Content uploaded by Giacomo Fedele
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Giacomo Fedele on May 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management
Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance
Bruno Locatelli Giacomo Fedele Virginie Fayolle Alastair Baglee
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bruno Locatelli Giacomo Fedele Virginie Fayolle Alastair Baglee , (2016),"Synergies between
adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance", International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 112 - 128
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2014-0088
Downloaded on: 18 May 2016, At: 06:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 553 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Climate change vulnerability, impact and adaptation assessment: Lessons from Latin
America", International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 6 Iss 4 pp.
442-476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2013-0076
(2016),"The role of urban planning and design in responding to climate change: the Brisbane
experience", International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp.
80-95 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2014-0064
(2016),"Dynamics of optimal carbon prices with inter-temporal regulation", International Journal
of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 2-18 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCCSM-03-2014-0040
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
Synergies between adaptation
and mitigation in climate change
nance
Bruno Locatelli
Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD),
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Lima, Peru
Giacomo Fedele
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia
Virginie Fayolle
Acclimatise, Oxford, UK, and
Alastair Baglee
Acclimatise, Cardiff, UK
Abstract
Purpose – As adaptation and mitigation are separated in international and national policies, there is
also a division in the nancial resources mobilized by the international community to help developing
countries deal with climate change. Given that mitigation activities can benet or hinder adaptation,
and vice versa, promoting activities that contribute to both objectives can increase the efciency of fund
allocation and minimize trade-offs, particularly in land-related activities such as agriculture and
forestry. The purpose of this study is to analyze how climate funding organizations consider the
integration of adaptation and mitigation.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors interviewed representatives of climate funds
directed toward forestry and agriculture to gain a better understanding of how they perceive the
benets, risks and barriers of an integrated approach; whether they have concrete activities for
promoting this approach; and how they foresee the future of adaptation–mitigation integration.
Findings – Interviews revealed a diverse range of perceived benets, risks and barriers at local,
national and global scales. Most interviewees focused on the local benets of this integration (e.g.
increasing the resilience of forest carbon projects), whereas others emphasized global risks (e.g.
decreasing global funding efciency because of project complexity). Despite the general interest in
projects and policies integrating adaptation and mitigation, few relevant actions have been
implemented by organizations engaged in climate change nance.
© Bruno Locatelli, Giacomo Fedele, Virginie Fayolle and Alastair Baglee. Published by Emerald
Group Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY 3.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this
article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original
publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at
http://creativecommons.org/
licences/by/3.0/legalcode
This research received nancial support from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade (AusAID Agreement No. 63,560), the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
(BMUB) and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA), with
nancial support from the CGIAR Fund.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-8692.htm
IJCCSM
8,1
112
Received 10 July 2014
Revised 4 May 2015
26 June 2015
Accepted 30 June 2015
International Journal of Climate
Change Strategies and
Management
Vol. 8 No. 1, 2016
pp. 112-128
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1756-8692
DOI
10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2014-0088
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
Originality/value – This paper provides new insight into how the representatives of climate funds
perceive and act on the integration of adaptation and mitigation in forestry and agriculture. The
ndings by the authors can inform the development of procedures for climate change nance, such as
the Green Climate Fund. While managers of climate funds face barriers in promoting an integrated
approach to adaptation and mitigation, they also have the capacity and the ambition to overcome them.
Keywords Trade-off, Policy, Agriculture, Vulnerability, Funding, Forest
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
International negotiations have distinguished two options for addressing climate
change: mitigation (reducing the sources or enhancing the sinks of greenhouse gases)
and adaptation (responding to the effects of climate change). Policies and negotiations
have treated them separately because these two options pursue different objectives and
operate at different spatial and temporal scales:
(1) mitigation provides benets for the global climate in the long term (because of
the inertia of the climatic system); and
(2) adaptation provides more local benets, which can accrue in the short term, as
well as longer term (Swart and Raes, 2007).
As a result of this separation in international and national policies, there is also a
division between adaptation and mitigation in the nancial resources mobilized by the
international community to help developing countries cope with climate change (Illman
et al., 2013).
Adaptation activities can inuence mitigation positively or negatively, and vice
versa (Denton and Wilbanks, 2014). Promoting activities that contribute to both climate
objectives can increase the efciency of fund allocation and reduce trade-offs. The lack
of consideration of mitigation in adaptation projects could lead to increased greenhouse
gas emissions, which is one type of “maladaptation”, according to Barnett and O’Neill
(2010). Equally, without consideration of adaptation, initiatives for greenhouse gas
emission reductions could underperform due to direct climate hazards (e.g. increasing
ooding), as well as increase the vulnerability and reduce the capacity of communities to
adapt to a changing climate. Such negative interactions between adaptation and
mitigation would greatly reduce the overall effectiveness of global climate funding.
There are also expectations that better integration could help close the adaptation
funding gap with mitigation nance (Klein et al., 2005). Current funding ows are
estimated to be far below any investment needs for limiting climate change and its
impact, and particularly for adaptation, as most climate funding supports mitigation
(Buchner et al., 2013).
Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation are particularly
manifest in land-related activities such as agriculture and forestry (Locatelli et al., 2015;
Harvey et al., 2014; Thuy et al., 2014). The forestry and agriculture sectors are the main
recipient of public funding for adaptation and the third largest recipient for mitigation,
after the renewable energy and transport sectors (Buchner et al., 2013). Land-use
practices are relevant to mitigation because they either emit or remove carbon in the
atmosphere depending on the management of soils and vegetation (e.g. deforestation or
reforestation). Forests and agriculture are also relevant to adaptation because they are
113
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
vulnerable to climate change (Guariguata et al., 2012; Locatelli et al., 2008) and can
contribute to societal adaptation, for example through the contribution that forests
make in regulating oods in watersheds or mangroves protecting against storms in
coastal areas (
Pramova et al., 2012).
In 2011, the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decided to establish a Green Climate Fund to support
developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the
impacts of climate change. A balance between adaptation and mitigation is expected in
nancial allocation, and “an integrated approach to funding mitigation and adaptation
will be used to allow for cross-cutting projects and programs” (
UNFCCC, 2011); however,
it has not yet been decided how this integration will be achieved. International climate
funds can support integrated projects that aim to create synergies in adaptation and
mitigation; however, questions remain on how fund managers perceive this integrated
approach and how they would promote it (
Illman et al., 2013).
This study addresses the questions of how representatives of climate funds directed
toward forestry and agriculture perceive the benets, risks and barriers of an integrated
approach; what they do to promote this approach; and how they foresee the future of this
integration. In this study, we dene the integration of adaptation and mitigation as the
search for synergies and the recognition and reduction of trade-offs between these two
climate objectives in the development of projects and policies. Among the
representatives of climate funds, we consider top management (e.g. members of the
board and directors), middle management (e.g. project portfolio managers) and technical
experts.
This study focuses on the opinions of one group of stakeholders in the climate nance
arena, despite the existence of many others, such as ministry representatives in donor
and recipient countries, project developers (including non-governmental organizations),
local communities) and representatives of the private sector (as a funder or project
developer). Although we acknowledge the need to explore the opinions of other groups
on the integration of adaptation and mitigation, we focus on representatives of climate
funds because of their central position between international policies and local or
national actions and role in decision-making (Remling and Persson, 2014). The authority
of donor countries contributing to multilateral funds is devolved on a day-to-day basis to
the secretariats of these funds (Ballesteros et al., 2010), and similar devolution occurs
from the governments of donor countries to their agencies in charge of climate funding.
The managers, technical experts and board members of these secretariats and
agencies can be highly inuential in setting project eligibility criteria or evaluation
procedures and approving projects (Ballesteros et al., 2010; Remling and Persson, 2014)
and can thus inuence the degree of integration of adaptation and mitigation in their
portfolios. This paper aims to provide new insight into how these key stakeholders
perceive and act on this integration.
Business studies conrm how managerial discretion can result in decisions that do
not fully align with organization’s strategy and reect the personal opinions of
managers (Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun, 2011). Managers’ decisions are driven by
institutional factors (such as external regulations and the strategic decisions made by
the organization) and individual factors (such as managerial attitudes and perceptions)
(Marshall et al., 2005; Hahn and Scheermesser, 2006). Our target group is assumed to
IJCCSM
8,1
114
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
inuence the outcomes of upper-level strategic orientations (i.e. from the international
community or national governments) in two ways:
(1) upward (by bringing information and proposing alternatives during strategy
development or update); and
(2) downward (by facilitating the implementation of the strategies and adapting
them) (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992).
2. Background on climate funding
The total volume of climate change nance was estimated at USD 359 billion in 2012, far
less than is needed for limiting global warming to below 2°C. Estimated needs range
from USD 500 to 900 billion per year for mitigation (Buchner et al., 2013) and USD 30 to
230 billion per year for adaptation (Smith et al., 2011). The great majority of the funding
(94 per cent) in 2012 was targeted at mitigation (Abadie et al., 2013). Most funding was
domestic (i.e. generated and used in the same country) and 24 per cent owed between
countries (mostly private nance between developed countries, and public nance from
developed to developing countries) (Buchner et al., 2013).
International public nance plays a central role in creating incentives and facilitating
other investments toward low-emission and climate-resilient development, particularly
in developing countries. The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013 assessment
showed that public funding represented the great majority of the estimated USD 39–62
billion of climate nance having owed North–South (i.e. from developed to developing
countries) in 2012 and that this public funding comes mostly from bilateral nance
institutions and multilateral development banks (Table I). Within this North–South
ow, it is estimated that adaptation nance was all publicly funded; however, this does
not mean that the private sector does not nance adaptation, but rather that adaptation
nance is not properly tracked, as most organizations do not yet have an adequate
measuring and reporting methodology.
Among public sources contributing to North–South ows, the distribution of funds
also favors mitigation (Table I). The distribution is more balanced, however, in
agriculture and forestry: the expenditures of development nance institutions in 2012
were estimated at USD 2 billion for both adaptation and mitigation in these sectors. For
agriculture and forestry, it is estimated that adaptation will require funding of around
USD 7 billion per year (Smith et al., 2011), and the estimated costs of halving emissions
from global deforestation range between USD 17 and 33 billion (Streck, 2012). This
Table I.
