An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Policies of Nepal

A presentation by

Subina Shrestha

EECC AIT

1

Mitigation vs Adaptation

bull Two distinct mechanisms for addressing climate changemitigation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and adaptation tothe impacts

bull Fundamental differences in terms of spatial temporalinstitutional and administrative scales two strategies to bedeveloped in silos and thus these are considered separately(CIRAD 2015)

bull Mitigation the issue of developed countries

bull Adaptation prioritized by the global South (Ayers and Huq2009)

bull Adaptation has only recently gained priority in global climatenegotiations since the Paris Agreement (Edenhofer andKornek 2016) encourages balanced allocation of funds foradaptation and mitigation actions

Source httpswwwcartoonstockcomdirectoryggreen_house_effectasp

2

Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation

bull Integrated approach that considers their interactions (Kengoum and Tiani 2013) which could result in significant co-benefits synergies or tradeoffs

bull Paris Agreement nations have mitigation commitments as well as adaptation priorities

Source httpsenergytechno-sciencecaenclimate-101-climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptationphp

3

Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions

bull Four distinct types of interactions between adaptation and mitigation have been identified (Illman et al 2014)

bull Adaptation actions that can affect mitigation

bull Mitigation actions that can affect adaptation

bull Decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between adaptation and mitigation

bull Processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation

4

Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal

bull 7th country ranked for climate change impact in the world(Dhital et al 2016)

bull Rapidly retreating glaciers (average retreat of more than 30 myear) rapid risein temperature (gt006) erratic rainfalls and increase in frequency of extremeevents such as floods and drought like situation over the last few years (Karki etal 2009)

bull Impacts on water resources flooding risk GLOF threats and on agriculturesector and other socio- economic impacts

5

Nepalrsquos Climate Change policiesbull In 2005 the government of Nepal ratified the Kyoto protocol Since then

several renewable energy projects have been able to access the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM)

bull 2009 onwards shift in Nepalrsquos policy priorities towards climate changeadaptation which resulted in policy documents such as National AdaptationProgramme of Action (NAPA 2010) Climate Change Policy (2011) and LocalAdaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) framework (2011)

bull Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2017 with targets for bothmitigation and adaptation

bull Now in the process of finalizing its National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and LowCarbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS)

6

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Mitigation vs Adaptation

bull Two distinct mechanisms for addressing climate changemitigation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and adaptation tothe impacts

bull Fundamental differences in terms of spatial temporalinstitutional and administrative scales two strategies to bedeveloped in silos and thus these are considered separately(CIRAD 2015)

bull Mitigation the issue of developed countries

bull Adaptation prioritized by the global South (Ayers and Huq2009)

bull Adaptation has only recently gained priority in global climatenegotiations since the Paris Agreement (Edenhofer andKornek 2016) encourages balanced allocation of funds foradaptation and mitigation actions

Source httpswwwcartoonstockcomdirectoryggreen_house_effectasp

2

Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation

bull Integrated approach that considers their interactions (Kengoum and Tiani 2013) which could result in significant co-benefits synergies or tradeoffs

bull Paris Agreement nations have mitigation commitments as well as adaptation priorities

Source httpsenergytechno-sciencecaenclimate-101-climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptationphp

3

Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions

bull Four distinct types of interactions between adaptation and mitigation have been identified (Illman et al 2014)

bull Adaptation actions that can affect mitigation

bull Mitigation actions that can affect adaptation

bull Decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between adaptation and mitigation

bull Processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation

4

Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal

bull 7th country ranked for climate change impact in the world(Dhital et al 2016)

bull Rapidly retreating glaciers (average retreat of more than 30 myear) rapid risein temperature (gt006) erratic rainfalls and increase in frequency of extremeevents such as floods and drought like situation over the last few years (Karki etal 2009)

bull Impacts on water resources flooding risk GLOF threats and on agriculturesector and other socio- economic impacts

5

Nepalrsquos Climate Change policiesbull In 2005 the government of Nepal ratified the Kyoto protocol Since then

several renewable energy projects have been able to access the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM)

bull 2009 onwards shift in Nepalrsquos policy priorities towards climate changeadaptation which resulted in policy documents such as National AdaptationProgramme of Action (NAPA 2010) Climate Change Policy (2011) and LocalAdaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) framework (2011)

bull Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2017 with targets for bothmitigation and adaptation

bull Now in the process of finalizing its National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and LowCarbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS)

6

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation

bull Integrated approach that considers their interactions (Kengoum and Tiani 2013) which could result in significant co-benefits synergies or tradeoffs

bull Paris Agreement nations have mitigation commitments as well as adaptation priorities

Source httpsenergytechno-sciencecaenclimate-101-climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptationphp

3

Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions

bull Four distinct types of interactions between adaptation and mitigation have been identified (Illman et al 2014)

bull Adaptation actions that can affect mitigation

bull Mitigation actions that can affect adaptation

bull Decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between adaptation and mitigation

bull Processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation

4

Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal

bull 7th country ranked for climate change impact in the world(Dhital et al 2016)

bull Rapidly retreating glaciers (average retreat of more than 30 myear) rapid risein temperature (gt006) erratic rainfalls and increase in frequency of extremeevents such as floods and drought like situation over the last few years (Karki etal 2009)

bull Impacts on water resources flooding risk GLOF threats and on agriculturesector and other socio- economic impacts

5

Nepalrsquos Climate Change policiesbull In 2005 the government of Nepal ratified the Kyoto protocol Since then

several renewable energy projects have been able to access the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM)

bull 2009 onwards shift in Nepalrsquos policy priorities towards climate changeadaptation which resulted in policy documents such as National AdaptationProgramme of Action (NAPA 2010) Climate Change Policy (2011) and LocalAdaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) framework (2011)

bull Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2017 with targets for bothmitigation and adaptation

bull Now in the process of finalizing its National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and LowCarbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS)

6

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions

bull Four distinct types of interactions between adaptation and mitigation have been identified (Illman et al 2014)

bull Adaptation actions that can affect mitigation

bull Mitigation actions that can affect adaptation

bull Decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between adaptation and mitigation

bull Processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation

4

Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal

bull 7th country ranked for climate change impact in the world(Dhital et al 2016)

bull Rapidly retreating glaciers (average retreat of more than 30 myear) rapid risein temperature (gt006) erratic rainfalls and increase in frequency of extremeevents such as floods and drought like situation over the last few years (Karki etal 2009)

bull Impacts on water resources flooding risk GLOF threats and on agriculturesector and other socio- economic impacts

5

Nepalrsquos Climate Change policiesbull In 2005 the government of Nepal ratified the Kyoto protocol Since then

several renewable energy projects have been able to access the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM)

bull 2009 onwards shift in Nepalrsquos policy priorities towards climate changeadaptation which resulted in policy documents such as National AdaptationProgramme of Action (NAPA 2010) Climate Change Policy (2011) and LocalAdaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) framework (2011)

bull Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2017 with targets for bothmitigation and adaptation

bull Now in the process of finalizing its National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and LowCarbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS)

6

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal

bull 7th country ranked for climate change impact in the world(Dhital et al 2016)

bull Rapidly retreating glaciers (average retreat of more than 30 myear) rapid risein temperature (gt006) erratic rainfalls and increase in frequency of extremeevents such as floods and drought like situation over the last few years (Karki etal 2009)

bull Impacts on water resources flooding risk GLOF threats and on agriculturesector and other socio- economic impacts

5

Nepalrsquos Climate Change policiesbull In 2005 the government of Nepal ratified the Kyoto protocol Since then

several renewable energy projects have been able to access the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM)

bull 2009 onwards shift in Nepalrsquos policy priorities towards climate changeadaptation which resulted in policy documents such as National AdaptationProgramme of Action (NAPA 2010) Climate Change Policy (2011) and LocalAdaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) framework (2011)

bull Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2017 with targets for bothmitigation and adaptation

bull Now in the process of finalizing its National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and LowCarbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS)

6

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Nepalrsquos Climate Change policiesbull In 2005 the government of Nepal ratified the Kyoto protocol Since then

several renewable energy projects have been able to access the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM)

bull 2009 onwards shift in Nepalrsquos policy priorities towards climate changeadaptation which resulted in policy documents such as National AdaptationProgramme of Action (NAPA 2010) Climate Change Policy (2011) and LocalAdaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) framework (2011)

bull Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2017 with targets for bothmitigation and adaptation

bull Now in the process of finalizing its National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and LowCarbon Economic Development Strategy (LCEDS)

6

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies

bull Several sectoral policies in Nepal that directly or indirectly contribute to mitigationand adaptation

bull Policy 6 under the Forest Policy (2014) of Nepal comprises of strategies and working policiesexclusively targeted at climate change mitigation and adaptation under the headingldquoExamining solutions to adapt and mitigate against negative impacts of climate changerdquo

bull Mitigation and adaptation policies in Nepal have been developed in silos

bull Mitigation efforts largely directed towards energy policies and REDD+

bull Other sectoral policies emphasizing on adaptation

7

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Why synergiesbull Pursuing synergies offer win- win solutions to

formulate more efficient responsive andcomprehensive policies while guiding the economiestowards a low carbon pathway and increasing climateresilience simultaneously (Laurikka 2013)

bull Harnessing synergies can facilitate building thenecessary knowledge base institutional capacity aswell as the sectoral collaboration which is thefoundation for effective climate policy (Behnassi etal2014)

