The Value of Linking Mitigation and Adaptation: A Case Study of Bangladesh

Abstract

There are two principal strategies for managing climate change risks: mitigation and adaptation. Until recently, mitigation and adaptation have been considered separately in both climate change science and policy. Mitigation has been treated as an issue for developed countries, which hold the greatest responsibility for climate change, while adaptation is seen as a priority for the South, where mitigative capacity is low and vulnerability is high. This conceptual divide has hindered progress against the achievement of the fundamental sustainable development challenges of climate change. Recent attention to exploring the synergies between mitigation and adaptation suggests that an integrated approach could go some way to bridging the gap between the development and adaptation priorities of the South and the need to achieve global engagement in mitigation. These issues are explored through a case study analysis of climate change policy and practice in Bangladesh. Using the example of waste-to-compost projects, a mitigation-adaptation-development nexus is demonstrated, as projects contribute to mitigation through reducing methane emissions; adaptation through soil improvement in drought-prone areas; and sustainable development, because poverty is exacerbated when climate change reduces the flows of ecosystem services. Further, linking adaptation to mitigation makes mitigation action more relevant to policymakers in Bangladesh, increasing engagement in the international climate change agenda in preparation for a post-Kyoto global strategy. This case study strengthens the argument that while combining mitigation and adaptation is not a magic bullet for climate policy, synergies, particularly at the project level, can contribute to the sustainable development goals of climate change and are worth exploring.

Socially Just Triple-Wins? A Framework for Evaluating the Social Justice Implications of Climate Compatible Development

“…By recognising the importance of development, mitigation and adaptation simultaneously, CCD could encourage common ground between different constituencies [14]. However, the literature on policy mechanisms (e.g., the CDM, REDD+, voluntary carbon market standards) seeking multiple-wins across development, mitigation and adaptation suggests that this will not be a given.…”

“…Brown et al [120] indicate how the aforementioned Ethiopian forestry project has generated CCD benefits for local people by enhancing livelihoods and protecting agricultural lands from flooding. Likewise, Ayers and Huq [14] discuss a waste-to-compost project in Bangladesh that has improved soil condition in drought-prone areas and reduced poverty. Both projects have also yielded meaningful emissions reductions and therefore stand to make global-scale mitigation contributions.…”

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

“…Although development is explored to some extent, the chapter acknowledges a lack of available 'triple-win' casestudy examples at the regional or sectoral level. A notable exception to this is a study by Ayers and Huq (2009) who use the example of a waste-to-compost project in Bangladesh. In their analysis, the authors demonstrate a reduction in methane emissions (mitigation); soil improvement in drought-prone areas (adaptation); and poverty reduction (development).…”

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

“…As responses to climate change require both mitigation and adaptation, several studies have argued that projects and policies should aim to avoid trade-offs and maximize synergies between the two approaches (Kok and De Coninck 2007; Swart and Raes 2007;Ayers and Huq 2009). Adaptation and mitigation share the ultimate purpose of reducing climate change impacts but have different objectives: mitigation aims to reduce emissions or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases, while adaptation addresses the effects of climate change on people and ecosystems (Tol 2005).…”