Climate nance
breakdown into
mitigation and
adaptation in 2012
from public sources
Sources Total
Mitigation
(%)
Adaptation
(%)
Mean estimate of
North–South ows (%)
Governments budgets 12.0 9.0 (75) 3.0 (25) 7.5 (63)
Multilateral development banks 38.0 31.0 (82) 7.0 (18) 18.5 (49)
Bilateral nance institutions 15.0 12.0 (80) 3.0 (20) 14.0 (93)
Multi-donor climate funds 1.6 1.0 (63) 0.6 (38) 1.4 (88)
Total 66.6 53.0 (80) 13.6 (20) 41.4 (62)
Note: All values in USD billion, except percentages of total ows
Source:
Buchner et al. (2013)
115
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
shows a clear funding gap in forestry and agriculture for both adaptation and
mitigation, even though the estimates of funding needs are not fully reliable.
With pledges ranging between USD 0.24 and 1.11 billion, the largest adaptation
funds are currently the European Union’s Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA), the
Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF);
the Adaptation Fund; and the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) of the World
Bank’s Climate Investment Funds (CIF) (Schalatek et al., 2012). The countries or groups
of countries contributing the most to the adaptation funds are Canada, the European
Community, Germany, Japan, the UK and the USA.
With regard to mitigation funding in forestry, the major funds for REDD⫹ (reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and enhancing forest carbon
stocks in developing countries) comprise:
• the United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (UN-REDD);
• the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank;
• the Forest Investment Program (FIP) of the World Bank’s CIF;
• the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), a multi-donor fund;
• the Amazon Fund, established by the Government of Brazil; and
• the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) created by the Government of
Indonesia.
In terms of bilateral nance on REDD⫹, major donors are Norway, through its
International Forest Climate Initiative; Germany, through its International Climate
Initiative; and Australia, through its International Forest Carbon Initiative (Nakhooda
et al., 2011).
Although all these funds have a unique goal (either adaptation or mitigation), an
important share of committed aid to address global environmental challenges
reportedly contributes to both goals (Figure 1). The Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Creditor Reporting System on aid activities for
the global environment describes whether the principal or signicant objectives of each
activity are related to the “Rio markers”: biodiversity, climate change mitigation,
Figure 1.
Share of committed
aid targeting global
environmental
objectives in
2010-2012 in
agriculture, forestry
and all sectors,
depending on the
reported goals of
climate change
adaptation and
mitigation
IJCCSM
8,1
116
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
climate change adaptation and desertication (OECD, 2014). Forestry represented 3.3
per cent and agriculture 7.8 per cent of the total funding in this data set; both adaptation
and mitigation were reported objectives (either principal or signicant) in 36.8 per cent
of forestry funding and 15.5 per cent of agriculture funding, compared to 12.6 per cent
for all sectors. Analyzing the Rio markers can, however, leave signicant room for
interpretation and error, as they do not quantify the amounts allocated within projects
specically to address climate concerns and do not assess project subcomponents. More
analysis would be needed to understand the degree of integration of adaptation and
mitigation in these activities (some activities were labeled “Support to national
organizations” and reported contributions to all Rio markers, without further details).
3. Method and sample description
We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of climate funding
organizations. The interview guide was structured in three parts. First, preliminary
questions were aimed at determining the role of the interviewees within the organization
and their level of condence to talk about integrating adaptation and mitigation. We
also asked representatives to give specic examples of projects (funded or implemented
by their organization) that highlighted potential benets for both adaptation and
mitigation. Second, we asked questions about how the organization considered the
integration of adaptation and mitigation, for example through internal policies, project
templates or guidelines for internal project managers or external project developers.
Third, through open-ended and non-prescriptive questions, we asked them to describe
how they perceived the benets, risks and barriers of integrating adaptation and
mitigation in land-use projects.
We rst identied 47 potential interviewees from 23 major organizations that fund
activities related to climate change in agriculture and forestry, including all the
organizations identied as major funders in the previous section. Following our initial
email and phone contact with the organizations in May 2013, several forwarded our
request to more appropriate contact people within their organizations, which resulted in
80 people being approached. Finally, 22 people from 19 organizations were interviewed
by phone, each for a duration of between 30 and 60 minutes, in June 2013. Organizations
represented by the interviewees are:
(1) Multilateral funds and organizations:
• World Bank: FIP within CIF;
• World Bank: PPCR within CIF;
• World Bank: Bio Carbon Fund with Carbon Finance Unit;
• Adaptation Fund: Secretariat and board members;
• African Development Bank: CBFF;
• European Commission (EC): Directorate General for Development and
Cooperation;
• European Commission (EC): Directorate General for Climate;
• European Commission (EC): GCCA;
• GEF: LDCF;
• GEF: SCCF;
117
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
• GEF: Scientic and Technical Advisory Panel; and
• United Nations Environment Program.
