Adaptation and mitigation as complementary tools for reducing the risk of climate impacts

This paper uses the likelihood of flooding along Brahmaputra and Ganges Rivers in India to explore the hypothesis that adaptation and mitigation can be viewed as complements rather than sustitutes. For futures where climate change will produce smooth, monotonic and manageable effects, adopting a mitigation strategy is shown to increase the ability of adaptation to reduce the likelihood of crossing critical threshold of tolerable climate. For futures where climate change will produce variable impacts overtime, though, it is possible that mitigation will make adaptation less productive for some time intervals. In cases of exaggerated climate change, adaptation may fail entirely regardless of how much mitigation is applied. Judging the degree of complementarity is therefore an empirical question because the relative efficacy of adaptation is site specific and path dependent. It follows that delibrations over climate policy should rely more on detailed analyses of how the distributions of possible impacts of climate might change over space and time.

How water saving irrigation contributes to climate change resilience—a case study of practices in China

A warming climate system is now an indisputable fact. An effective response to climate change should include both mitigation and adaptation. Water is essential to human survival and social development. But the shortage of water resources is a worldwide problem, which in China has been exacerbated by climate change. In order to find out how to cope with climate change successfully, this study, on the basis of China statistical data 2007–2009, quantitatively analyzes the role of water saving irrigation (WSI) in addressing climate change. The study shows that water saving irrigation (WSI) can serve as a useful enabler in dealing with climate change. From the perspective of mitigation, the 3-year total CO₂ emission reduction stands at 34.67 (21.83 ~ 47.48) Mt, about per year 11.56(7.28 ~ 15.83)Mt. From the perspective of adaptation, the total water saved from 2007 to 2009 stands at 96.85 (61.81 ~ 129.66) Gm³. If per unit farmland irrigation takes a 3-year average of agricultural water consumption, the water saved in 2009 is enough to irrigate additional 5.70 (3.80 ~ 7.80) Mhm², or to increase the grain yield by 22.04 (14.68 ~ 30.15) Gt. In addition, WSI can reduce soil salinization and conserve soil to sustain land productivity and environmental benefits. So WSI can be a positive measure in coping with climate change when it is rightly deployed. However, the costs and local context of such practices call for further studies.     

Complementarity between mitigation and adaptation: the water sector

The water cycle, a fundamental component of climate, is likely to be altered in important ways by climate change. Climate change will most likely worsen the already existing water related problems. Then the question is how should policy makers respond to this dilemma. Climate change mitigation, through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and sequestration is not a sufficient response. Adaptation will also need to feature as a response strategy. Mitigation and adaptation need to be viewed as complementary responses to climate change. Complementarity between adaptation and mitigation in the water sector will be addressed in this paper. The paper will also outline the main impacts of climate change on water resources and identify those areas that are most dependent and vulnerable to hydrological systems (e.g., hydroelectric systems, irrigation, agriculture) and any changes thereof resulting from climate change. It will aim to assess the impact of water demand and water use, with a view to identifying the main relationships between mitigation and adaptation in the water sector and the means through which individual mitigation and adaptation actions can potentially interact with each other for the benefit of the water sector as a whole. It will also explore the implications of climate change on the management of water resources. Adaptation and mitigation options would be considered in the context of their socio-economic and environmental impacts and their contribution to sustainable development. A brief evaluation of how this information can be directly used for planning purpose will also be presented.

---

Synergisms between climate change mitigation and adaptation: an insurance perspective

As the world’s largest industry, the insurance sector is both an aggregator of the impacts of climate change and a market actor able to play a material role in decreasing the vulnerability of human and natural systems. This article reviews the implications of climate change for insurers and provides specific examples of insurance-relevant synergisms between adaptation and mitigation in the buildings and energy sectors, agriculture, forestry, and land use. Although insurance is far from a “silver bullet” in addressing climate change, it offers significant capacity and ability to understand, manage, and spread risks associated with weather-related events, more so today in industrialized countries but increasingly so in developing countries and economies in transition. Certain measures that integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation also bolster insurers’ solvency and profitability, thereby increasing their appeal. Promising strategies involve innovative products and systems for delivering insurance and the use of new technologies and practices that both reduce vulnerability to disaster-related losses and support sustainable development. However, climate change promises to erode the insurability of many risks, and insurance responses can be more reactive than proactive, resulting in compromised insurance affordability and/or availability. Public–private partnerships involving insurers and entities such as the international relief community offer considerable potential, but have not been adequately explored.

