1257|1257]]</sup> ).

Some maladaptations are only beginning to be recognised as we become aware of unintended consequences of decisions. An example prevalent across many countries is irrigation as an adaptation to water scarcity. During a drought from 2007–2009 in California, farmers adapted by using more groundwater, thereby depleting groundwater elevation by 15 metres. This volume of groundwater depletion is unsustainable environmentally and also emits GHG emissions during the pumping (Christian-Smith et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1258|1258]]</sup> ). Despite the three years of drought, the agricultural sector performed financially well, due to the groundwater use and crop insurance payments. Drought compensation programmes through crop insurance policies may reduce the incentive to shift to lower water-use crops, thereby perpetuating the maladaptive situation. Another example of maladaptation that may appear as adaptation to drought is pumping out groundwater and storing in surface farm ponds, with consequences for water justice, inequity and sustainability (Kale 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1259|1259]]</sup> ). These examples highlight the potential for maladaptation from farmers’ adaptation decisions as well as the unintended consequences of policy choices; the examples illustrate the findings of Barnett and O’Neill (2010) <sup>[[#fn:r1260|1260]]</sup> that maladaptation can include: high opportunity costs (including economic, environmental, and social); reduced incentives to adapt (adaptation measures that reduce incentives to adapt by not addressing underlying causes); and path dependency or trajectories that are difficult to change.

In practice, maladaptation is a specific instance of policy incoherence, and it may be useful to develop a framework in designing policy to avoid this type of trade-off. This would specify the type, aim and target audience of an adaptation action, decision, project, plan, or policy designed initially for adaptation, but actually at high risk of inducing adverse effects, either on the system in which it was developed, or another connected system, or both. The assessment requires identifying system boundaries, including temporal and geographical scales at which the outcomes are assessed (Magnan 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1261|1261]]</sup> ; Juhola et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1262|1262]]</sup> ). National-level institutions that cover the spectrum of sectors affected, or enhanced collaboration between relevant institutions, is expected to increase the effectiveness of policy instruments, as are joint programmes and funds (Morita and Matsumoto 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1263|1263]]</sup> ).

As new knowledge about trade-offs and synergies amongst land- climate processes emerges regionally and globally, concerns over emerging risks and the need for planning policy responses grow. There is ''medium evidence'' and ''medium agreement'' that trade- offs currently do not figure into existing climate policies including NDCs and SDGs being vigorously pursued by some countries (Woolf et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1264|1264]]</sup> ). For instance, the biogeophysical co-benefits of reduced deforestation and re/afforestation measures (Chapter 6) are usually not accounted for in current climate policies or in the NDCs, but there is increasing scientific evidence to include them as part of the policy design (Findell et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1265|1265]]</sup> ; Hirsch et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1266|1266]]</sup> ; Bright et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1267|1267]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-5-6-5-considering-synergies-and-trade-offs-to-avoid-maladaptation-block-2"></div>

'''Case study | Green energy: Biodiversity conservation vs global environment targets?'''

Green and renewable energy and transportation are emerging as important parts of climate change mitigation globally ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (McKinnon 2010; Zarfl et al. 2015; Creutzig et al. 2017). Evidence is, however, emerging across many biomes (from coastal to semi-arid and humid) about how green energy may have significant trade-offs with biodiversity and ecosystem services, thus demonstrating the need for closer environmental scrutiny and safeguards (Gibson et al. 2017; Hernandez et al. 2015). In most cases, the accumulated impact of pressures from decades of land use and habitat loss set the context within which the potential impacts of renewable energy generation need to be considered.

