Presenting Triple-Wins? Assessing Projects That Deliver Adaptation, Mitigation and Development Co-benefits in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

The concept of climate compatible development (CCD) is increasingly employed by donors and policy makers seeking 'triple-wins' for development, adaptation and mitigation. While CCD rhetoric is becoming more widespread, analyses drawing on empirical cases that present triple-wins are sorely lacking. We address this knowledge gap. Drawing on examples in rural sub-Saharan Africa, we provide the first glimpse into how projects that demonstrate triple-win potential are framed and presented within the scientific literature. We identify that development projects are still commonly evaluated in terms of adaptation or mitigation benefits. Few are framed according to their benefits across all three dimensions. Consequently, where triple-wins are occurring, they are likely to be under-reported. This has important implications, which underestimates the co-benefits that projects can deliver. A more robust academic evidence base for the delivery of triple-wins is necessary to encourage continued donor investment in activities offering the potential to deliver CCD.

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

“…The lack of recognition of the contributions of projects to both adaptation and mitigation, and the separation of adaptation and mitigation funds and policies can lead to some projects being split in two parts: one on adaptation, and the other on mitigation. The same activity can be presented in different policy documents as either as an adaptation activity or a mitigation one, for instance, an agroforestry project in Ghana (Suckall et al 2015). …”

“…For example, integrating adaptation into mitigation projects may increase their resilience to climate variations, the permanence of carbon storage, and their acceptance by local communities, as adaptation responds to local issues (Locatelli et al 2011(Locatelli et al , 2015Duguma et al 2014a;Suckall et al 2015). Project developers could access alternative sources of adaptation and mitigation funding and, if mitigation projects produce adaptation outcomes, carbon funding could bridge the adaptation funding (AF) gap (Matocha et al 2012).…”

“…Project developers could access alternative sources of adaptation and mitigation funding and, if mitigation projects produce adaptation outcomes, carbon funding could bridge the adaptation funding (AF) gap (Matocha et al 2012). Another advantage would be to improve the cost effectiveness of the overall climate change funding (Ravindranath 2007;Suckall et al 2015). However, concerns have been raised about the feasibility of pursuing adaptation and mitigation together, the associated transaction costs, and the failure risk of overambitious and complex projects (Klein et al 2005(Klein et al , 2007Swart and Raes 2007).…”

“…To start filling the knowledge gap on the integration of adaptation and mitigation in AFOLU projects (Suckall et al 2015), this paper analyzes whether existing climate change projects in agriculture and forestry consider both adaptation and mitigation goals. Given that the separation of adaptation and mitigation in policies and funding is mirrored at the project level (Duguma et al 2014a;Suckall et al 2015), most climate change projects are designed for only one of the two goals, which represents a missing opportunity to address climate change more efficiently and holistically.…”

“…Given that the separation of adaptation and mitigation in policies and funding is mirrored at the project level (Duguma et al 2014a;Suckall et al 2015), most climate change projects are designed for only one of the two goals, which represents a missing opportunity to address climate change more efficiently and holistically. Knowledge is missing on whether these projects also consider the other goal or could contribute to it.…”