(2) Governmental organizations, bilateral cooperation agencies:
• Canada: Canadian International Development Agency;
• France: Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial;
• Germany: GIZ;
• Indonesia: ICCTF;
• Japan: Japan International Cooperation Agency;
• Norway: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation; and
• United Kingdom: Department for International Development.
Around 32 per cent of interviewees had an operational role (e.g. managing and
monitoring fund execution), 27 per cent had an advisory or technical role (e.g. providing
guidance and making recommendations but without direct decisions or actions), 18 per
cent had a managerial or directorial role (e.g. board members, directors and executive
ofcers) and 23 per cent had multiple roles.
The group of interviewees was small because many people at upper-management
levels were not available. It was not possible to secure interviews with some major
donors, despite repeated attempts, and, in some cases, it was difcult to identify the
most suitable person to interview within an organization. Nevertheless, representatives
of most large funding organizations were nally included. The semi-structured
interviews enabled an understanding of the diversity of perceptions and actions related
to adaptation–mitigation integration. Given the explorative nature of this study, a
representative sample was not required.
4. Arguments about integrating adaptation and mitigation
We present a typology of arguments used by respondents in favor of adaptation and
mitigation integration (benets and opportunities) and against integration (risks) at
different scales (local to global), as well as arguments on the barriers to this integration.
4.1 Arguments in favor of integration
A majority of interviewees (73 per cent) presented arguments in favor of integrating
adaptation and mitigation and described benets arising from this integration
(Table II). The most common argument was that adaptation measures in mitigation
projects could address potential climate risks, making mitigation projects more resilient
to a changing climate. Adaptation was perceived as a project safeguard that would
provide benets to local communities and project developers, as well as global benets
because carbon storage would be more permanent. This was particularly clear for
forestry and REDD⫹ projects according to some interviewees, who asserted that it
would be difcult, if not impossible, to undertake these projects successfully without
incorporating adaptation.
Several interviewees shared the opinion that there were many low-hanging fruits in
the land-use sector, i.e. land-based activities that could contribute easily to the dual goals
of adaptation and mitigation, and provide multiple benets. They gave examples of
REDD⫹ projects that could potentially deliver large adaptation outcomes: conserved
IJCCSM
8,1
118
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
natural forests increasing the resilience of forest-dependent local communities, forests
protecting against landslide and oods and mangroves providing a green infrastructure
for coastal protection.
According to some interviewees, integration could increase efciency in the use
of limited nancial resources, allowing greater economies of scale and facilitating
operations and management, as one single project would deliver multiple benets.
Another common argument stated that the inclusion of adaptation goals would
increase the attention given by mitigation projects to local issues, such as food
security or livelihood improvement, making them more appealing to local
communities.
Table II.
Arguments
mentioned during
interviews and scales
to which the
arguments refer
Short name Frequency Description
Scale
Global National
Local/
project
Pros
Resilience ** Ensuring local resilience and carbon permanence
in mitigation projects
⫻⫻
Opportunities ** Capturing the many low-hanging fruits for
synergies, particularly in REDD⫹
⫻
Cost ** Reducing costs and increasing global funding
efciency
⫻
Legitimacy * Giving attention to local issues and improving
mitigation project legitimacy
⫻
Institutions * Strengthening coordination, cooperation and
capacity among host country institutions
⫻
Priorities * Ensuring mitigation projects respond to host
country priorities
⫻
Climate * Ensuring adaptation projects also provide global
climate benets
⫻
Cons
Breadth *** Overlooking broader and more important issues ⫻⫻⫻
Complexity ** Increasing project complexity ⫻
Focus ** Losing focus and reducing project effectiveness ⫻
Gap * Amplifying adaptation funding gap ⫻
Cost * Increasing costs and decreasing global funding
efciency
⫻
Barriers
International *** International political economy, including
funding structure
⫻
National *** National political economy in host countries ⫻
Knowledge *** Lack of knowledge and skills ⫻⫻
Rationale ** Different principles and targets ⫻⫻ ⫻
Monitoring ** Difcult monitoring, evaluation and reporting ⫻⫻
Feasibility * Practical feasibility, uncertainties ⫻
Notes: Refer to the frequency of this argument (*less than 20% of respondents, **between 20 and
40%, ***more than 40%)
119
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
Several interviewees highlighted the institutional benets of adaptation–mitigation
integration in host countries, such as the creation of new partnerships, cooperation
among practitioners and between national ministries, dialogues between development
partners and beneciary countries and capacity building at the country level.
Interviewees also mentioned that adaptation goals could better align mitigation projects
with the development priorities of host countries. Finally, a few interviewees reported
the obvious benet of integrating mitigation objectives in adaptation projects such as
improved carbon sequestration and reduced emissions for global climate change
mitigation.
4.2 Arguments against integration
More than two-thirds of the respondents (around 68 per cent) presented arguments
against integrating adaptation and mitigation and described risk arising from this
integration (Table II). They suggested that too much emphasis on integration could lead
to a lack of focus on broader and more important issues, such as poverty reduction. They
also mentioned that the discussion should not be about the integration in climate change
projects or policies, but rather about the mainstreaming of climate change (irrespective
of whether it is adaptation or mitigation) into development policy and planning.