The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy

Factors influencing support for climate mitigation policy in the United States are well researched, however, research regarding individuals’ support for climate adaptation policy is relatively sparse. This study explores how an individual’s perception of climate change impacts may influence their support for adaptation actions. Results of a survey of the U.S. public (n = 653) indicates that individuals who believe climate change impacts are unlikely to happen or will primarily affect other people in other places are less likely to be concerned about climate change impacts and less likely to support climate adaptation. However, an individual’s support for climate change adaptation measures is not influenced by their perception of when climate change impacts will occur even when taking into account concern for climate impacts. Critical for policy-makers, a belief that climate adaptation measures will not be effective attenuates the relationship between psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and adaptation policy measures. Our results indicate that to effectively communicate about climate change, policy-makers should emphasize that: (i) climate change impacts are occurring, (ii) that their constituents are being affected now, or will be in the future, and (iii) communicate that adaptation measures can be effective in addressing risks associated with climate change impacts.     

Land use and climate change adaptation strategies in Kenya

Climate variability and change mitigation and adaptation policies need to prioritize land users needs at local level because it is at this level that impact is felt most. In order to address the challenge of socio-economic and unique regional geographical setting, a customized methodological framework was developed for application in assessment of climate change vulnerability perception and adaptation options around the East African region. Indicators of climate change and variability most appropriate for the region were derived from focused discussions involving key informants in various sectors of the economy drawn from three East African countries. Using these indicators, a structured questionnaire was developed from which surveys and interviews were done on selected sample of target population of farming communities in the Mt. Kenya region. The key highlights of the questionnaire were vulnerability and adaptation. Data obtained from respondents was standardized and subjected to multivariate and ANOVA analysis. Based on principle component analysis (PCA), two main vulnerability categories were identified namely the social and the bio-physical vulnerability indicators. Analysis of variance using Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant statistical variation (P ≤ 0.05) in the perceived vulnerability across the spatial distribution of the 198 respondents. Three insights were distinguished and were discernible by agro-ecological zones. Different vulnerability profiles and adaptive capacity profiles were generated demonstrating the need for prioritizing adaptation and mitigation efforts at local level. There was a high correlation between the bio-physical and social factor/livelihood variables that were assessed.     

Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation,mitigation, and sustainable development

Determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacities (e.g., availability of technological options, and access to economic resources, social capital and human capital) largely overlap. Several factors underlying or related to these determinants are themselves indicators of sustainable development (e.g., per capita income; and various public health, education and research indices). Moreover, climate change could exacerbate existing climate-sensitive hurdles to sustainable development (e.g., hunger, malaria, water shortage, coastal flooding and threats to biodiversity) faced specifically by many developing countries. Based on these commonalities, the paper identifies integrated approaches to formulating strategies and measures to concurrently advance adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. These approaches range from broadly moving sustainable development forward (by developing and/or nurturing institutions, policies and infrastructure to stimulate economic development, technological change, human and social capital, and reducing specific barriers to sustainable development) to reducing vulnerabilities to urgent climate-sensitive risks that hinder sustainable development and would worsen with climate change. The resulting sustainable economic development would also help reduce birth rates, which could mitigate climate change and reduce the population exposed to climate change and climate-sensitive risks, thereby reducing impacts, and the demand for adaptation. The paper also offers a portfolio of pro-active strategies and measures consistent with the above approaches, including example measures that would simultaneously reduce pressures on biodiversity, hunger, and carbon sinks. Finally it addresses some common misconceptions that could hamper fuller integration of adaptation and mitigation, including the notions that adaptation may be unsuitable for natural systems, and mitigation should necessarily have primacy over adaptation.

Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector

Mitigation and adaptation are the two main strategies to address climate change. Mitigation and adaptation have been considered separately in the global negotiations as well as literature. There is a realization on the need to explore and promote synergy between mitigation and adaptation while addressing climate change. In this paper, an attempt is made to explore the synergy between mitigation and adaptation by considering forest sector, which on the one hand is projected to be adversely impacted under the projected climate change scenarios and on the other provide opportunities to mitigate climate change. Thus, the potential and need for incorporating adaptation strategies and practices in mitigation projects is presented with a few examples. Firstly, there is a need to ensure that mitigation programs or projects do not increase the vulnerability of forest ecosystems and plantations. Secondly, several adaptation practices could be incorporated into mitigation projects to reduce vulnerability. Further, many of the mitigation projects indeed reduce vulnerability and promote adaptation, for example; forest and biodiversity conservation, protected area management and sustainable forestry. Also, many adaptation options such as urban forestry, soil and water conservation and drought resistant varieties also contribute to mitigation of climate change. Thus, there is need for research and field demonstration of synergy between mitigation and adaptation, so that the cost of addressing climate change impacts can be reduced and co-benefits increased.     

Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods

Adaptation to climate change and mitigation of climate change are policy substitutes, as both reduce the impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation should therefore be analysed together, as they indeed are, albeit in a rudimentary way, in cost-benefit analyses of emission abatement. However, adaptation and mitigation are done by different people operating at different spatial and temporal scales. This hampers analysis of the trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. An exception is facilitative adaptation (enhancing adaptive capacity), which, like mitigation, requires long-term policies at macro level. Facilitative adaptation and mitigation not only both reduce impacts, but they also compete for resources.     

Climate Modelling,Uncertainty and Responses to Predictions of Change

Article 4.1(F) of the Framework Convention on Climate Change commits all parties to take climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, in relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions and to employ methods such as impact assessments to minimize adverse effects of climate change. This could be achieved by,inter alia, incorporating climate change risk assessment into development planning processes i.e. relating climatic change to issues of habitability and sustainability. Adaptation is an ubiquitous and beneficial natural and human strategy. Future adaptation (or, better, adjustment) to climate is inevitable at the least to decrease the vulnerability to current climatic impacts. The urgent issue is the mismatch between the predictions ofglobal climatic change and the need for information onlocal to regional change in order to develop adaptation strategies. Mitigation efforts are essential since the more successful mitigation activities are, the less need there will be for adaptation responses. Moreover, mitigation responses can be global (e.g. a uniform percentage reduction in greenhouse gas emissions) while adaptation responses will be local to regional in character and therefore depend upon confident predictions of regional climatic change. The dilemma facing policymakers is that scientists have considerable confidence in likely global climatic changes but virtually zero confidence in regional changes. Mitigation and adaptation strategies relevant to climatic change can most usefully be developed in the context of sound understanding of climate, especially the near-surface continental climate, permitting discussion of societally relevant issues. Unfortunately, climate models cannot yet deliver this type of regionally and locationally specific prediction and some aspects of current research even seem to indicate increased uncertainty. These topics are explored in this paper using the specific example of the prediction of land-surface climate changes.     

Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes

Many studies have been published to evaluate the consequences of different post-2012 emission allocation regimes on regional mitigation costs. This paper goes one step further and evaluates not only mitigation costs, but also adaptation costs and climate change damages. Three post-2012 emission allocation regimes (Contraction & Convergence, Multistage and Common but differentiated convergence) and two climate targets (2°C and 3°C above the pre-industrial level) are considered. This explorative analysis shows that including these other cost categories could lead to different perspectives on the outcomes of allocation regimes. Up to 2050, the poorest regions have negative mitigation costs under all allocation regimes considered, as they benefit from emission trading. However, these regions also suffer from the most severe climate impacts. As such, the financial flows due to emission trading from developed to developing countries created under these allocation regimes could also be interpreted as compensation of climate change damages and adaptation costs. In the longer run, the sum of climate change damages, adaptation costs and mitigation costs are the highest in the poorest regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for both climate targets and practically all emission allocation regimes.     

