Limits...
Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to synergy.

Duguma LA, Minang PA, van Noordwijk M - Environ Manage (2014)

Bottom Line: There is a growing argument that synergistic approaches to adaptation and mitigation could bring substantial benefits at multiple scales in the land use sector.An in-depth look into the current practices suggests that more emphasis is laid on complementarity-i.e., mitigation projects providing adaptation co-benefits and vice versa rather than on synergy.We argue that the current practice of seeking co-benefits (complementarity) is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins and World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, 30677, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya, l.a.duguma@cgiar.org.

ABSTRACT
Currently, mitigation and adaptation measures are handled separately, due to differences in priorities for the measures and segregated planning and implementation policies at international and national levels. There is a growing argument that synergistic approaches to adaptation and mitigation could bring substantial benefits at multiple scales in the land use sector. Nonetheless, efforts to implement synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures are rare due to the weak conceptual framing of the approach and constraining policy issues. In this paper, we explore the attributes of synergy and the necessary enabling conditions and discuss, as an example, experience with the Ngitili system in Tanzania that serves both adaptation and mitigation functions. An in-depth look into the current practices suggests that more emphasis is laid on complementarity-i.e., mitigation projects providing adaptation co-benefits and vice versa rather than on synergy. Unlike complementarity, synergy should emphasize functionally sustainable landscape systems in which adaptation and mitigation are optimized as part of multiple functions. We argue that the current practice of seeking co-benefits (complementarity) is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy. Moving forward from complementarity will require a paradigm shift from current compartmentalization between mitigation and adaptation to systems thinking at landscape scale. However, enabling policy, institutional, and investment conditions need to be developed at global, national, and local levels to achieve synergistic goals.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Practices and their interconnections in the Ngitili system in the Shinyanga region. Note: A- Adaptation; M- Mitigation; A + M denotes the practice contributes positively to both adaptation and mitigation; A − M denotes the practice positively contributes to adaptation but affects mitigation
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4129237&req=5

Fig6: Practices and their interconnections in the Ngitili system in the Shinyanga region. Note: A- Adaptation; M- Mitigation; A + M denotes the practice contributes positively to both adaptation and mitigation; A − M denotes the practice positively contributes to adaptation but affects mitigation

Mentions: The reintroduction of Ngitili played a major role in addressing climate change issues though the implementation was neither as adaptation nor as mitigation but rather as a multifunctional approach encompassing a pool of practices. Figure 6 shows the key practices in the landscapes where Ngitili restoration was taking place and how they interact and influence each other. Ngitili’s potential to provide simultaneous multiple functions makes it a good illustration for the superadditive synergy model. These functions could be expressed in one or more ecosystem services, hence supporting our earlier argument that ecosystem services could serve as a vehicle to promote synergies between mitigation and adaptation measures.Fig. 6


Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to synergy.

Duguma LA, Minang PA, van Noordwijk M - Environ Manage (2014)

Practices and their interconnections in the Ngitili system in the Shinyanga region. Note: A- Adaptation; M- Mitigation; A + M denotes the practice contributes positively to both adaptation and mitigation; A − M denotes the practice positively contributes to adaptation but affects mitigation
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4129237&req=5

Fig6: Practices and their interconnections in the Ngitili system in the Shinyanga region. Note: A- Adaptation; M- Mitigation; A + M denotes the practice contributes positively to both adaptation and mitigation; A − M denotes the practice positively contributes to adaptation but affects mitigation
Mentions: The reintroduction of Ngitili played a major role in addressing climate change issues though the implementation was neither as adaptation nor as mitigation but rather as a multifunctional approach encompassing a pool of practices. Figure 6 shows the key practices in the landscapes where Ngitili restoration was taking place and how they interact and influence each other. Ngitili’s potential to provide simultaneous multiple functions makes it a good illustration for the superadditive synergy model. These functions could be expressed in one or more ecosystem services, hence supporting our earlier argument that ecosystem services could serve as a vehicle to promote synergies between mitigation and adaptation measures.Fig. 6

Bottom Line: There is a growing argument that synergistic approaches to adaptation and mitigation could bring substantial benefits at multiple scales in the land use sector.An in-depth look into the current practices suggests that more emphasis is laid on complementarity-i.e., mitigation projects providing adaptation co-benefits and vice versa rather than on synergy.We argue that the current practice of seeking co-benefits (complementarity) is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins and World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, 30677, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya, l.a.duguma@cgiar.org.

ABSTRACT
Currently, mitigation and adaptation measures are handled separately, due to differences in priorities for the measures and segregated planning and implementation policies at international and national levels. There is a growing argument that synergistic approaches to adaptation and mitigation could bring substantial benefits at multiple scales in the land use sector. Nonetheless, efforts to implement synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures are rare due to the weak conceptual framing of the approach and constraining policy issues. In this paper, we explore the attributes of synergy and the necessary enabling conditions and discuss, as an example, experience with the Ngitili system in Tanzania that serves both adaptation and mitigation functions. An in-depth look into the current practices suggests that more emphasis is laid on complementarity-i.e., mitigation projects providing adaptation co-benefits and vice versa rather than on synergy. Unlike complementarity, synergy should emphasize functionally sustainable landscape systems in which adaptation and mitigation are optimized as part of multiple functions. We argue that the current practice of seeking co-benefits (complementarity) is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing synergy. Moving forward from complementarity will require a paradigm shift from current compartmentalization between mitigation and adaptation to systems thinking at landscape scale. However, enabling policy, institutional, and investment conditions need to be developed at global, national, and local levels to achieve synergistic goals.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus