A systematic analysis of enabling conditions for synergy between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries

A

systematic

analysis

of

enabling

conditions

for

synergy

between

climate

change

mitigation

and

adaptation

measures

in

developing

countries

Lalisa

A.

Duguma

*

,

Susan

W.

Wambugu

,

Peter

A.

Minang

,

Meine

van

Noordwijk

a_{ASBPartnershipfortheTropicalForestMarginsandWorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF),UnitedNationsAvenue,} Gigiri00100,P.O.Box30677,Nairobi,Kenya

b_{ASBPartnershipfortheTropicalForestMarginsandWorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF),JalanCifor,Situgede,P.O.} Box161,Bogor16001,Indonesia

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Publishedonline12July2014 Keywords: Synergy Adaptation Mitigation Enablingconditions

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thereisagrowingquestforsynergybetweenmitigationandadaptationduetoconcernsof inefficiencyandineffectivenessofthecompartmentalizedapproachestoclimatechange. However,littlehasbeendonetoexplorethenecessaryenablingconditionsforsynergistic designandimplementation.Thispaper proposesananalyticalframeworktoassess en-ablingconditionsforsynergiesatthenationallevelandappliesittodevelopingcountriesto explore the potential move toward synergy. Four enabling conditions for integrating adaptationandmitigation,i.e.policiesandstrategies,programsandprojects,institutional arrangementsandfinancialmechanisms,wereusedtoscoredevelopingcountriesrelative toeachother.Wehypothesizedthatlowincomeandvulnerablecountriesmightmorelikely pursuesynergygiventheurgencyforbothadaptationandmitigation.Despitetherelative infancyofthesynergyconcept, abouthalfofcountriesstudiedexhibited goodsynergy potential,80%of whichwere middle-incomedeveloping countries.The assumptionof vulnerabilityasa precursorforpursuingsynergy wassupportedbythefactthatsmall islandstatespossessedrelativelyhighsynergypotential.Incomewasweaklyassociated with the synergy potential with least developed countrieshaving lowsynergy scores. Emergingeconomiespossessedstrongsynergypotentialwhichmightbeassociatedwith better capacity available and/orpotential forshaping their globalimages due to their growingemissions.Insum,theproposedanalyticalframeworkcouldbeusefultoidentify areasofemphasistopromoteholisticandefficientclimatepolicies.Asthisstudylargely focusedontheenablingconditions,furtherstudiesareneededtoscrutinizeandmanagethe mitigation-adaptationbalancesincountriespossessinggoodsynergypotentials.

#_{2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC} BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+254207224578;fax:+254207224001. E-mailaddress:[email protected](L.A.Duguma).

Available

online

at

www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.003

1462-9011/# 2014The Authors. Publishedby ElsevierLtd.This is anopen access articleunder theCC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

1.

Introduction

Climatechangeisariskforpeopleandtheplanet,andtwo lines of defense have been defined: mitigation (reducing emissionsofgreenhousegas(GHG)andenhancing sequestra-tion)and adaptation (reducingvulnerability and enhancing resilience).Thoughbotharenownecessarytoaddressclimate changeissues,theyremainseparateprioritiesinthewaythey are addressed. Mitigation so far dominated global climate changepolicydiscoursewithadaptationlargelyconsidereda responsibilityforindividualcountries(AyersandHuq,2009). Despite increasing adaptation challenges, developed coun-triescontinuetofocusonmitigationwhileadaptationisakey priority for more vulnerable developing countries. This patternmayhaveresultedfromthepastbeliefthatmitigation asafirstlineofdefensecouldbesufficienttoaddressclimate change (van Noordwijk et al., 2011). International climate policy has alsofocused on mitigation options suchas the Kyoto Protocol, LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry),NAMA(NationallyAppropriateMitigationActions) andREDD+(ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandforest Degradation)withadaptation policies, such asNAPAs (Na-tionalAdaptation ProgramsofActions) limitedtothe least developingcountries.Evenincountrieswherebothpolicies exist,theyremainnestedinseparatesectors(HuqandGrubb, 2007; Ayers and Huq, 2009). Financing mechanisms for adaptationandmitigationarealsosegregatedwitha domi-nantroleformitigation.Forexample,96%ofglobalclimate finance(350billionUSD)in2010/11wasallocatedtomitigation activities alone (Buchner et al., 2012). This dichotomy is inefficientandineffectiveintheland-usesectorduetoseveral overlappingpotentialsofmitigationandadaptationmeasures (Dang et al., 2003; Verchot et al., 2007), especially in the developingworld.

Many authors have suggested that a more integrated approachtomitigationandadaptation(hereafterreferredto asM+A)wouldbedesirable,asitcanbemoreeffectiveand efficient (Dang et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2007) and reduce tradeoffsbetweenthetwo(KaneandShogren,2000).Moser (2012)advocatedforsuchaholisticapproachstatingthatthe overlap of M+A ‘‘demands a long-term, life-cycle, and systems perspective’’. This has potentials for promoting sustainable development more effectively especially in developing countries (Dang et al., 2003; Swart and Raes, 2007). There are emerging thoughts that the synergy approach may form the basis of future climate policy (Tubielloet al., 2008). Klein et al. (2005), representing the small,butgrowingliteratureonsynergy,expressed ‘‘syner-gies in climate policy are created when measures that control atmospheric GHG concentrations also reduce ad-verseeffectsofclimatechange,orviceversa.Suchmeasures haveancillarybenefits,whichproducewin-winsituations’’. Emphasis is therefore placed on the system as a whole rather than on climate change measures as isolated interventions (Kane and Shogren, 2000; Warren, 2011). SynergybetweenM+A isthereforeanapproach inwhich bothmeasuresareaddressedwithoutprioritization,mainly undertaken within a systems-thinking context to address climatechangeissues.