Until recently, small hydropower projects (SHPs) were considered environmentally benign compared to large dams. SHPs are poorly understood, especially since the impacts of clusters of small dams are just becoming evident (Mantel et al. 2010; Fencl et al. 2015; Kibler and Tullos 2013). SHPs (&lt;25/30 MW) are labelled ‘green’ and are often exempt from environmental scrutiny (Abbasi and Abbasi 2011; Pinho et al. 2007; Premalatha et al. 2014b; Era Consultancy 2006). Being promoted in mountainous global biodiversity hotspots, SHPs have changed the hydrology, water quality and ecology of headwater streams and neighbouring forests significantly. SHPs have created dewatered stretches of stream immediately downstream and introduced sub-daily to sub-weekly hydro-pulses that have transformed the natural dry-season flow regime. Hydrologic and ecological connectivity have been impacted, especially for endemic fish communities and forests in some sites of significant biodiversity values ( ''medium evidence, medium agreement'' ) (Jumani et al. 2017, 2018; Chhatre and Lakhanpal 2018; Anderson et al. 2006; Grumbine and Pandit 2013). In some sites, local communities have opposed SHPs due to concerns about their impact on local culture and livelihoods (Jumani et al. 2017, 2018; Chhatre and Lakhanpal 2018).

Semi-arid and arid regions are often found suitable for wind and solar farms which may impact endemic biodiversity and endangered species (Collar et al. 2015, Thaker, M, Zambre, A. Bhosale 2018). The loss of habitat for these species over the decades has been largely due to agricultural intensification driven by irrigation and bad management in designated reserves (Collar et al. 2015; Ledec, George C.; Rapp, Kennan W.; Aiello 2011) but intrusion of power lines is a major worry for highly endangered species such as the Great Indian Bustard (Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) and conservation and mitigation efforts are being planned to address such concerns (Government of India 2012). In many regions around the world, wind-turbines and solar farms pose a threat to many other species especially predatory birds and insectivorous bats ( ''medium evidence, medium agreement'' ) (Thaker, M, Zambre, A. Bhosale 2018) and disrupt habitat connectivity (Northrup and Wittemyer 2013).

Additionally, conversion of rivers into waterways has emerged as a fuel-efficient (low carbon emitting) and environment- friendly alternative to surface land transport (IWAI 2016; Dharmadhikary, S., and Sandbhor 2017). India’s National Waterways seeks to cut transportation time and costs and reduce carbon emissions from road transport (Admin 2017). There is some evidence that dredging and under-water noise could impact the water quality, human health and habitat of fish species (Junior et al. 2012; Martins et al. 2012), disrupt artisanal fisheries and potentially impact species that rely on echo-location ( ''low evidence, medium agreement'' ) (Dey Mayukh 2018). Off-shore renewable energy projects in coastal zones have been known to have similar impacts on marine fauna (Gill 2005). The Government of India has decided to support studies of the impact of waterways on the endangered Gangetic dolphin in order in order to plan mitigation measures.

Responses to mitigating and reducing the negative impacts of small dams include changes in SHP operations and policies to enable the conservation of river fish diversity. These include mandatory environmental impact assessments, conserving remaining undammed headwater streams in regulated basins, maintaining adequate environmental flows, and implementing other adaptation measures based on experiments with active management of fish communities in impacted zones (Jumani et al. 2018). Location of large solar farms needs to be carefully scrutinised (Sindhu et al. 2017). For mitigating negative impacts of power lines associated with solar and wind farms in bustard habitats, suggested measures include diversion structures to prevent collision, underground cables and avoidance in core wildlife habitat, as well as incentives for maintaining low-intensity rainfed agriculture and pasture around existing reserves, and curtailing harmful infrastructure in priority areas (Collar et al. 2015). Mitigation for minimising the ecological impact of inland waterways on biodiversity and fisheries is more complicated, but may involve improved boat technology to reduce underwater noise, maintaining ecological flows and thus reduced dredging, and avoidance in key habitats (Dey Mayukh 2018).

The management of ecological trade-offs of green energy and green infrastructure and transportation projects may be crucial for long- term sustainability and acceptance of emerging low-carbon economies.

<span id="governance-governing-the-landclimate-interface"></span>