Editing Test:SRCCL/Chapter-1 (section)

== 1.3.6 Adaptation measures and scope for co-benefits with mitigation ==

<div id="section-1-3-6-adaptation-measures-and-scope-for-co-benefits-with-mitigation-block-1"></div>

Adaptation and mitigation have generally been treated as two separate discourses, both in policy and practice, with mitigation addressing cause and adaptation dealing with the consequences of climate change (Hennessey et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r820|820]]</sup> ). While adaptation (e.g., reducing flood risks) and mitigation (e.g., reducing non-CO <sub>2</sub> emissions from agriculture) may have different objectives and operate at different scales, they can also generate joint outcomes (Locatelli et al. 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r821|821]]</sup> ) with adaptation generating mitigation co-benefits. Seeking to integrate strategies for achieving adaptation and mitigation goals is attractive in order to reduce competition for limited resources and trade-offs (Lobell et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r822|822]]</sup> ; Berry et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r823|823]]</sup> ; Kongsager and Corbera 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r824|824]]</sup> ). Moreover, determinants that can foster adaptation and mitigation practices are similar. These tend to include available technology and resources, and credible information for policymakers to act on (Yohe 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r825|825]]</sup> ).

Four sets of mitigation–adaptation interrelationships can be distinguished: (i) mitigation actions that can result in adaptation benefits; (ii) adaptation actions that have mitigation benefits; (iii) processes that have implications for both adaptation and mitigation; and (iv) strategies and policy processes that seek to promote an integrated set of responses for both adaptation and mitigation (Klein et al. 2007). A high level of adaptive capacity is a key ingredient to developing successful mitigation policy. Implementing mitigation action can result in increasing resilience especially if it is able to reduce risks. Yet, mitigation and adaptation objectives, scale of implementation, sector and even metrics to identify impacts tend to differ (Ayers and Huq 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r826|826]]</sup> ), and institutional setting, often does not enable an environment where synergies are sought (Kongsager et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r827|827]]</sup> ). Trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation exist as well and need to be understood (and avoided) to establish win-win situations (Porter et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r828|828]]</sup> ; Kongsager et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r829|829]]</sup> ).

Forestry and agriculture offer a wide range of lessons for the integration of adaptation and mitigation actions given the vulnerability of forest ecosystems or cropland to climate variability and change (Keenan 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r830|830]]</sup> ; Gaba et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r831|831]]</sup> ) (Sections 5.6 and 4.8). Increasing adaptive capacity in forested areas has the potential to prevent deforestation and forest degradation (Locatelli et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r832|832]]</sup> ). Reforestation projects, if well managed, can increase community economic opportunities that encourage conservation (Nelson and de Jong 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r833|833]]</sup> ), build capacity through training of farmers and installation of multifunctional plantations with income generation (Reyer et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r834|834]]</sup> ), strengthen local institutions (Locatelli et al. 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r835|835]]</sup> ) and increase cash-flow to local forest stakeholders from foreign donors (West 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r836|836]]</sup> ). A forest plantation that sequesters carbon for mitigation can also reduce water availability to downstream populations and heighten their vulnerability to drought. Inversely, not recognising mitigation in adaptation projects may yield adaptation measures that increase greenhouse gas emissions, a prime example of ‘maladaptation’. Analogously, ‘mal-mitigation’ would result in reducing GHG emissions, but increasing vulnerability (Barnett and O’Neill 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r837|837]]</sup> ; Porter et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r838|838]]</sup> ). For instance, the cost of pursuing large-scale adaptation and mitigation projects has been associated with higher failure risks, onerous transactions costs and the complexity of managing big projects (Swart and Raes 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r839|839]]</sup> ).

Adaptation encompasses both biophysical and socio-economic vulnerability and underlying causes (informational, capacity, financial, institutional, and technological; Huq et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r840|840]]</sup> ) and it is increasingly linked to resilience and to broader development goals (Huq et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r841|841]]</sup> ). Adaptation measures can increase performance of mitigation projects under climate change and legitimise mitigation measures through the more immediately felt effects of adaptation (Locatelli et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r842|842]]</sup> ; Campbell et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r843|843]]</sup> ; Locatelli et al. 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r844|844]]</sup> ). Effective climate policy integration in the land sector is expected to gain from (i) internal policy coherence between adaptation and mitigation objectives, (ii) external climate coherence between climate change and development objectives, (iii) policy integration that favours vertical governance structures to foster effective mainstreaming of climate change into sectoral policies, and (iv) horizontal policy integration through overarching governance structures to enable cross-sectoral coordination (Sections 1.4 and 7.4).

<span id="enabling-the-response"></span>