Synergies between climate change
mitigation and adaptation: A landscape
perspective
Lalisa A. Duguma
World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) &
ASB Partnership for Tropical Forest Margins
GLF Discussion Forum
16-17 November 2013
Warsaw Poland

Outline
 Adaptation and mitigation in the current climate change
dialogues and actions
 Limitations of the current approaches
 The synergy concept
 Mitigation and adaptation linkages at landscape level
 Case study
 Assessing the progress towards synergy: the enabling
conditions
 Some reflections on the way forward

Evolution of the approaches to address
climate change measures
Knowledge about Climate change
Synergy
MITI
ADA
ADA
ADA
MITI
MITI
MITI
Complementarity ADA
era
MITI
ADA
MITI
MITI
MITI
ADA
Mitigation era
ADA
MITI
Separate measures
ADA
MITI
Time and scope
MITI
ADA
MITI
ADA
MITI
Separate measures
MITI
Synergy
Complementarity
ADA
MITI
MITI
ADA
MITI
MITI
[SYS]
ADA
ADA
MITI
[SYS]
ADA
ADA
MITI
2013
Complementarity
Time
Time and scope
Synergy

Adaptation and mitigation so far seen as:
a) Separate policy streams
- Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA), REDD+
- National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)
b) Separate roles of different institutions
- Adaptation: e.g. Ministry of Environment
- Mitigation: e.g. Ministries in charge of Forestry, Energy, …
c) Separate financing schemes
- Adaptation: e.g. Adaptation fund, …..
- Mitigation: e.g. REDD+ funds, etc…
1. How effective and efficient are the approaches so far taken looking at
the dynamics of elements and processes in tropical and subtropical
landscapes?
2. Are such approaches the only option?

Limitations of the approaches used so far
1) Inadequate (Klein et al. 2007)
2) Concerns of inefficiency [↑ cost of climate policy]
(Kane and Yohe 2000)
1) Activity duplication e.g. in Tanzania there is an overlap of
60% between in activities in REDD+ strategies and NAPA
activities.
3) ↑ Competition for resources b/n M & A (Tol 2005)
4) Mask the apparent potentials of practices that provide
both M and A benefits

The Synergy Concept
Synergy is the interaction or cooperation of two or
more organizations, substances, or other agents to
produce a combined effect greater than the sum of
their separate effects”. [Oxford dictionary]
Three main goals of pursuing synergy
1. Increases effectiveness
2. Minimizes costs (enhances efficiency)
3. Reduces risks to ensure continuity and become
resilient to shocks

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

Why synergy is important in the land
use sector
At operational scales (e.g. landscapes), synergy 1. Increases linkages between climate change and sustainable
development objectives.
2. Helps to understand and value the interconnections between
practices and processes at landscape level
3. Helps to bring together actors and stakeholders active at
landscape level.
At a global level, synergy may
1. Enhance the engagement of developing countries in
mitigation efforts
2. Enhance the engagement of developed countries in
adaptation efforts in the south.
3. Enable making climate policy cost effective.

Mitigation and adaptation linkages at
landscape level
Reduced deforestation and
forest degradation [M]
Improved adaptive
capacity of the society
[A]
Improved
livelihood [A]
Less GHG
emission [M]
Improved agricultural
productivity [A]
Land resources
management
Enhanced ecosystem
services provision [A+M]
Biodiversity
conservation [A]
Soil and water
conservation [A +M]
Agroforestry
[M + A]
Sustainable forest
management [M + A]
Avoidance of soil
carbon stock loss [M]
Enhances carbon
sinks [M]
Afforestation and
reforestation [M]
In tropical landscapes, if we fail in ADAPTATION,
we may not achieve MITIGATION and the vice versa.

A case study from Shinyanga
landscapes, Tanzania

Understanding the context and the history of the
landscape (Step 1)
General Features
• 600-800 mm RF
• Semiarid
• Agropastoral communities
• „The desert of Tanzania‟
The measures taken
• Ecosystem restoration by
• Using local practices
complementing it with
• New practices e.g.
agroforestry
The drivers of change
• Woodland clearance due
to Tse Tse fly
• Expansion of cotton farms
• Climate change
• Villagization
The threats
• Drought
• Ecosystem degradation
• Wood, food and feed
scarcity
• Perishing social and

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

Realizing the values (Step 4): Social, environmental,
livelihood benefits …
Other ES benefits
Hydrological
functions: Dam
construction and
water management
(“Water markets”)
Soil management:
Erosion control
SOM build-up
Economic values (Monela et al. 2005)
Per capita economic value : 168 USD
/year
Rural per capita expenditure : 102 USD
/year
Carbon sequestration
1986 - 611 ha (27428 t
C)
2005 - 377756 ha
(16,957,467 t C)

Key enabling conditions
1. Supportive national policies and strategies including
political will and support to link landscape level
interventions with national level processes
2. Long-term commitment for technical and financial
support for the programmes (e.g. NORAD for the
HASHI programme in Shinyanga)
3. Blending of local knowledge and practices with
complementary technologies e.g. Ngitili and
agroforestry woodlots and fertilizer tree systems

Some key reflections
• Our preliminary assessment reveals that synergy
enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of climate
actions.
• Policy and financing mechanisms need a paradigm shift
to address synergy as an important component of
climate policy. Such interventions should be happening
at all scales.
• To assess how synergy performs there is a need to
develop the appropriate metrics that can help the
implementation schemes and guide policy and decision
making processes.
• More work needs to be done in exploring practices that
demonstrate synergy to provide a robust evidence for
policy makers.

Thank You!
Acknowledgement of
contributors:
- Peter A Minang
- Meine van Noordwijk