Public perception, knowledge and policy support for mitigation and adaption to Climate Change in Costa Rica: Comparisons with North American and European studies

Over the past 20 years considerable efforts have been invested in exploring how the public understands climate change. However, the bulk of this research has been conducted in Europe and North America and little is known about public perceptions of climate change in developing countries. This article presents the results of the first nationally representative study (n?=?1473) of public perceptions of climate change in Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, a large proportion of interviewees (i.e. over 85%) are highly concerned about climate change in general and feel, as noted in European and North American studies, that its impacts are more worrisome for people farthest away (e.g. in the developed countries or among future generations). At the local level, people feel that food (10.5%) and water (16.1%) shortages as well as poverty (11.3%) and heat waves (11.7%) are the most expected impacts of climate change. Analysis of adaptation behaviour responses suggest that individuals have a relatively lower grasp of emergency and prevention disaster plans but are relatively more proactive in preventing hydro-meteorological extremes related to water scarcity or excess. A majority of respondents engage in mitigation behaviours largely for financial or contextual reasons. Finally, support for adaptation and mitigation policy responses is generally high (i.e. above 70% of interviewee supports them) except for the case of internalizing the cost of watershed protection increasing the water tariffs (52.5%). As discussions about mitigation and adaptation become increasingly common within developing countries, questions about public perceptions in that context are more pressing than ever. Work on climate perceptions needs to be carried out in specific countries to better understand which policies are most likely to resonate with public support, and which might be most difficult to implement.     

The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel

Past global efforts at dealing with the problem of global warming concentrated on mitigation, with the aim of reducing and possibly stabilizing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. With the slow progress in achieving this, adaptation was viewed as a viable option to reduce the vulnerability to the anticipated negative impacts of global warming. It is increasingly realized that mitigation and adaptation should not be pursued independent of each other but as complements. This has resulted in the recent calls for the integration of adaptation into mitigation strategies. However, integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate change concerns is not a completely new idea in the African Sahel. The region is characterized by severe and frequent droughts with records dating back into centuries. The local populations in this region, through their indigenous knowledge systems, have developed and implemented extensive mitigation and adaptation strategies that have enabled them reduce their vulnerability to past climate variability and change, which exceed those predicted by models of future climate change. However, this knowledge is rarely taken into consideration in the design and implementation of modern mitigation and adaptation strategies. This paper highlights some indigenous mitigation and adaptation strategies that have been practiced in the Sahel, and the benefits of integrating indigenous knowledge into formal climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Incorporating indigenous knowledge can add value to the development of sustainable climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies that are rich in local content, and planned in conjunction with local people.     

Adaptation Options Strategies for Hazards and Vulnerability Mitigation: An International Perspective

The broad objective of this special issue of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change is to address some of the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the policies, programs, and measures that might be applied to natural hazards and their impacts in an era of climate change. Given the global impacts of climate change and world-wide pattern of increasing losses from natural hazards we necessarily adopt an international perspective. The specific goals of the special issue are to: (a) encompass experiential aspects, emphasizing current practice of mitigation and its associated measures, and their results; and (b) explore primary or root causes of alarming shifts in human and economic costs of environmental extremes. Special emphasis is placed on how human activities are playing a key role in enhancing vulnerability to NTEE (nature-triggered environmental extremes), quite independently from the anthropogenic causes of climate change. The goals are also (c) to examine costs, risks, and benefits (of all kinds including social, political, ecological) of mitigation, and adjustment and adaptation measures; and (d) analyze policy implications of alternative measures. These components are expected to make significant contributions to policy considerations – formulation, implementation and evaluation. There is much uncertainty about the rate of climate change; however, the fact of increase of the atmospheric temperature in the last century is no longer a subject of scientific or policy debate. Due to such changes in the geophysical parameters, certain types of nature-triggered environmental extreme events are likely to continue to increase. How global warming will affect regional climates and pertinent variables is not well known, limiting our ability to predict consequential effects. This factor poses serious constraints against any straightforward policy decisions. Research findings of the work of this volume reaffirm that human dimensions, specifically our awareness and decision-making behavior, are powerful explanatory factors of increasing disaster losses. Disaster mitigation through addressing human, social, and physical vulnerability is one of the best means for contributing to ‘climate change adaptation plans’, and sustainable development goals. Recent lessons from various countries have depicted that the formulation of mitigation strategies cannot be exclusively top-down as it requires social, political, and cultural acceptance and sense of ownership. An interactive, participatory process, involving local communities, produces best expected outcomes concerning mitigation, preparedness, and recovery. An emerging consensus is that there is a need to move towards the ‘mission’ of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction which aims at building disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance of disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development, with the goal of reducing human, social, economic and environmental losses due to natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters. Sharing of best practices and lessons globally is certain to produce more efficiency and understanding in policy and decision making.     