Thispaper focuseson thenational levelwhere interna-tional mitigation discourse and policy meets the national adaptation realities of many developing countries. The national level allowsforthe integrationofstrategies given thatbothmeasuresrelyonasimilarsetofparameters.This allowsgovernmentstoconsidertheentiresystemandactto enhance synergy (Klein et al., 2007). Furthermore, the achievementofsynergyisespeciallybeneficialwithinspecific sectorssuchasland-useandforestry(SwartandRaes,2007). Byexaminingclimatepolicyatthisscale,wecouldunderstand whycountriespursuetheclimatestrategiestheydo.

Despitethepromisingpotentialofthesynergyconceptand the salient need for synergistic approaches foraddressing climate change issues, knowledge on howthe approachis being implemented ‘‘on-the-ground’’ and the necessary enablingconditionstomakeitpossiblearegenerallylacking. Anappropriateframeworktoanalyzesynergyanditsenabling conditionsat thenationallevel isthereforerequired.Inan effort to contribute to the identified knowledge gaps, this studyaimsto:

(1) Developacomparativeframeworkforanalyzingthestate ofenablingconditionsforsynergyatnationallevel; (2) Identifyanddescribetheinstitutional,policyandstrategic

optionsforenablingsynergyand;

(3) Explorefactorsassociatedwithpossibleexplanationsfor therelativeperformanceofcountriesandcountry-groups withrespecttosynergy.

2.

Methods

2.1. Data

This study relied on a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods using a review of National Communications (NCs) submitted to the UNFCCC (United NationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange)andan online survey questionnaire carried out to address its objectives.TheNCswereanalyzedinthefollowingtwoareas: (1)howM+Awereaddressed;(2)indicationsofamovetoward synergy as captured in existing policies, instruments, and mechanisms. The NCs were obtained from the UNFCCC website (www.unfccc.int) and were considered appropriate for review becausethey were:(1) the mostcomprehensive national-level documents addressingclimatechangeissues thataregloballycomparative;(2)officialdocumentsprepared by the highest responsible bodies for addressing climate change in the countries; and (3) standardized documents relied on bythe UNFCCCto assess climatechange actions across countries. Fifty-threeNCsmostly fromnon-Annex I countriesandavailableintheEnglishlanguagewereselected for review (See Supplementary materials for details). The extracteddatawasanalyzedusingbasicdescriptivestatistics withMicrosoft#

Excel2010.

Theonlinesurvey,conductedusingthe Surveymonkey# onlinesurveytool,focusedonsimilarissuesasthereviewof the NCs though here individual views of the respondents towardthesynergyapproachtoM+Awas givenemphasis

too.Theonlinesurveywaspostedon/distributedtoClimate-L, Forest-Landotherinstitutionalwebsitesandretrievedatotal of30responses.

To address the third objective which explores factors associatedwiththesynergyscoreofcountries,weselected twoindices(GDPpercapitaandHumanDevelopmentIndex (HDI)2012)thatarerelatedtothedevelopmentendeavorsof thecountryandeightindicesthatstronglyassociatewiththe vulnerability context of a nation.The eight variables used were: Long-term Climate RiskIndex (CRI) score 1992–2011, trendofCO2emissionperunitGDP,Environmental Sustain-ability Index (ESI) 2005, Environmental Performance Index (EPI)2012,ClimatechangeindexfromEPI,EcologicalFootprint ofconsumption2007,Total Biocapacity2007and Ecological Reserve/Deficit 2007 (Global Footprint Network, 2010). See TableA1(Supplementarymaterials)forthedetailed descrip-tion of the variables. The association between the above indicesandsynergyscorewasexaminedusingaone-tailed correlationtest.

2.2. Analyticalframework 2.2.1. Theenablingconditions

Giventhatthesynergyconceptconsidersaholisticapproach ratherthansegregatedmeasures,weexaminedcriteriathat might provide insights on how M+A measures could be addressed within a common frame. To achieve this, four major enabling conditions were identified for synergy to happen:(1)plannedand/orexistingnationallaws,policiesand strategies; (2) existing and planned financial means and measures;(3)institutionalarrangementsinthecountrywith specificreferencetoclimatechangeissues; and(4)planned and/orexistingplans,programsandinitiativesinthecountry. Thefirstthreemainlycompriseplanningprocessesthattake placeathigherlevels(e.g.nationallevel)whilethefourthone, i.e.programsandprojectsdealswithoperationalization.The briefreviewbelowformedthebasisforselectingthe above-mentionedconditions.

Kleinetal.(2007)statethateffectiveclimatepoliciesshould havediverseportfoliosofadaptationandmitigationmeasures iftherisksassociatedwithclimatechangearetobereduced. Parryetal.(2001)alsohighlighttheneedforablendofM+A practicestotackleclimatechangeproblemseffectively.Klein etal.(2007)emphasizethatsuchmovestoeffectiveclimate policesmayrequiretheavailabilityoftechnological, institu-tional and behavioral options and policy and economic

instruments. Appropriate climate policies are therefore necessaryfortherealizationofsynergies.

Recentfiguresonclimatefinance,comparedtothe96%for mitigationin2010/2011quotedabove,revealaslightincrease for adaptation, with approximately 77% of global climate financespentonmitigation(mitigationingeneral(69%)and REDD+(8%))in2013andadaptationgarnering15%ofthepool (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/themes).The institution-algapbetweenthetwomeasureshasalsomadeitdifficultto designfinanceoptionsthatconsiderthemsimultaneouslyeven thoughemphasishasbeenplacedonboostingthefinancingof adaptationactivitiesinpastinternationalnegotiations.Thereis growing proof (e.g. Tol, 2005; Kane and Yohe, 2000) that addressingM+Ameasureswithinanintegratedpolicy direc-tion reduces the likely resource competition among the measuresandincreasesthecosteffectivenessofclimatepolicy (Klein et al., 2005). Any move by countries toward such integratedfinancingmechanismsforclimatechangemeasures bolstersthemovetowardsynergy.

