Adaptation as ‘Climate-Smart’ Development

Someshwar, Shiv

doi:10.1057/dev.2008.31

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, achieving this may require changing institutional arrangements, which are often better equipped to respond to impacts after they occur than they are to anticipate and manage risks (Someshwar, 2008). Approaches such as integrated water resources management, which explicitly acknowledge the interconnectedness of problems across multiple sectors and scales, are generally well-suited to accommodate this.…”

Section: Institutional Aspects Of Managing Climate Risks and Opportunmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Climate Risk in Water Supply Systems

Brown¹

2013

wio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Institutional Aspects Of Managing Climate Risks and Opportunmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Climate Risk in Water Supply Systems

Brown¹

2013

wio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…11,12 In this third conceptualization, REDD+ is envisioned to serve as a catalyst for more integrated 'climate smart development' pathways in forested landscapes of tropical countries, particularly at the sub-national or jurisdictional level. [13][14][15] This, however, will require REDD+ to go even further beyond the relatively simple focus on reducing carbon emissions from deforestation that it started with, and encompass a wide variety of cobenefits in a wide variety of land uses. 16 Over the years, the shifting conceptions of REDD+ have garnered not just support, but also criticism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice

Turnhout

Gupta

Weatherley-Singh

et al. 2016

WIREs Climate Change

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From its advent in 2005 within global climate change negotiations, reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and other forest-related activities (so-called REDD+) has been experimented with in developing country contexts for over a decade now, with a wide array of expectations coming to be associated with it. Three consecutive conceptualizations are identifiable: carbon-centered, where REDD+ is primarily a climate mitigation strategy; co-benefits-centered, where REDD+ becomes a triple win solution for climate, biodiversity and communities; and landscape-centered, where REDD+ activities are embedded in integrated sustainable land-use approaches. In assessing such evolving expectations against existing REDD+ experiences, a mixed picture emerges. Some expectations, specifically relating to forest carbon financing, are not being adequately met, while others, notably the delivery of co-benefits, hold out more promise. Yet this also highlights a potential paradox facing REDD+. While there is growing recognition that co-benefit generation is key, and that piece-meal, forest-carbon focused REDD+ interventions are unlikely to address the complex causes of tropical forest loss, forest carbon is still being foregrounded in measuring and reporting on REDD+ performance, and in generating results-based payments (even as these aspects remain challenging). This implies, however, that the future of REDD+ may lie not in one conceptualization coming to dominate, but rather in coexistence of heterogeneous practices. REDD+ may end up as a patchwork of projects and practices with different foci and financing mechanisms. Although this cannot prevent trade-offs, such a heterodox REDD+ may provide building blocks for the polycentric governance of the world's remaining tropical forests. © 2016 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e425. doi This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. INTRODUCTIONI n the collective global challenge posed by climate change, the idea of reducing or avoiding carbon emissions through forest conservation and sustainable use has attracted considerable attention. The global mechanism REDD+ has been, arguably, the most prominent site of multilateral political negotiations and activities on the ground with regard to mitigating forest-related carbon emissions. REDD+ stands for 'reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.' 1 It has been negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2005, as a mechanism to compensate developing countries for their efforts to reduce forest-related emi...

show abstract

“…Several emerging approaches to development (e.g., climate-smart development or climate-compatible development) consider adaptation and mitigation jointly (Someshwar 2008) and can be applied to agricultural landscapes (Harvey et al 2014) or forestry (Locatelli et al 2015). Previous studies have assessed how specific AFOLU activities can contribute to mitigation and adaptation, for example, agroforestry (Schoeneberger et al 2012), and how policies and financial mechanisms can incentivize AFOLU projects that address adaptation and mitigation simultaneously (Duguma et al 2014b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects

Kongsager¹,

Locatelli

Chazarin

2015

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptation and mitigation share the ultimate purpose of reducing climate change impacts. However, they tend to be considered separately in projects and policies because of their different objectives and scales. Agriculture and forestry are related to both adaptation and mitigation: they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and removals, are vulnerable to climate variations, and form part of adaptive strategies for rural livelihoods. We assessed how climate change project design documents (PDDs) considered a joint contribution to adaptation and mitigation in forestry and agriculture in the tropics, by analyzing 201 PDDs from adaptation funds, mitigation instruments, and project standards [e.g., climate community and biodiversity (CCB)]. We analyzed whether PDDs established for one goal reported an explicit contribution to the other (i.e., whether mitigation PDDs contributed to adaptation and vice versa). We also examined whether the proposed activities or expected outcomes allowed for potential contributions to the two goals. Despite the separation between the two goals in international and national institutions, 37 % of the PDDs explicitly mentioned a contribution to the other objective, although only half of those substantiated it. In addition, most adaptation (90 %) and all mitigation PDDs could potentially report a contribution to at least partially to the other goal. Some adaptation project developers were interested in mitigation for the prospect of carbon funding, whereas mitigation project developers integrated adaptation to achieve greater longterm sustainability or to attain CCB certification. International and national institutions can provide incentives for projects to harness synergies and avoid trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation.

show abstract

Adaptation as ‘Climate-Smart’ Development

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Managing Climate Risk in Water Supply Systems

Managing Climate Risk in Water Supply Systems

Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About