According to them, the biggest challenge was about achieving “triple wins” (i.e. for
development, adaptation and mitigation), as illustrated in the World Bank’s concept of
“climate-smart development”.
According to another argument, integrating adaptation and mitigation would lead to
overly complex projects, for example, because of the need to engage with a large and
disparate group of mitigation- and adaptation-focused stakeholders with diverging
interests, or because of increased reporting requirements. Some interviewees also
perceived a challenge in managing climate projects with multiple objectives. The actual
challenge of integrated climate projects can be explained, however, by the siloed funding
streams and the complexity of applying and reporting to multiple climate funds, rather
than the multiple objectives (almost all forest or agriculture projects pursue multiple
objectives anyway). This complexity could be a burden for beneciary countries and
project developers with low technical expertise and awareness, exacerbating the uneven
distribution of climate nance between least developed countries and other countries.
For example, two respondents noted that the non-carbon aspects of mitigation projects
are sometimes perceived by project developers as extra requirements that complicate
the application process. Similarly, another argument referred to the risk of wanting to
“do everything” while diverting efforts and losing focus from the main goals.
Other arguments included the risk of redirecting the limited adaptation funding to
mitigation activities, if mitigation projects that integrate adaptation goals tap into
adaptation funding. This could also increase competition among projects over existing
sources of climate nance. Integration could also raise the costs of climate initiatives and
could be counter-productive and less cost-effective than addressing adaptation and
mitigation separately.
4.3 Perceived barriers
All interviewees described barriers that explained why the integration between
adaptation and mitigation is not straightforward (Table II). The most common
argument related to the international political economy of climate change (i.e. the way
IJCCSM
8,1
120
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
organizations, institutions and actors are structured at the international level, with their
power relationships and their ideologies). According to many interviewees, the
international climate architecture (e.g. UNFCCC) has addressed adaptation and
mitigation in separate silos, which has resulted in the emergence of narrow mandates for
funding organizations and a separation between adaptation and mitigation in donor
agencies. For instance, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) nances adaptation
through the LDCF and the SCCF, and mitigation though the GEF Trust Fund. If a project
was to address both objectives and be funded for them, it would have to apply to two
different sources.
Some interviewees recalled that the instruments used to nance adaptation and
mitigation activities were different in nature and may sometimes appear incompatible.
For example, they mentioned that mitigation funds favored loans, while adaptation was
primarily nanced through grants. In addition, mitigation projects could more easily tap
into private sector nance by attracting money from the capital market, by offering clear
and quantiable indicators on protability throughout the project cycle. Adaptation
projects supported by development partners were less likely to show nancial returns
for investors.
The national political economy of recipient countries was the second barrier most
often mentioned by interviewees, who explained that agencies in charge of adaptation
and mitigation must compete for funding. This competitive scenario, and the lack of
coordination at the national level, was attributed mainly to the way in which climate
issues have been structured at the international level, particularly by the UNFCCC.
According to the third most common argument, a major barrier to integration was
related to a lack of adequate knowledge, information and technical capacity among
project developers. Moreover, because adaptation and mitigation have become
increasingly specialized elds, few practitioners have the necessary skill set to deal with
both issues simultaneously.
The fourth most common argument highlighted the different rationalities of
adaptation and mitigation. Interviewees pointed out that mitigation is primarily driven
by cost-effectiveness and efciency in emission reductions, whereas adaptation
responds to principles of community development, social equity and fairness. In
addition, adaptation and mitigation may have different targets: sectors or countries that
are highly vulnerable to climate change might not always be the ones with the greatest
potential for emissions reduction. Several interviewees also perceived an important
barrier in the use of different terminologies, and metrics to measure results (i.e. carbon
vs vulnerability, and quantity vs quality), which made communication difcult between
the two communities. Finally, another perceived barrier was about practical feasibility,
when adaptation activities cannot clearly contribute to mitigation (or vice versa) or the
future of policies and funding is too uncertain.
As a result of the aforementioned barriers, and despite the recognized benets, few
actions have been taken to promote integration, in terms of procedures or guidance
(
Table III). One-third of the interviewees noted, however, that their organizations were
currently planning to better harness synergies between adaptation and mitigation. For
example, one funding organization was planning to request adaptation activities in its
REDD⫹ projects in the future, and, in another one, discussions were taking place with
host countries to understand how adaptation–mitigation synergies could be harnessed
in development agendas.
121
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
5. Discussion
5.1 Scales
Among the diversity of views, three dominant combinations of arguments emerged and
differed according to their focus on either the benets or the risks of integration and their
emphasis on either the local or the global scale at which benets or risks would occur
(Table IV). A large group of interviewees highlighted the local and national benets of
adaptation–mitigation integration, without elaborating on the risks. Their discourse
covered the benets for project resilience and legitimacy, the large opportunities offered
by REDD⫹ projects and the respect of national priorities. Second, a smaller group did
not mention any benet but focused on the risks and barriers at the international level
(such as increasing the adaptation funding gap or raising transaction costs). Finally, a
third group mentioned national and global benets (e.g. cost-efciency gains in climate
funding) and local risks (e.g. overlooking broader issues, losing focus and making
projects too complex).