On the value of temporary carbon: a comment on Kirschbaum

A recent paper by Miko Kirschbaum (Mitigat Adapt Strategies Glob Change 11(5–6):1151–1164, 2006) argues that temporary carbon (C) storage has “virtually no climate-change mitigation value.” However, temporary carbon has value in delaying global warming that needs to be recognized in carbon accounting methodologies. The conclusions reached are very sensitive to any value that is attached to time. Basing analysis exclusively on the maximum temperature reached within a 100-year time frame ignores other important impacts of global warming that also need to be included when mitigation strategies are assessed. The relative weightings for long-term versus short-term impacts represent policy choices that result in a greater or a lesser value being attributed to temporary carbon, but that value should not be zero. Global warming is too formidable an enemy to allow us the luxury of discarding part of our arsenal in fighting against it. Both reducing fossil-fuel combustion and increasing biosphere carbon stocks are needed.     

Climate change adaptation,mitigation and livelihood benefits in coffee production: where are the synergies?

There are worldwide approximately 4.3 million coffee (Coffea arabica) producing smallholders generating a large share of tropical developing countries’ gross domestic product, notably in Central America. Their livelihoods and coffee production are facing major challenges due to projected climate change, requiring adaptation decisions that may range from changes in management practices to changes in crops or migration. Since management practices such as shade use and reforestation influence both climate vulnerability and carbon stocks in coffee, there may be synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation that could make it advantageous to jointly pursue both objectives. In some cases, carbon accounting for mitigation actions might even be used to incentivize and subsidize adaptation actions. To assess potential synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation in smallholder coffee production systems, we quantified (i) the potential of changes in coffee production and processing practices as well as other livelihood activities to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, (ii) coffee farmers’ climate change vulnerability and need for adaptation, including the possibility of carbon markets subsidizing adaptation. We worked with smallholder organic coffee farmers in Northern Nicaragua, using workshops, interviews, farm visits and the Cool Farm Tool software to calculate greenhouse gas balances of coffee farms. From the 12 activities found to be relevant for adaptation, two showed strong and five showed modest synergies with mitigation. Afforestation of degraded areas with coffee agroforestry systems and boundary tree plantings resulted in the highest synergies between adaptation and mitigation. Financing possibilities for joint adaptation-mitigation activities could arise through carbon offsetting, carbon insetting, and carbon footprint reductions. Non-monetary benefits such as technical assistance and capacity building could be effective in promoting such synergies at low transaction costs.     

An analysis of the causes of the mitigation bias in international climate finance

Research on international climate finance got a new impetus from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Cancun Accords in 2010 which pledge to mobilize US dollars (USD) 100 billion in international climate financing annually by 2020. The Accords’ specification that adaptation must be addressed with the same priority as mitigation is not reflected in current patterns of international climate finance where we face a strong bias towards mitigation finance. A recent study by Buchner et al. (2011) ascertains a split between mitigation and adaptation finance of 95:5. In this paper, we investigate potential reasons for this bias. In our framework, we distinguish different decision layers and actors involved in international climate finance in order to categorize the causes responsible for the low priority of adaptation in international finance. The identification of obstacles for international adaptation funding is a first crucial step in the search for ways to overcome respective barriers. We find several different causes of the mitigation bias and these might offer starting points for policies aiming at raising adaptation finance and curing this bias. Furthermore, we describe interrelations between these causes which effective policies have to take into account.     