A major challenge highlighted by Klein et al. (2005) in integrating adaptation and mitigation is the institutional complexity that may emerge given the various actors involved. Theinstitutionaldivergencesbetween adaptation and mitigation measuresalso became obstacles inmoving towardintegratedclimatepoliciesatvariousscales(Tompkins andNeilAdger,2005).Countrieswithinstitutionsthataddress adaptationandmitigationhavethereforetakenapromising steptowardsynergy.Itisworthnotingthatincaseslikethe landusesectorwheretherearestrongresource complemen-taritiesamongadaptationandmitigationmeasures,handling thetwowithinthesameinstitutioncontributessignificantly totheresource-useefficiency(Matochaetal.,2012).Havingthe rightinstitutionsalsoformsthebasisforthe operationaliza-tion of programs and projects that capture both M+A measures.

Onewaytoassessprogresstowardtheimplementationof theintegratedapproachestoclimatechangeistoexaminethe presenceofprogramsandprojectsthataddressbothM+A measures. Their presence indicates that some planning, designing and operationalization processes wereemployed toimplementtheintegratedapproach.Throughthisprocess, considerable skillandexperiencecouldhavebeenacquired relativetocountriesyettoembarkonmovingtowardsynergy. Foreachenablingcondition,wespecifiedindicator(s)that couldguidetheassessmentofprogressmadetowardsynergy (Table1).Informationabouttheindicatorswasgatheredby

Table1–Enablingconditionswiththeirrespectiveindicatorsusedtodeterminecountries’synergypotentials.

Enablingconditions Indicatorsusedforeachoftheenablingconditionsforsynergies

Policiesandstrategies DoesthecountryhaveaclimatepolicythataddressesbothM+A?

Isthereacommonclimatestrategy/actionplanforbothM+A?

HasthecountrysubmittedNAMA(NationallyAppropriateMitigationActions)/REDD+

R-PP(ReadinessPreparationProposal)and/orNAPAtotheUNFCCC?

Institutionalarrangements Isthereanational-levelcommitteeaddressingbothM+A?

Isthereanimplementingbody(institution/agency/department/unit)addressing

M+Atogether?

Financing(funds) IsthereacommonclimatefundforbothM+A?

Programsandprojects IsthereajointprogramaddressingM+A?

reviewingtheNCsandbyanalyzingthesurveyresponses.A countrywhichfulfilledagivenindicatorwasgivenavalueof1 and otherwise 0 (Table 1). To simplify the analysis, we assigned an equal weight for each of the indicators given limitedunderstandingonhowtoeffectivelyweightthem.As muchaspossibleeffortsweremadetomaketheindicators mutuallyexclusive.

Thoughtheabovecontextisonlyforanalyticalpurposes, the reality ofhow the enablingconditions (andalso some indicators)featureandinterlinkacrossthevariousscalesis showninFig.1.Thisschematicframeworkconsidersthebasic conditionsnecessaryforacross-sectoralpolicytobe imple-mented through hierarchical procedures from national to subnationaltolocallevels.

2.2.2. Thecomputationofthesynergypotential

Thesumscoreacrossalleightindicatorswasusedtoassess thelevelsofpotentialsforsynergywithinaspecificcountry. Wetermedthissummedvaluethe‘synergyscore’andusedit tocomparetherelative positionofcountriesintheirmove towardsynergies betweenM+A. Toconsider a countryas havingpromisingsynergypotential,theminimumthreshold ofthescorewassetat4(halfwayfromthemaximumpossible value of 8). This however does not mean countries with synergyscorelessthan4areexcludedfromtheanalysis.To easecomparisonbetweenthefourenablingconditionsacross

countries, weaveragedoutthevaluesoftheindicatorsper enablingcondition.Hence,themaximumpossiblevaluefor each enabling condition afteradjusting for the number of indicators is 1 with the minimum being 0. For all the indicators,thehypothesisisthatcountrieswithaffirmative responseshadstrongersynergypotentialthanthose respond-ingotherwise.

3.

Results

3.1. Analysisoftheenablingconditionsforsynergies betweenM+A

On a scale of 0–1 (i.e. after adjusting for the number of indicators),theorderofvalueoftheenablingconditionswas institutional setups (0.66)>implementationsschemes (pro-grams and projects) (0.45)>financial mechanisms (0.36)>policies and strategies (0.26). Developing countries may beperforming welloninstitutional setups due tothe relativeeaseofsettingupcommitteesandteams/unitsinthe ministries.SeveralofthesewereconstitutedtowriteNational Communications,NAMAsandNAPAsmanyofwhichhadno further engagement past the document creation.The high value also implies that there are already handfuls of institutionsthatcouldhelptheimplementationofsynergies Fig.1–Ageneralizedschematicrepresentingkeyelementsfortheanalysisofenablingconditionsforsynergy.Financing mechanismsandinstitutionsandstakeholdersareconsideredtocutacrossallscales.

between M+A measures and hence there is no serious limitationindevelopingcountriesinthisregard.Asthisstudy putmoreemphasisonthepresenceorabsenceofinstitutions ratherthantheiractualcapacity,itisadvisabletoconsiderand analyzefurtherthecapacityoftheinstitutionsto accommo-datevarioussizesofprogramsorprojects.

3.2. Analyzingthesynergyscoresofcountries

About51%ofthecountries(27outof53)hadasynergyscore aboveorequalto4basedontheeightindicators(Fig.2)hence demonstrating thepromisingmove towardsynergydespite theconceptbeingrelativelynewinclimatechangedialogsand

actions.Thescore presented here isonly indicativeofthe potentialsforsynergyanddoesnotshowtheextenttowhich M+Aarebeingeffectivelyaddressedwithintheclimatepolicy of a given country. Therefore for countries to realize this potential,properimplementationandfollow-upsarerequired tosufficientlyaddressclimatechangeproblemsinintegrated manner.

