Synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in the land use sector

1. Synergies between climate change
mitigation and adaptation measures in
the land use sector
Lalisa A. Duguma
With contributions from ASB Team
ICRAF Seminar Presentation
March 26, 2012

2. About the project
Project MITIADAPT: synergies
and tradeoffs
The conceptual Criteria and
Core activities Tradeoff
basis for indicators for
analysis
synergy synergy
General Review +
Review Fieldwork
methods fieldwork

3. Introduction
For a long time adaptation and mitigation measures were
treated as separate policy streams:
– Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA), REDD+
– National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)
Despite the separate streams, evidences of practices that
capture both measures at the same time is growing.
At national and subnational level, wherein implementation of
climate change measures is done, this dichotomy promotes
inefficiencies and activity duplications.

4. Synergy
• In synergy, two or more agents or components, or business
units or interventions are combined to achieve a defined goal:
– increasing effectiveness,
– minimizing costs and or
– ensuring continuity of production and or service provision
by minimizing risks (Lazic and Heinzl 2011)
• Synergy exists in almost all forms of science, institutions etc
(Conning 1998).

5. Synergy models
a. Additive synergy: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) = V(x1, x2,… xn)
The sum of the outputs of the individual practices is the same as
the outputs when they are implemented together.
b. Non‐additive synergy: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) ≠ V(x1, x2,… xn)
1) Superadditive model: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) < V(x1, x2,… xn)
2) Subadditive model: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) > V(x1, x2,… xn).
3) Isolated synergy model: The interaction is the focus. E.g.
6CO2 + 6H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6O2

6. For synergy to happen….
Resource relatedness: common resources and activities shared.
For example, mitigation and adaptation share the following:
 Land,
 Land resources management activities,
 Skills and know‐hows of NRM,
 Similar goal – reducing the impacts of climate change
Resource complementarity: the increase in one resource
increases the return to the other resource (Harrison et al
2001).

7. Mitigation and adaptation linkages at
landscape level: practices and processes
Improved carbon
sink management
[M]
Minimized
deforestation and
Improved adaptive
forest degradation
capacity of the
[M]
society [A]
Improved Diminished release
livelihood [A] of GHGs to the
Improved atmosphere [M]
agricultural
productivity [A] Sustainable
Land resources forest
management management [M]
Enhanced ecosystem Offsetting of
services and goods Soil and water
conservation [A] soil carbon stock
availability [A] loss [M]
Agroforestry
Biodiversity
conservation [A] [M][A] Enhances carbon
sinks [M]
Afforestation and
reforestation [M]

8. Current conceptualization of synergy in CC
Klein et al (2007) [IPCC] highlights four main directions of
integration of adaptation and mitigation:
1. Mitigation actions with adaptation benefits
Cobenefit
2. Adaptation actions with mitigation benefits
3. Processes that promote both measures
4. Policies and strategies that promote the integration
Missing element: the land use practices based approach
(identifying practices and the associated actions, processes,
decisions that promote synergy) (Minang et al in review).

9. Complementarity versus synergy
Time and scope
The reign of mitigation The move to landscape
approaches to CC
Compliance issues – just
to say social issues are
being addressed?

10. Why complementarity is not enough
1. Inadequate ‐ The current approach is not sufficient (Klein et al
2007) and we need a blend (Parry et al 2001).
2. Inefficient – the dichotomy increases the costs of climate change
[Kane and Yohe 2000]
3. Competition for resources between mitigation and adaptation (Tol
2005)
4. The cobenefit issue masks the apparent potentials of the practices
‐ e.g. for agroforestry

11. Why synergy is important in the land use sector
• Enhances the cost‐effectiveness of CC measures (Klein et al
2005)
• Helps to understand the interconnections between practices
and processes at landscape level
• Helps to bring together actors and stakeholders active at
landscape level.
Synergies could form the core of climate policy at multiple scales
in the future (Tubiello et al 2008).