The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regional response from North Central Victoria,Australia

This two-part paper considers the complementarity between adaptation and mitigation in managing the risks associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect. Part one reviews the application of risk management methods to climate change assessments. Formal investigations of the enhanced greenhouse effect have produced three generations of risk assessment. The first led to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), First Assessment Report and subsequent drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The second investigated the impacts of unmitigated climate change in the Second and Third IPCC Assessment Reports. The third generation, currently underway, is investigating how risk management options can be prioritised and implemented. Mitigation and adaptation have two main areas of complementarity. Firstly, they each manage different components of future climate-related risk. Mitigation reduces the number and magnitude of potential climate hazards, reducing the most severe changes first. Adaptation increases the ability to cope with climate hazards by reducing system sensitivity or by reducing the consequent level of harm. Secondly, they manage risks at different extremes of the potential range of future climate change. Adaptation works best with changes of lesser magnitude at the lower end of the potential range. Where there is sufficient adaptive capacity, adaptation improves the ability of a system to cope with increasingly larger changes over time. By moving from uncontrolled emissions towards stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mitigation limits the upper part of the range. Different activities have various blends of adaptive and mitigative capacity. In some cases, high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity may lead to large residual climate risks; in other cases, a large adaptive capacity may mean that residual risks are small or non-existent. Mitigative and adaptive capacity do not share the same scale: adaptive capacity is expressed locally, whereas mitigative capacity is different for each activity and location but needs to be aggregated at the global scale to properly assess its potential benefits in reducing climate hazards. This can be seen as a demand for mitigation, which can be exercised at the local scale through exercising mitigative capacity. Part two of the paper deals with the situation where regional bodies aim to maximise the benefits of managing climate risks by integrating adaptation and mitigation measures at their various scales of operation. In north central Victoria, Australia, adaptation and mitigation are being jointly managed by a greenhouse consortium and a catchment management authority. Several related studies investigating large-scale revegetation are used to show how climate change impacts and sequestration measures affect soil, salt and carbon fluxes in the landscape. These studies show that trade-offs between these interactions will have to be carefully managed to maximise their relative benefits. The paper concludes that when managing climate change risks, there are many instances where adaptation and mitigation can be integrated at the operational level. However, significant gaps between our understanding of the benefits of adaptation and mitigation between local and global scales remain. Some of these may be addressed by matching demands for mitigation (for activities and locations where adaptive capacity will be exceeded) with the ability to supply that demand through localised mitigative capacity by means of globally integrated mechanisms.     

Mainstreaming climate policy: the role of media coverage in Finland

Integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures into other policies is considered to be a precondition for effective climate policies. This paper explores the role of mass media coverage as a potential obstacle or enhancing factor in relation to this mainstreaming of climate policies. The paper presents a quantitative content analysis of the national-level press coverage of climate change from 1990 to 2010, focusing on Finland. The empirical results indicate four major phases of Finnish media coverage of climate change: a definition phase before the Kyoto meeting in 1997, a maturation phase after the Kyoto meeting, climate hype in 2006–2008, and a phase of levelling off that started in late 2008. The results suggest that climate issues have widely permeated various fields of newspaper coverage. This broad-based debate may create and sustain a public agenda potentially favourable to attempts to bring climate policies into the mainstream of other policy domains. However, it also may open doors for unexpected initiatives by various activists and lobbyists that employ climate concern as a tool to advance other interests. The role of mass media has received little attention in studies focusing on the mainstreaming of climate policies. This paper highlights the importance of taking media coverage into account as a key factor in the formulation and implementation of environmental policies aimed at broad-based actions.