Sometypical featurescharacterizethe27countrieswith high potential for synergies. For example, 85% of these countrieshadaconsiderablelengthoftheirnationalborders exposed to major waterbodies like oceans and seas. The prevalenceofdisastereventsandrisksalongcoastalareas,e.g. sea level rise and tropical cyclones, which are directly or indirectlyassociatedwithclimatechangemayhavecaused themtoadoptaholisticapproachtoclimatechange–boosting the adaptive capacity while managing their international emission reductions commitments. The other 15% of the countries (Namibia, Niger, Malawi and Kyrgyzstan) were amongthefrequentlydroughtand/orfloodaffectedcountries. Countrieswithgreatersynergypotentialalsohadarelatively higheraverageforestcover(36.2525.59%)comparedtothose withsynergyscorebelow4(22.0720.79%)inthetimeframe 2000–2007.

3.3. Differenceinprevalenceamongtheindicatorsfor synergyenablingconditions

Thefourwidelypresentindicatorsintheirdecreasingorder were: common national level committees, joint programs, commonimplementingbodiesandcommonclimatechange strategy/actionplans(Fig.3).Commonclimatefunds(40%), unifiedclimatepolicies(28%)andsubmissionofbothNAMA/ REDD+R-PPandNAPA(19%)weretherarestsynergypotential indicators(Fig. 3). Therarity ofcommon climatefundsfor integrated M+A may be due to limitations in financial resources given other competing development programs andprojectsthatareoftenprioritizedoverM+Ameasures. Thelimitednumberofclimatepoliciesmaybeattributedto the relatively slow pace in addressing climate change

particularly among developing nations. Thus, most of the approaches to address climate change are in their initial phases(e.g.needsassessmentsanddatacollection)andmost countriesareyettodeterminehowtoappropriately imple-ment climate change measures in a way that fits their developmentgoals.Abouthalfofthestudycountrieshada specificNAMAsubmissiontotheUNFCCCwhileonly17%of them had submitted a NAPA. Thelow submission ofboth documentsmaybebecausemostcountrieswereengagedin climatechangemitigation(perhapsaligningthemselveswith international conventions) thus only emphasizing REDD+ and/orNAMAs.

3.3.1. Commonclimatepolicies,strategiesandinstitutions addressingM+A

Almost75%ofcountriesdidnothaveaunifiedclimatepolicy atthetimeofthestudy.However,52%ofthestudycountries had a strategythat capturedbothM+Ameasures. Among thesecountries,69%ofthemhadastrategythatwasspecificto climatechangewhiletheresthadastrategythatcombined climate change with other sectoral goals. Around 85% of survey respondentsalso indicated that theircountries had some nationalclimate change policy or strategy.It isalso interestingtonotethat40%ofcountrieswithclimatechange strategiesborethephrase‘‘climatechange’’intheirtitle.

In 72% of the countries ministries were the dominant responsible bodies1 _{for climate change issues. Among the}

prominentoneswereministriesofagriculture,environment, natural resources, and rural development. Climate change wasstronglyassociatedwithministriesinchargeof environ-ment andnaturalresourcesinnearly85%ofthecountries. Therewere,however,countriesthatalreadyhadan indepen-dentoradjunctministryofclimatechange,e.g.Jamaicaand Tonga.Indonesia alsohasanindependentbodynamedthe Fig.3–Thepresence–absencedistributionofthesynergypotentialindicatorsinthestudycountries.Numbersonthebars forthe‘No’responseindicatenumberofcountries(outofthe53)thatdonotpossessthespecifiedindicator.

1_{Responsiblebodyreferstohigherlevel(e.g.national)institutions} thatengageinnegotiationswitheithernationalgovernmentsor internationalbodies.

Office of Climate Change under the supervision of the country’sPresident.

In 70% of the countries a national committee/team addressingbothM+Aexisted.Theimplementationof activi-tiestoaddressM+Awashoweveronlyevidentin59%ofthe countrieswhichhadaspecificimplementingbody2

(institu-tion,agency, councilordepartment).Among these,around 30%ofthemhadimplementingagencieswiththetitlebearing the phrase ‘climate change’and 25% of them had climate change issues implemented by institutions responsible for environmentalissues.

3.3.2. Programsandsubnationalprojectsjointlyaddressing M+Ameasures

Aroundtwo-thirdsofthecountrieshadatleastoneprogram addressingbothM+Ameasures.Fifteenofthe53countries (28%)hadatleasttwoprogramsthat capturedbothM+A. This suggested that there was considerable experience at program level in addressing M+A simultaneously. The sectoral classification of the programs shows that most ofthememphasized climate change(42%),forestry (33%), andcapacity building(21%) while asignificant number of the programs emphasize agriculture (including food security and land management) (21%) and low carbon growth(12%).

More than half of the countries (24 of 53) possessed subnationalprojectsaddressingM+Atogether.Thisshould, however,beregardedasaconservativefigureasonlyprojects highlightedintheNCswereconsideredand countriesmay havehadprojectsnotlistedintherevieweddocuments.Most oftheseprojects(75%)wereconfinedtoforestry,agriculture andclimatechange.Otherprojectsweremostlymulti-sectoral innature.

Theanalysisoftheopensurveydataalsosupportedthe presence ofasignificant number ofprogramsand projects with80%ofsurveyrespondentsmentioningtheirknowledge ofnationalinitiativesthataddressbothM+A.Accordingto thesurvey,suchinitiativesincludedREDD+projects,climate smart agriculture, geothermal generation projects, water sector strategies, national policies on climate change and nationalconservationplans.