12. Some emerging examples of CC synergy
Country Name of project Implementation approach Source
Bangladesh Waste‐to‐compost Improve the environment by promoting Ayers and
project waste recycling. Huq (2009)
Kenya Kenya Agriculture Carbon sequestration through http://web.w
Carbon Project sustainable agricultural land orldbank.org
management practices
Tanzania The HASHI project Ecosystem restoration using enclosures Monela et al
(Ngitili) and agroforestry practices (2005)
Ethiopia Humbo Assisted Rehabilitation of degraded forest lands http://cdm.u
Natural Regeneration for ecosystem services provision and nfccc.int/
Project community livelihood improvement
Peru CEPICAFE Project Addressing the multiple problems in the GTZ (2010)
under the AdapCC landscape through reforestation and
project carbon sequestration, and capacity
building and implementation of
integrated coffee management
practices.

13. The application in a snapshot:
The Shinyanga case, Tanzania

14. The practices in Shinyanga landscapes and their
interrelationships
Less dependence on Practice 2 (Cotton
farming) and Practice 3 (maize and
Practice 6: Fodder Practice 7: Livestock sorghum farming) [A-M]
banks [M+A] rearing [A-M]
Household consumables Better vegetation cover in the
Abundant livestock feed
and livestock products area due to reduced forest
and thus enhanced
increased [A] clearance [M+A]
productivity
Income from grazing contracts
Practice 1: and carbon money from pilot Improved ecosystem
Ngitili [M+A] REDD+ projects services provision
[A+M]
Edible wild fruits, edible
insects, herbal traditional
medicines Better habitat for
wildlife [A]
Improved honey Enhanced water availability
production Enhanced carbon both for household use and
storage [M] livestock [A]
Sufficient wood for
energy and construction
Practice 4: Reduced land degradation
Agroforestry [A+M] through control of wind and
water erosion [A+M]

15. Ecosystem goods from Ngitili practices
Tanzanian Shilling
Summarized from figures in Monela et al (2005)

16. Ngitili system and the super additive synergy
model
Economic values
Average economic value of Ngitili per person per month – 14 USD
Average expenditure of rural Tanzanian per month – 8.5 USD
Carbon sequestration
1986 ‐ 611 ha (27428 t C)
2005 ‐ 377756 ha (16,957,467 t C)
Biodiversity conservation
Bird species reemerged after Ngitili ‐22‐65
Mammal species reemerged after Ngitili ‐ 10
Plant species recorded in restored Ngitili ‐152
Monela et al (2005)

17. Habitat Wood
Shade
Improved soil
conditions
Livestock feed How life is changing for
A land restored using Ngitili
agropastoralists
Degraded grazing land

18. Moving towards synergy: what
does it take?

19. 1. Processes necessary for the move
System analysis:
identifying what the
system components are,
how they function and
interact and how good the
selected measures fit into
the system’s context.

20. 2. Potential approaches that promote synergy
1. Landscape approaches – a holistic look at practices, processes,
actors in different land uses within the landscape.
2. The practice‐based approach – identifying practices that address
adaptation and mitigation together. E.g. Agroforestry, tree‐based
soil conservation, ecosystem based adaptation, climate smart
agriculture, etc.
3. Cross‐sectoral and interdisciplinary planning approaches ‐ an
integrated approach to CC measures at planning level

21. 3. The challenges
 Our ‘carbonized’ view of climate change issues
 The compartmented look at CC measures ‐ adaptation, mitigation.
 The strong emphasis of the UNFCCC on stabilization of GHG –
adaptation as an accessory activity.
 Lack of metrics – criteria and indicators for synergy
 The scientific uncertainty about the optimal mix of practices
 The poor emphasis on the systems thinking or holistic approaches
to abating CC

22. Some reflections
To realize the benefits of synergy….
1. It should happen at all scales
i. International (e.g. UNFCCC),
ii. National (e.g. climate policies and strategies, land use
policies, etc),
iii. Subnational (e.g. landscape level operational plans and
strategies) and
iv. Project level
2. The necessary processes should be sufficiently addressed
3. The various challenges impeding its application at various scales
should be properly dealt with.

23. Acknowledgement
• ASB, SD5, SD6
• The agropastoralists
• ICRAF Tanzania –
Shinyanga field visit
• TaTEDO Tanzania
• NAFRAC Tanzania
• ICRAF HQ