The combinations of arguments suggest that the integration of adaptation and
mitigation is generally appealing but for different reasons. They also show that the
Table III.
Agreement of
interviewees with
selected statements
Statement Frequency
a
The integration of adaptation and mitigation will gain importance in the future
†
People in the organization are aware of the benets of integrating adaptation
and mitigation
***
The organization is currently planning to better harness synergies between
adaptation and mitigation
**
A project contributing explicitly to both adaptation and mitigation is more
likely to be funded by the organization than a project contributing to one single
goal
**
Informal guidance on adaptation–mitigation integration is provided to project
developers
*
The organization provides guidance to project developers to better understand
and identify synergies
*
The project proposal templates considers adaptation–mitigation integration
Notes:
a
Empty 0%; *more than 0 and less than 20% of respondents: **between 20 and
40%; ***between 40 and 60%;
†
more than 80%
Table IV.
Main discourses on
adaptation–mitigation
integration
Name of the
combination Frequency
a
Highlighted arguments
b
Pros Cons Barriers
Locally benecial *** Resilience, legitimacy,
priorities, opportunities
National, knowledge,
feasibility, rationale
Globally risky ** Gap, cost, breadth International
Globally
benecial but
locally risky
* Climate, institutions, cost Complexity,
focus, breadth
Monitoring
Notes:
a
Refer to the frequency of this argument (*less than 20% of respondents, **between 20 and
40%, ***more than 40%);
b
see Table II for the description of arguments
IJCCSM
8,1
122
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
outcomes of integration are perceived differently according to scales: for example,
outcomes are often considered only at local or global scale, and, when combinations of
arguments relate to multiple scales, arguments are positive for the global scale and
negative for the local one. This difference may be explained by the respondent’s role and
knowledge of the realities at their scale of action, for example whether they assist the
development of local projects.
Regarding local projects, interviewees presented examples of projects providing both
mitigation services (i.e. carbon sequestration) and adaptation services (such as
hydrological regulation, regulation of microclimate in agriculture or coastal protection),
in line with an ecosystem-based approach to adaptation and mitigation (Pramova et al.,
2012; World Bank, 2009). Most arguments in favor of adaptation–mitigation integration
in projects refer to adding adaptation objectives into mitigation activities, rather than
the other way around. Mitigation project developers may have good reasons to integrate
adaptation, regardless of funding requirements, for example, because increased project
sustainability and carbon permanence in the long term has an intrinsic value for local
stakeholders (Klein et al., 2005; Locatelli et al., 2011). By contrast, project developers may
have few reasons to integrate mitigation objectives into adaptation projects if there are
no incentives to do so. In this case, donors have a role to play, and mitigation outcomes
could make adaptation projects more attractive to donors (Klein et al., 2007).
5.2 Actions
Despite the interest shown by interviewees in adaptation–mitigation integration,
climate funds have implemented few prescriptive actions in that direction, such as
including adaptation and mitigation in project requirements or proposals. One
interviewee warned that promoting integration as a mandatory requirement during
project development would be inefcient, as it would add another layer of bureaucracy
and complexity to the project cycle. Another risk would be to prioritize only win–win
measures and neglect measures that effectively contribute to either adaptation or
mitigation separately (Moser, 2012). Interestingly, despite the lack of formal
consideration of integration in the fund procedures, many interviewees considered that
projects contributing explicitly to both adaptation and mitigation were more likely to be
funded than a project contributing to one single goal. This difference between formal
selection rules and actual project selection may reect managerial discretion
(Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun, 2011).
In our sample, all the organizations currently planning to better harness synergies
between adaptation and mitigation are organizations that fund REDD⫹ activities,
probably because of the large potential for synergies and trade-offs between adaptation
and mitigation in REDD⫹ projects. Plans include developing new budget lines for
integrating adaptation and mitigation, going beyond the traditionally segmented
approach and promoting ecosystem-based approaches that can contribute to mitigation,
adaptation, food security and good governance. Plans also include merging land-use
activities into a single funding window, which would promote a more balanced
combination between adaptation and mitigation in forestry (currently more
mitigation-oriented) and agriculture (currently more adaptation-oriented).
Among the barriers mentioned by the interviewees, the international political
economy is perceived as the main one, although some of the interviewees had the
capacity to act on it by improving integration in their procedures. There are avenues to
123
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
leverage synergies, as reected by the approach taken by the Green Climate Fund,
which will have separate windows dedicated to adaptation and mitigation but will favor
“linkages between mitigation and adaptation” in certain areas, such as sustainable
forest management. The national political economy of recipient countries is also
considered a major barrier to integration, for example, because of competition or a lack
of communication among government agencies in charge of climate change. At the same
time, improving the coordination, communication and capacity of these agencies is
perceived as a potential benet from the integration of adaptation and mitigation.
Interviews reveal a chicken-and-egg problem, in which changes in political economy are
needed for integration, while integration is seen as a means to facilitate these changes
(Illman et al., 2013).
The discussion should not, however, be limited to the integration of adaptation and
mitigation but should be extended to incentives that can improve coordination between
sectors and ministries for climate change policy development. This can be supported by
climate nance readiness activities being currently funded by development donors,
such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (GIZ, 2013).