3.3.3. FinancingschemesforaddressingbothM+Ameasures

MostimplementationsofM+Ameasureswerefinancedby bilateralandmultilateralfundsandgrants.Themost impor-tantinternationalsourcesoffundsweretheGlobal Environ-mentalFacility(GEF),theWorldBankandtheUnitedNation Development Program(UNDP). Fifteenofthe53 developing countrieshaddomesticfundingsourcesthataddressedboth M+Ameasures.TableA2(Supplementarymaterials)shows list ofin-country trust funds and other domestic financial measurestoaddressclimatechangerelatedissuesinsome selected countries. In two countries (Malaysia and Malta) privatesectorfinancinghadalsocommencedespeciallyinthe energy sector. Though most of these funds were directed toward mitigation measures, they also contributed to the

economic efficiency of households that aided to increase households’resiliencetoclimatechange-relatedimpacts.

3.4. Thesynergyscoreanditsassociationwithselected vulnerabilityandincomerelatednationalindices

Asthelong-termclimateriskindexscore(CRI)increased,the synergy score declined. The negative correlation between long-termCRIandthesynergyscoreimpliesthatcountries that are more affected by climatechange had a stronger synergyscore.Thismaybeareflectionoftheeffortsbeing madetoaddressclimatechangeM+Asimultaneouslyusing theavailableresources.Anotherfactorthatwassignificantly relatedtothesynergyscoreisthetrendofCO2emissionper unit GDP (Fig. 4d). On the other hand, the synergy score increasedasthe2012EnvironmentalPerformanceIndex(EPI) (Emersonetal.,2012)and2005EnvironmentalSustainability Index (ESI) increased (Fig. 4c). The observed significant positivecorrelationsbetweensynergyscoreandEPIandESI indicates howenvironmentalissuesplay akeyroleinthe effortstoaddressclimatechangemeasuresinasynergistic manner.

The correlationtest betweenthe synergyscore and the recent GDP per capita and HDI of countries showed non-significantnegativerelationshipsinthecontextofdeveloping countries.Thismightbeassociatedwiththepoor consider-ation of environmental issues by such indices during the computation.Theassociationbetweenthesynergyscoreand ecologicalfootprintrevealedthatwiththeincreasingdemand forresourcesthemovetowardsynergydecreasesthoughnot significantly.Therelationshipbetweenthesynergyscoreand biocapacity was a strongly significant positive correlation indicatingthatcountrieswithmoreavailableproductivearea show betterreadinessinaddressingadaptationand mitiga-tion in a holistic manner. We also observed significant correlationbetweentheecologicalreserve/deficit(difference between biocapacity and ecological footprint) and synergy potential(r=0.286,P<0.05).

4.

Discussion

4.1. Understandingthemotivationsforthepursuitof synergy

Morethanhalfofthecountrieshadasynergyscoreaboveor equalto4.Forallfourenablingconditions,countriesbelonging tothemiddleincomecategorysurpassedtherest(Fig.2)and noconsiderabledifferencewasobservedbetweenthelowand high income developing countries. The majority of the countries with strong synergy potentials belonged to the middle-incomegroup(Fig.5).CountrieslikeChina,Malaysia, Mexico,Brazil,SouthAfricaandIndonesiawhichareinthis categoryareexperiencing rapiddevelopmentandeconomic growthwhichisoftenassociatedwithincreasingemissions. ThisiscorroboratedbythetrendofCO2emissionsthathada strong positive correlation with the synergy potentials of countries(Fig.4d).Indeed,Raupachetal.(2007)foundthat73% of the global emissions growth in 2004 originated from developingandleastdevelopedeconomiesandobservedthe 2 _{Implementingbodyreferstothoseinstitutionsorofficeswhich}

emissiongrowth rate was highest among the fastgrowing economies.

Theprominenceofthefastgrowingcountriesamongthose withstrongsynergypotentialscouldthereforebemotivated bytheneedtomendtheirinternationalimage.Forexample,a recentstudybyvanNoordwijketal.(2013),showedthatone motivation behind the strong move toward REDD+ in Indonesiawasmendingtheirinternationalimageduetothe highrateofdeforestation(thushighCO2emissions)thatthe countrywas experiencing asoil palmand other industrial plantationexpandedattheexpenseofforestandpeatlands.

SuchmovesbytheBRICSexcludingRussia,i.e.Brazil,India, China,andSouthAfricaandothermiddleincomecountries couldalsobebecausetheydesiretobeseenas‘‘responsible globalcitizens’’,alsoarguedbyvanNoordwijketal.(2013)in thecaseofIndonesia.Anotherreasoncouldbeintentionsto gain and win the support and attention ofhigher climate change bodies like the UNFCCC and FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) to finance climate change related projects.TheemergingeconomiesalsohavenumerousCDM projectsparticularlyinChina,BrazilandMalaysia(Bayeretal., 2013). The linkagesbetween the CDM dominance and the Fig.4–(a–f)Theassociationofthesynergyscoreofcountrieswithselectednationalindices.Note:R2_{valuesfollowedby} asterisksaretheoneswhosecorrelationsaresignificantat5%probability.

strong synergy potentials may be due to the initially set objectives of the mechanism to embrace both emission reduction and complement sustainable development ( Tor-vangeretal.,2013)whichisthebackboneofadaptivecapacity inthedevelopingworld.

