Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies?

Can an integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation offer opportunities for a more effective response to climate change than the current strategies? The nature of the linkages depends on the dimensions: economic, institutional or environmental, and on the scale. Differences are pervasive: adaptation and mitigation usually have different temporal and spatial scales and are mostly relevant for different economic sectors, so that costs and benefits are distributed differently. The article concludes that generally the global, regional and—in most countries—national potential of synergetic options to mitigate and adapt to climate change is relatively low, and both strategies should be considered as complementary. However, a few notable exceptions are identified in the land and water management and urban planning sectors, in particular in countries or locations where these sectors provide important adaptation and mitigation opportunities. What is the theoretically most efficient and least expensive mixture of adaptation and mitigation policies may not be a very urgent policy question. Instead, five pragmatic ways of broadening climate policy are suggested, while taking into account the linkages between adaptation and mitigation: (1) avoiding trade-offs—when designing policies for mitigation or adaptation, (2) identifying synergies, (3) enhancing response capacity, (4) developing institutional links between adaptation and mitigation—e.g. in national institutions and in international negotiations, and (5) mainstreaming adaptation and mitigation considerations into broader sustainable development policies.

[1]  R. Pielke Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy , 1998 .

[2]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Co-ordinating Lead Authors , 2022 .

[3]  G. Yohe,et al.  Adaptation and the Guardrail Approach to Tolerable Climate Change , 2000 .

[4]  J. Shogren,et al.  Linking Adaptation and Mitigation in Climate Change Policy , 2000 .

[5]  A. Michaelowa Mitigation versus Adaptation: The Political Economy of Competition Between Climate Policy Strategies and the Consequences for Developing Countries , 2001 .

[6]  R. Tol ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION: TRADE-OFFS IN SUBSTANCE AND METHODS , 2005 .

[7]  A. Michaelowa,et al.  Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam , 2003 .

[8]  S. Huq,et al.  Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) , 2004 .

[9]  I. Burton,et al.  Look before you leap: A risk management approach for incorporating climate change adaptation in World Bank operations , 2004 .

[10]  R. Tol Exchange Rates and Climate Change: An Application of Fund , 2006 .

[11]  P. Fearnside Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectric Dams: Reply tO Rosa Et al. , 2006 .

[12]  Thomas J. Wilbanks,et al.  Issues in developing a capacity for integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation , 2005 .

[13]  Richard J. T. Klein,et al.  Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions , 2005 .

[14]  L. Peltonen,et al.  The challenge of climate change adaptation in urban planning. FINADAPT Working Paper 13 , 2005 .

[15]  W. Adger,et al.  Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy , 2005 .

[16]  Marco Aurélio dos Santos,et al.  Scientific Errors in the Fearnside Comments on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) from Hydroelectric Dams and Response to His Political Claiming , 2006 .

[17]  Stewart J. Cohen,et al.  Linking climate change and sustainable development at the local level , 2007 .

[18]  Kevin A. Baumert,et al.  What factors influence mitigative capacity , 2007 .

[19]  Winning the battle against global climate change , 2022 .