Adaptation–mitigation integration should also be framed more broadly, mainstreaming
climate change into the policy domains of poverty reduction, rural development and
disaster management, as proposed by Kok and de Coninck (2007). Connecting
adaptation and mitigation may be a rst step toward more holistic, climate-smart
development policies (Smith et al., 2011; Swart and Raes, 2007).
5.3 Recommendations
Almost all interviewees agree that the integration of adaptation and mitigation will gain
importance in the future, but they propose different approaches at different scales.
Multilateral organizations (e.g. secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements),
recipient countries and the Green Climate Fund are the institutions most often cited as
catalyzers of this integration. The private sector and standards bodies, such as the
Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards, are less often cited.
International donors and funds have a critical role to play in guiding countries to
identify adaptation–mitigation synergies, through consultation processes, dialogue and
awareness raising. Better coordination among funds, for example through multilateral
institutions adopting a holistic mandate, can help harness synergies and minimize
trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. In particular, the Green Climate Fund can
promote more integrated, innovative and transformational projects as set out in the
Business Model Framework of this fund, but it is still unknown how implementation
will be achieved.
Independently of what is happening at the international level, the integration of
adaptation and mitigation can also be driven at local or national levels. For example,
better coordination of activities at the national level, through programmatic
approaches rather than project approaches, can ensure that adaptation and
mitigation are aligned with national development priorities. Climate-smart
programs or policies with inter-ministerial coordination are vehicles for integration.
There is also a need to identify and analyze success stories and best practices related
to adaptation–mitigation integration, and also to increase the technical capacity and
skills of policy makers and project developers to design activities with an integrated
approach, for example in relation with assessing adaptation and mitigation
IJCCSM
8,1
124
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
outcomes, particularly measuring the adaptation benets of policy or development
interventions (Barrett and Constas, 2014).
6. Conclusion and policy implications
This paper has provided new insights on how the representatives of climate funds
perceive and act on the integration of adaptation and mitigation in forestry and
agriculture. Interviews revealed a diversity of perceived benets, risks and barriers
for the integration of adaptation and mitigation. One common argument was that
adaptation measures in mitigation projects could make projects more resilient to a
changing climate: for example, REDD⫹ forestry projects were considered difcult
to implement successfully without incorporating adaptation. Despite the general
interest of interviewees in projects and policies integrating adaptation and
mitigation, few actions have been implemented in that direction by climate funders.
Many opportunities for integration in the agriculture and forest sectors can be
captured without forcing a marriage between adaptation and mitigation, for
example through the provision of adequate information, tools and guidance to
project developers or policy makers.
It is hoped that our ndings will inform the development of procedures for the
Green Climate Fund or the readiness activities being currently funded by bilateral
agencies. These organizations can promote integration by revising their procedures
and structure to ensure that initiatives capture opportunities to provide multiple
adaptation and mitigation benets without excessively increasing project cycle
complexity and costs. The Green Climate Fund could test innovative approaches to
the integration of adaptation and mitigation and stimulate changes at the national
level in recipient countries and at the local scale in projects, contributing to the
mainstreaming of climate change in development. More generally, climate funds can
play an important role in facilitating policy integration and removing internal
contradictions among climate change policies. A conscious approach to the
interactions between adaptation and mitigation would facilitate policy
mainstreaming and the management of trade-offs between non-climate and
adaptation and mitigation policy objectives.
References
Abadie, L.M., Galarraga, I. and Rübbelke, D. (2013), “An analysis of the causes of the mitigation
bias in international climate nance”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 943-955.
Ballesteros, A., Nakhooda, S., Werksman, J. and Hurlburt, K. (2010), “Power, responsibility, and
accountability: rethinking the legitimacy of institutions for climate nance”, Climate Law,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 261-312.
Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. (2010), “Maladaptation”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 211-213.
Barrett, C.B. and Constas, M.A. (2014), “Toward a theory of resilience for international
development applications”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111
No. 40, pp. 14625-14630.
Buchner, B., Herve-Mignucci, M., Trabacchi, C., Wilkinson, J., Stadelmann, M., Boyd, R., Mazza, F.,
Falconer, A. and Micale, V. (2013), “The global landscape of climate nance 2013”, CPI
Report, Climate Policy Initiative, Venice.
125
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
Denton, F. and Wilbanks, T. (Eds) (2014), Chapter 20: Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation,
Mitigation, and Sustainable Development, Working II Group Contribution to the 5th
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Stanford, CA.
Ditlev-Simonsen, C.D. and Midttun, A. (2011), “What motivates managers to pursue corporate
responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1992), “Middle management involvement in strategy and its
association with strategic type: a research note”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13
No. S1, pp. 153-167.
GIZ (2013), “Ready for climate nance: GIZ’s approach to making climate nance work, building
on climate expertise and good nancial governance, Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH”, Eschborn, available at:
www.giz.de/
expertise/downloads/giz2013-en-climate-nance-approach.pdf
Guariguata, M., Locatelli, B. and Haupt, F. (2012), “Adapting tropical production forests to global
climate change: risk perceptions and actions”, International Forestry Review, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 27-38.