Mostoftheleastdevelopedcountrieshadasynergyscore belowthethreshold,i.e.<4.Thisresultwentagainstourinitial assumption that low-income countries would have made noteworthy strides in pursuing integrated approaches to climate change measures given their resource limitations andhighvulnerability.Thisfindingwassupportedbythe non-significantcorrelationresultsobservedbetweensynergyscore andHDI(UNDP,2013)andGDPpercapita.Consideringtheir national mitigation-related commitments and need for adaptation, onemight expect thesecountries to have had better synergy potential especially as they (developing countries)actively lobbyfor the inclusion ofadaptation at globalclimatedialogs.ThelowscoresmaybebecauseLDCs arelimitedintheiroptionsforlarge-scaleprogramsthathelp them implement climate change measures. For example, comparedtotheislandstates,climatechange-related invest-ments in the LDCs are limited to REDD+ or negligible in general.ItishopedthatcurrenteffortstomakeREDD+more livelihood-sensitive will help the move toward embracing adaptation thereby promoting their synergy potentials. Malawiand Ghanawerestrongexceptionswithin theLDCs as they exhibited strong synergy potential. Both countries havetakensignificantstepsinintegratingclimatechangeinto theirdevelopmentobjectives.Malawi,forexample,prioritized climatechangeinitsGrowthandDevelopmentStrategywhile Ghanahasstronginitiativesincorporatingtheenvironment, naturalresources,climatechangeandlivelihoodssuchasits Natural Resourcesand EnvironmentalGovernanceProgram financedbytheWorldBank.Bothcountriesalsohadstrong environmentalsustainabilityindices(Estyetal.,2005).These indicateastrongcommitmenttoensuresustainable develop-mentandpovertyreductionthroughgoodenvironmentaland naturalresourcesmanagement(Bassetal.,2011).

Smallislandstatesandcountriescomposedofmanyislands alsostandoutwithinthepromisingsynergypotentialclass.This groupmakesupone-thirdofthecountriesthatobtainedabove the minimum threshold synergy score of 4. Their high vulnerabilityasindicatedbytheirlowscoresonthelong-term ClimateRiskIndex(CRI(HarmelingandEckstein,2012))means they have high adaptation needs. This, coupled with their mitigationcommitments, maymotivate them toadopt more holistic approaches to climate change. Their policies and strategies, financial mechanisms and institutions may have thereforeshifted toharbormitigationwithintheiradaptation frameworks. These countries also had large-scale regional programs,e.g.ThePacificAdaptation toClimateChangeand theCaribbeanClimateChangeCenter,whichprovidedfinancial and technical support for the island states. Some of these countrieswerealsobeneficiariesoftheREDD+programsasfaras theyhadforeststhatqualify.Suchstronganddiverseprograms mighthaveboostedtheirstrongpotentialforsynergiesaswell.

4.2. Thestateofthesynergyenablingconditions

Majorlimitationswereobservedinpoliciesandstrategiesand financingmechanismsforsynergies.Financingmechanisms and polices and strategies arethe twoenablingconditions withthelowestvaluesinallthecountries(Fig.2).Twopossible reasonscouldbeofferedforthis:(1)thesynergyapproachby itself is anemerging issue even at the UNFCCC and other globallyresponsibleinstitutionsandhasnottranscendedinto nationalpoliciesandstrategies;(2)whichasaresulthasnot led toany definedfinancingmechanisms forthe activities promotingsynergies.Furthermore,consideringtheslowmove inaddressingclimatechangeissuesinmanycountries,itis expected that the policy formulation (and the finances accompanyingit)could beaslowprocess.Henceeffortsto implement and promote synergy should first emphasize building the capacity of developing countries to enhance their unified policy formulation process and the financial supportrequiredtoimplementthepolicy.

Often policyprecedes strategyas thefirst serves asthe blueprintforthelatter.Rumelt(2011)evenemphasizesthata goodpolicyislikeakerneltohaveagoodstrategyinplace.The factthatmorecountrieshadclimatechangestrategiesthan climatepoliciesmaybeduetothe‘sudden’realizationofthe effects ofclimatechange both at nationaland global level forcingcountriestohavesomeguidingdocumentsinplace prior to formulating a policy. The crosscutting nature of climatechangeissuesmayalsohaveforcedittobeembedded in othersectoral policies. Sector-basedministries werenot initiallyinstitutedtoaddressclimatechangeissuesbutnow have to, as the awareness about climate change related problemsisjuvenileparticularlyindevelopingcountries.The dominance of ministries responsible for environment and naturalresourcesinclimatechangeissuesmaybedueto:(1) theperceptionofclimatechangeproblemsasbeingcausedby environmentaldegradationand/ornaturalresources’ deple-tion. The problem might thus be best addressed through environmental management and proper natural resource conservation,managementandutilization;(2)theperception ofclimatechangeasanenvironmentalproblemingeneral;(3) theimpactofclimatechangeonfragilenaturalresourceson Fig.5–Analysisofenablingconditionsamongthefour

which the majority ofpopulations in developing countries depend on for their livelihoods (Kumssa and Jones, 2010). Someinstitutions,however,havehighpoliticalvisibility,e.g. are placed under the President’s supervision. Such strong positionsinthecountry’spoliticalandadministrative hierar-chy could facilitate the policy development processes if coupledwithappropriateresourceallocation(financingand infrastructure),skilledmanpowertoimplementthepolicies andproperinstitutionalarrangementsforoperationalization. Thepresenceofnationalcommittees/teamsaddressingboth M+Ameasuresmightrenderanopportunitytofacilitatethe decision-making and implementation processes of climate changemeasuresinaholisticmanner.

Programsandprojectsaddressingclimatechange holisti-cally wereprevalent. However,an in-depth analysisofthe programsisnecessarytoidentifyatwhatstageofsynergythey areat–earlystageofsynergy(co-benefitcontext),whichis characterized by complementarity or a fully developed synergistic approach. Though the uptake of adaptation in globalclimatedialogsisrelativelyrecent,theexistenceofsuch considerable number of programs addressing both M+A measuresindevelopingcountriesimplies thatit isalready wellplacedinongoingmeasurestoaddressclimatechange. Theidentifiedprojects to someextent implicate that even mitigationwasdonewithsomeadaptationbenefitsstrongly linkedtocommunitylivelihoods.

Althoughdomesticfinancingforclimatechangeremains low,theexistence ofdiversefundingsourcesindeveloping countries as illustrated challenges the general notion that climatechangeactivitiesoftenrelyonbilateraland multilat-eral supports throughinternational financingmechanisms. Suchevidencealsoclearlybacksthepresenceofastrongneed to address climate change issues by mobilizing domestic resources.Thefactthatmostoftheidentifieddomesticand trustfundswerealreadyinstitutionalizedwasalsoastrong advantage for the promotion and implementation of the synergizedapproachtoclimatechangemeasures.

