Mitigative and adaptive capacity as essential elements of an integrated response

an integrated response

The IPCC uses the term 'capacity' as a key enabling concept in implementing the transactional relationship between climate change and sustainable development. In reviewing the

institutional and developmental context of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies, AR3 concluded that the capacity for implementing specific mitigation and adaptation policies depends on manmade and natural capital and institutions (IPCC 2007b). For effective integration across the areas of cost-effectiveness, equity and sustainability, the IPCC uses the term 'mitigative capacity', developed by Yohe (2001), as a way to assess the range of issues

that have emerged since AR2 (Banuri et al. 2001). Mitigative capacity and the congruent term 'adaptive capacity' are central to an integrated climate policy response. Adaptive capacity is defined as the:

... ability o f a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage o f opportunities, or to cope with the consequences (IPCC 2007a).

and mitigative capacity as:

... a country's ability to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions or to enhance natural sinks, where the ability refers to the skills, competencies, fitness and proficiencies that a country has attained, and depends on technology, institutions, wealth, equity, infrastructure and information (IPCC 2007b).

The two concepts are relevant to CPI and the link between climate policy and sustainable development. Mitigative capacity is rooted in a country's sustainable development path (IPCC 2007b). The term 'mitigative capacity' follows the idea of 'adaptive capacity' developed in an IPCC workshop on adaptation in Costa Rica in 1998 (Yohe 2001). The concepts are similar as response measures, one to the causes of climate change and the other to its effects. A clear need for a response capacity is required, and can be defined as the ability to manage the causes and consequences of environmental change (Tompkins & Adger 2005).

Table 6 Determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacity10

A d a p t iv e c a p a c ity M i t i g a t i v e c a p a c ity

1 The range of available technological The range of viable technological options for

options fo r adaptation reducing emissions

2 The availability of resources and their The range of viable policy instruments with distribution across the population which it might effect the adoption of these

options

3 The structure of critical institutions and The structure of critical institutions and the the derivative allocation of decision- derivative allocation of decision-making

making authority authority

4 The stock of human capital, including The availability and distribution of resources education and personal security required to underwrite their adoption and

the associated broadly defined opportunity cost of devoting those resources to

mitigation

5 The stock of social capital, including the The stock of human capital, including definition of property rights education and personal security

6 The systems access to risk spreading The stock of social capital, including the

processes definition of property rights

7 The ability of decision-makers to manage The country's access to risk-spreading information, the process by which these process

decision-makers determine that their information is credible, and the credibility of decision-makers themselves

8 Public perception of attribution The ability of decision-makers to manage information, the processes by which these decision-makers determine which

information is credible, and the credibility of decision-makers themselves

10 Yohe & Moss 2000; Yohe 2001.

If capacity is the focus, does this imply that nations with the requisite capacities - both adaptive and mitigative - will necessarily undertake an integrated climate policy approach? The key issue when looking at the definition and determinants of response capacity is what degree and combination of these two capacities are needed for a country to pursue CPI and to integrate a climate change and sustainable development approach? Even if a nation meets the definitions and has all the determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacities, will it pursue a sustainable development path, or does it have the requisite capacity to pursue sustainable development? If a nation has both adaptive and mitigative capacities will it deal with climate change effectively?

Advanced nations with modern economies are less reliant on weather, and with a climate- resilient infrastructure and greater resources they are better able to cope with climate change and posses high mitigative and adaptive capacities. But such capacities have not resulted in the more climate-friendly behaviour in developed countries that climate science is suggesting is urgently needed. Australia and the United States of America (USA) are interesting examples of countries with high mitigative and adaptive capacity, particularly covering a range of

determinants mentioned in Table 6. However, both remain on an unsustainable development pathway, relying heavily on fossil fuel resources, overexploitation of renewable resources - such as forests, fish and topsoil - and unsustainable consumption patterns (Diamond 2006). In sharp contrast, developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island states are particularly vulnerable to climate change and contribute little to global GHG emissions, and the capacity of these states will be stretched most severely by global environmental change (Biermann & Dingwerth 2004; Barnett & Campbell 2010).

Can we define sustainable development capacity inclusive of social, economic and environmental aspects? Would this be that a nation with good adaptive, mitigative and development capacities pursue an integrated climate change and sustainable development approach? At a more aggregate level, advanced developed countries have sufficient capacity in all the three pillars of sustainable development, but still need to push for a more sustainable development pathway and an integrated approach. It is clear that having the capacity to do something is a necessary precondition, but it does not guarantee action. Capacity alone -be it adaptive, mitigative or sustainable development - is insufficient for CPI (Dovers & Hezri 2010). Capacity only describes the potential to achieve outcomes, not the outcome themselves. Adaptive and mitigative capacities are not just independent principles but also in some ways complementary principles due to the integrated nature of climate challenge. This calls for reviewing adaptive and mitigative capacity not just in isolation but also in holistic manner. What sort of capacity should a country build - mitigation specific, adaptation centred, or both?

Yohe et al. (2007), in their assessment of complementary roles of mitigation and enhanced adaptive capacity, emphasise that climate risk cannot be addressed by mitigation alone. The implications for an individual country's competing policy choices are significant. Do individual countries have the right information basis for making such a judgment? Anecdotal evidence suggests not. Sen (1999: 57) articulated the importance of the 'informational basis' for practical policies:

The informational basis o f normative theories in general, and of theories of justice in particular, is of decisive significance, and can be the crucial point of focus in many debates on practice policies.

In terms of an operational approach, the information basis of such a judgement in a normative 'development first' or 'climate first' context becomes essential. How does a finance minister, particularly in a poor country, decide how much of the required mitigation and adaptation capacity they should fund against other pressing priorities? The decision becomes important because the aggregate number of developing countries' future emissions will be high - it is not a matter for high-emitting and high-income developing countries alone; it is about the global future involving all countries. Work on mitigative and adaptive capacities, and on sustainable development capacity, that pays close attention to the required policy and administrative structures and processes for national implementation is limited, especially in terms of exploring integrated policy implementation of the general ideas.

The idea of 'capacity' is useful to focus attention; however, the (albeit limited) literature to date (Table 6) misses a crucial set of variables. Capacity in the sense of mitigation, adaptation or sustainable development requires the policy and administrative wherewithal for

implementation - useable laws, organisational forms and cross-agency corrections, policy mandates, information-generating units and bureaucratic competence and resources. This gap in the notion of capacity further emphasises the need for attention to national-scale public policy and administrative systems.