Hahn, T. and Scheermesser, M. (2006), “Approaches to corporate sustainability among German
companies”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 150-165.
Harvey, C.A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C.I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., Bede, L., Brown, D.,
Calle, A. and Chará, J. (2014), “Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for
integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 77-90.
Illman, J., Halonen, M., Rinne, P., Huq, S. and Tveitdal, S. (2013), “Scoping study on nancing
adaptation-mitigation synergy activities”, Nordic working papers, Nordiske
Arbejdspapirer, Copenhagen.
Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T.E., Richels, R.G., Robinson, J.B. and Toth, F.L. (2007),
“Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation”, in Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,
Palutikof, J.P., Van Der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (Eds), Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Klein, R.J.T., Schipper, E.L.F. and Dessai, S. (2005), “Integrating mitigation and adaptation into
climate and development policy: three research questions”, Environmental Science & Policy,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 579-588.
Kok, M.T.J. and de Coninck, H.C. (2007), “Widening the scope of policies to address climate change:
directions for mainstreaming”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10 Nos 7/8,
pp. 587-599.
Locatelli, B., Evans, V., Wardell, A., Andrade, A. and Vignola, R. (2011), “Forests and climate
change in Latin America: linking adaptation and mitigation”, Forests, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 431-450.
Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Colfer, C.J.P., Murdiyarso, D. and Santoso, H. (2008),
Facing An Uncertain Future: How Forest and People can Adapt to Climate Change, CIFOR,
Bogor.
Locatelli, B., Pavageau, C., Pramova, E. and Di Gregorio, M. (2015), “Integrating climate change
mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs”,
WIREs Climate Change, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 585-598.
IJCCSM
8,1
126
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
Marshall, R.S., Cordano, M. and Silverman, M. (2005), “Exploring individual and institutional
drivers of proactive environmentalism in the US wine industry”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-109.
Moser, S.C. (2012), “Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents: an essay”,
Climatic Change, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 165-175.
Nakhooda, S., Caravani, A. and Schalatek, L. (2011), Climate Finance Thematic Brieng:
REDD-plus Finance, Climate Finance Fundamentals, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Washington,
DC.
OECD (2014), “Aid activities targeting global environment objectives, development assistance
committee (DAC) creditor reporting system (CRS)”, Organization for Economic
Co-Operation and Development, Paris, available at: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?Data
SetCode⫽RIOMARKERS
Pramova, E., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H. and Somorin, O.A. (2012), “Forests and trees for social
adaptation to climate variability and change”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 581-596.
Remling, E. and Persson, Å. (2014), “Who is adaptation for? Vulnerability and adaptation benets
in proposals approved by the UNFCCC adaptation fund”, Climate and Development, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 10.1080/17565529, 2014.886992.
Schalatek, L., Nakhooda, S., Barnard, S. and Caravani, A. (2012), Climate Finance Thematic
Brieng: Adaptation Finance, Climate Finance Fundamentals, Heinrich Boll Stiftung,
Washington, DC.
Smith, J.B., Dickinson, T., Donahue, J.D., Burton, I., Haites, E., Klein, R.J. and Patwardhan, A.
(2011), “Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordination and
integration”, Climate Policy, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 987-1000.
Streck, C. (2012), “Financing REDD⫹: matching needs and ends”, Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 628-637.
Swart, R. and Raes, F. (2007), “Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work:
mainstreaming into sustainable development policies?”, Climate Policy, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 288-303.
Thuy, P.T., Moeliono, M., Locatelli, B., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. and Mardiah, S. (2014),
“Integration of adaptation and mitigation in climate change and forest policies in Indonesia
and Vietnam”, Forests, Vol. 5 No. 8.
UNFCCC (2011), “Decision 3/CP.17: launching the green climate fund”, Germany, United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, available at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf
World Bank (2009), Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem-based Approaches
to Climate Change, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
About the authors
Bruno Locatelli is a Research Scientist with CIRAD (Agricultural Research for Development) in
France and CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research) in Indonesia. His research focuses
on the role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and mitigation. He holds a PhD in
environmental sciences. Bruno Locatelli is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
bruno.locatelli@cirad.fr
Giacomo Fedele has an MSc in environmental science from ETH Zurich (Switzerland) and is
specialized in integrated approaches to address climate change through ecosystem sustainable
127
Synergies
between
adaptation
and mitigation
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
management. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for International Forestry Research in
Indonesia.
Virginie Fayolle is an Economist at Acclimatise, a specialist advisory rm in climate change
adaptation and risk management based in the UK, where she plays a key role in leading
stakeholder consultations and training on all aspects of climate nance. Virginie holds an MSc in
Environment and Development from the London School of Economics (UK).
Alastair Baglee is a Technical Director at Acclimatise with over 20 years of experience as an
earth scientist, and environmental and climate change consultant. He is an award-winning expert
in assessing the current and future risks to societies and ecosystems from socioeconomic
developments, climate change and other natural hazards.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
IJCCSM
8,1
128
Downloaded by CIRAD At 06:58 18 May 2016 (PT)