5.

Summary

This study aimed at exploring enabling conditions for synergiesbetweenclimatechangeM+Asoastoshapethe future direction of climate policy in developing countries whichstronglyneedbothM+Ameasures.

Thefindingsindicatethatasignificantnumberof develop-ing countries(51%)exhibitpositive actions towardsynergy despitethelimitedfamiliarityoftheapproachtothewider climatechangecommunities(i.e.policymakers,scientistsand negotiators). Among developing countries, middle income countrieshadstrongsynergypotentialscomparedtolowand highincomecountries.Theyoutperformedallothergroupsof countriesparticularlywithregardstoenablingconditionslike institutionalsetups,financialmechanismsandprogramand projectsimplementationthataddressM+Asimultaneously. Nationalcommitteesandbodiesaddressingclimatechange, and jointprograms at thenational andsub-national levels wereprevalentindicatorswhileunifiedclimatepoliciesand submissionofbothNAMA/REDDR-PPandNAPAweretheleast prevalentindevelopingcountries.

With increasing climate-related risks, countries were foundtopushmoretowardasynergizedapproachtoclimate change.Thisisevidentfromtheobservationthatnearly one-thirdofthecountrieswithpromisingsynergypotentialsare islandstates(eithersmallislandstatesorcountriescomposed of manyislands, e.g. Indonesia) that areoften affected by climaterelatedhazards.Countrieswithbetterenvironmental governanceandenvironmentalsustainabilitymeasures pos-sess stronger synergy potential as compared to the rest. Generally,withincreasingtrendsofCO2emissionsperunitof GDP,thesynergypotentialsofcountriesdeclined.However, this has had two (rather opposite) explanations when considered from specific countries context: (1) increasing CO2emissionsmayimplyintensivegrowthandwith increas-ingglobalconcernsofGHGemissionscountriesmayprioritize theemissionreductions ratherthanmovingforwardtothe synergizedapproaches;(2)countrieslikeChina,Brazil,Mexico andIndonesiawhichhadincreasingCO2perGDPtrendsare alreadytakingmeasurestotackletheproblemusing integrat-edapproachesandhencehadstrongersynergypotentials.

Effortstostrengthenthepotentialsofdevelopingcountries toaddressclimatechangemeasuresinanintegratedmanner should emphasizethe reinforcementofappropriateunified policies and strategies, institutional arrangements, and ensure proper and sustainable financial mechanisms to promotethesynergyapproach.Unlesssuchenabling condi-tions are prioritized, the accompanying inefficiency in addressingclimatechangeissueswillremainachallenge.

Theframeworkpresentedinthispaper(thesynergyscore analysis) is a first attempt at identifying, analyzing and comparingenablingconditionsforsynergiesamongcountries andcouldbeapromisingtoolforpolicymakersandclimate negotiatorstoknowwherevariouscountriesstandrelativeto oneanother.Thetestsoftheassociationofthesynergyscore with other nation attributes confirm the credibility of the methodappliedwithmostoftheobservedpatternsfollowing thegeneralexpectations.Thefindingsfromthisstudycould help in formulating appropriate actions to address climate change measures from aholistic perspective. However,the findingsreflectedemphasizedtheenablingconditionsanddo notexplorehowbalancedM+Ameasuresareinpracticewithin thecountries.Therefore,theadaptation–mitigationbalancein integrative policies and strategies of countries with good enablingconditionsisanissuedemandingfurtherscrutiny.

Acknowledgements

WeacknowledgesupportbytheCGIARResearchProgramon Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP6_978). We are also gratefultotherespondentsoftheonlinesurveyquestionnaire and thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful and constructiveinputs.

Appendix

A.

Supplementary

data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2014.06.003.

r

e

f

e

r

e

n

c

e

s

Ayers,J.,Huq,S.,2009.Thevalueoflinkingmitigationand adaptation:acasestudyofBangladesh.Environ.Manag.43 (5) 753–764,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9223-2. Bass,S.,Banda,J.L.L.,Chiotha,S.,Kalowekamo,J.,Kalua,T.,

Kambalame-Kalima,D.,Hamella,B.,Mmangisa,M.,Mphepo, G.,Mughogho,N.,Mulebe,D.,Njaya,F.,Phiri,E.,Yassin,B., Yaron,G.,2011.MainstreamingtheenvironmentinMalawi’s development:experienceandnextsteps.In:Environmental GovernanceNo.4.InternationalInstituteforEnvironment andDevelopment,London,UK.

Bayer,P.,Urpelainen,J.,Wallace,J.,2013.Whousestheclean developmentmechanism?Anempiricalanalysisofprojects inChineseprovinces. GlobalEnviron.Change23,512–521, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.002.

Buchner,B.,Falconer,A.,Herve´-Mignucci,M.,Trabacchi,C., 2012.TheLandscapeofClimateFinance2012.ClimatePolicy Initiatives.

Dang,H.H.,Michaelowa,A.,Tuan,D.D.,2003.Synergyof mitigationandadaptationstrategiesinthecontextof sustainabledevelopment:thecaseofVietnam.Clim.Policy3 (Suppl.1) S81–S96,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.clipol.2003.10.006.

Emerson,J.W.,Hsu,A.,Levy,M.A.,deSherbinin,A.,Mara,V., Esty,D.C.,Jaiteh,M.,2012.2012EnvironmentalPerformance IndexandPilotTrendEnvironmentalPerformanceIndex. YaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy,NewHaven. Esty,D.C.,Levy,M.,Srebotnjak,T.,deSherbinin,A.,2005.2005 EnvironmentalSustainabilityIndex:BenchmarkingNational EnvironmentalStewardship.YaleCenterforEnvironmental Law&Policy,NewHadn.

GlobalFootprintNetwork,2010.TheNationalFootprint Accounts, 2010edition.GlobalFootprintNetwork,Oakland, CA,USA.www.footprintnetwork.org(accessedMay2014). Harmeling,S.,Eckstein,D.,2012.Whosufferthemostfrom

extremeweatherevents?Weather-relatedlosseventsin 2011and1992to2011.In:GlobalClimateRiskIndex2013. Germanwatche.V.,Bonn.

Huq,S.,Grubb,M.,2007.Preface.Mitig.Adapt.Strateg.Global Change12(5) 645–649, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9091-8.

http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/ 2979.php(accessedJanuary2013).

http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/themes(accessedMarch2013). Kane,S.,Shogren,J.F.,2000.Linkingadaptationandmitigation inclimatechangepolicy.Clim.Change45(1) 75–102,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1005688900676.

Kane,S.,Yohe,G.,2000.Societaladaptationtoclimate variabilityandchange:anintroduction.Clim.Change45(1) 1–4,http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1005688900676.

Klein,R.J.T.,Schipper,E.L.F.,Dessai,S.,2005.Integrating mitigationandadaptationintoclimateanddevelopment policy:threeresearchquestions.Environ.Sci.Policy8(6) 579–588,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.010. Klein,R.J.T.,Huq,S.,Denton,F.,Downing,T.E.,Richels,R.G.,

Robinson,J.B.,Toth,F.L.,2007.In:Parry,M.L.,Canziani, O.F., Palutikof,J.P., vanderLinden,P.J., Hanson,C.E. (Eds.), Inter-relationshipsBetweenMitigationand Adaptation.ClimateChange2007:Impacts,Adaptation andVulnerability.ContributionofWorkingGroupIItothe FourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanel onClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress,

Cambridge,UK, pp.745–777.

Kumssa,A.,Jones,J.F.,2010.Climatechangeandhuman securityinAfrica.Int.J.Sustain.Dev.WorldEcol.17(6) 453– 461,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2010.520453. Moser,S.,2012.Adaptation,mitigation,andtheir

disharmoniousdiscontents:anessay.Clim.Change111(2) 165–175,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0398-4. Matocha,J.,Schroth,G.,Hills,T.,Hole,D.,2012.Integratingclimate

changeadaptationandmitigationthroughagroforestryand ecosystemconservation. In:Nair,P.K.R.,Garrity,D.(Eds.), Agroforestry–TheFutureofGlobalLandUse,Springer, Netherlands,pp.105–126.

Parry,M.,Arnell,N.,McMichael,T.,Nicholls,R.,Martens,P., Kovats,S.,Livermore,M.,Rosenzweig,C.,Iglesias,A., Fischer,G.,2001.Millionsatrisk:definingcriticalclimate changethreatsandtargets.GlobalEnviron.Change11,181– 183,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00011-5. Raupach,M.R.,Marland,G.,Ciais,P.,LeQue´re´,C.,Canadell,J.G.,

Klepper,G.,Field,C.B.,2007.Globalandregionaldriversof acceleratingCO2emissions.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.104, 10288–10293,http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700609104. Rumelt,R.,2011.GoodStrategyBadStrategy:TheDifferenceand

WhyitMatters.CrownPublishingGroup,USA.

Swart,R.O.B.,Raes,F.,2007.Makingintegrationofmitigation andadaptationwork:mainstreamingintosustainable developmentpolicies? Clim.Policy7(4) 288–303,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685657.

Tol,R.S.J.,2005.Mitigationandadaptation:trade-offsin substanceandmethods.Environ.Sci.Policy8(6) 572–578, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.011.

Tompkins,E.L.,Adger,N.W.,2005.Definingresponsecapacityto enhanceclimatechangepolicy.Environ.Sci.Policy8,562– 571,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.012.

Torvanger,A.,Shrivastava,M.K.,Pandey,N.,Tørnbald,S.H., 2013.Atwo-trackCDM:improvedincentivesforsustainable developmentandoffsetproduction.Clim.Policy13(4) 471– 489,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.781446. Tubiello,F.,Schmidhuber,J.,Howden,M.,Neofotis,P.G.,Park,

S.,Fernandes,E.,Thapa,D.,2008.Climatechangeresponse strategiesforagriculture:challengesandopportunitiesfor the21stcentury.In:AgricultureandRuralDevelopment DiscussionPaper42.WorldBank.

UNDP,2013.TheRiseoftheSouth:HumanProgressinaDiverse World,HumanDevelopmentReport2013.UnitedNations DevelopmentProgram,NewYork.

vanNoordwijk,M.,Hoang,M.H.,Neufeldt,H.,O¨ born,I.,Yatich, T.(Eds.),2011. HowTreesandPeopleCanCo-adaptto ClimateChange:ReducingVulnerabilityThrough MultifunctionalAgroforestryLandscapes.World AgroforestryCentre(ICRAF),Nairobi,p.134pp. vanNoordwijk,M.,Agus,F.,Dewi,S.,Purnomo,H.,2013.

ReducingemissionsfromlanduseinIndonesia:motivation, policyinstrumentsandexpectedfundingstreams.Mitig. Adapt.Strateg.GlobalChange1–16,http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11027-013-9502-y.

Verchot,L.V.,VanNoordwijk,M.,Kandji,S.,Tomich,T.P.,Ong, C.K.,Albrecht,A.,Mackensen,J.,Bantilan,C.,Anupama, K.V.,Palm,C.A.,2007.Climatechange:linkingadaptation andmitigationthroughagroforestry.Mitig.Adapt.Strateg. GlobalChange12,901–918, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9105-6.

Warren,R.,2011.Theroleofinteractionsinaworld implementingadaptationandmitigationsolutionsto climatechange.Philos.Trans.:Math.Phys.Eng.Sci.369 (1934) 217–241,http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25759995.