Source SCCIP

bull This could also ensure sustainable development and prevent maladaptation (Cote and Teixeira 2012)

bull Tap into mitigation climate funds which accounted for about 93 of total climate funds from 2015- 2016 (Buchner et al 2017) and address its adaptation needs partially through mitigation priorities (Venema and Rehman 2007) 8

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Methodology

Fig Overall methodological framework 9

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Methodology

bull Qualitative research approach two rounds of interviews were conducted

bull Purposive expert sampling and snowball sampling for expert selection

bull Use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dictated the need the respondents to beexperts on climate change and the four sectors (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses(AFOLU) energy urban planning and water)

bull Identified twenty-five experts from the four sectors mentioned earlier using the followingcriteria

bull worked in the field of policies relevant to climate change for three or more years

bull in decision making positions and

bull availability to participate in at least one stage of interview

10

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull We used a seven-point scoring system for expert respondents to gauge the interactions into synergies and trade-offs The scores determine the lsquoextentrsquo of interaction and the lsquomechanismrsquo of interactions was determined by qualitative in-depth interviews with the experts

Interaction Score

Name Explanation

3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another policy

2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source (Nilsson et al 2016) 11

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Extent and Mechanism of Interactions

bull In this study the range of interaction scores from -2 (counteracting) to 3 (indivisible) was observed

bull Nepalrsquos climate change policies have potentials for both synergies and trade- offs with the maximum mitigation-adaptation interactions being in AFOLU and Urban planning sectors

bull Maximum number of synergies were in the order of AFOLUgt Urban Planninggt Energygt Water

12

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

bull large spectrum of potential for trade-offs as well as synergies amongst all sectorsbull Four (A7 A11 A12 and A14 see table 2) of the fourteen policies have the

potential for trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation goals

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

13

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

2857

2857

4286

-2857

2857

2857

1428

-1428

1428

4286

2857

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-1428

4286

1428

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-1428

2857

4286

1428

-2857

4286

2857

-1428

5714

1428

1428

-2857

1428

4286

1428

-1428

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

-2857

-1428

-1428

4286

1428

5714

2857

-2857

-2857

2857

1428

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A4

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A5

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A6

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A7

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A9

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A10

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A11

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A12

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A13

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

A14

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

AFOLU

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1				-1428		-4285			2857		1428
W2				-1428		-4285		2857		1428
W3					-2857		1428		5714
W4					-4285		2857		2857
W5					-2714		1428		2857

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

	Consistent(0)		Constraining(-1)		Counteracting(-2)		Cancelling (-3)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
A1						2857		2857		4286
A2		-2857					2857		2857		1428
A3		-1428					1428		4286		2857
A4		-1428					2857		4286		1428
A5		-1428					4286		1428		2857
A6		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A7			-1428				2857		4286		1428
A8		-2857					4286		2857
A9		-1428					5714		1428		1428
A10		-2857					1428		4286		1428
A11		-1428		-1428		-1428				4286		1428
A12		-2857		-1428		-1428			4286
A13						1428		5714		2857
A14		-2857		-2857				2857		1428

Consistent(0)

Constraining(-1)

Counteracting(-2)

Cancelling (-3)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA1 Maintain at least 40 forest area (Forest

policy page 5 2015)bull Primarily formulated as mitigation policies A1-A4 bear adaptation co-benefits

thereby presenting the potential for synergiesbull Also provide opportunities for alternative livelihoods as well as livelihood

diversification for forest users increases the adaptive capacity of the usersmaking them more resilient to the impacts of climate change

bull Land use plans that integrate Sustainable forest management can supplyingforest products and increasing benefits of livelihoods enhance localeconomic activity

bull Forestation restoration of land that has been degraded by over-extensiveagriculture manage water runoff retain soil carbon benefit rural economiesby providing employment and income

bull Planting forests and sustainable forest management protection of soil andland against detrimental impacts of flooding

A2 Enhance forest carbon stock by at least 10by 2025 compared to 2015 level (ForestrySector Strategy 2015-2025)

A3 Expanding the scope of carbon sequestrationthrough sustainable management of forestsformulating and implementing land use plansand controlling deforestation (ClimateChange policy 823 2011)

A4 Encouraging carbon sequestration andinvesting some of the benefits from the useof forest products for controlling forest firesand conserving forests (Climate ChangePolicy 876 2011 amp Forest policy 2015)

A5 Forest and Ecosystem management forsupporting climate led adaptation innovation(Forest Policy page 12 2014)

bull Both policies imply integrated approaches to natural resource managementbull Forest based adaptation increase forest cover (mitigation potential) and

provide habitat for biodiversity aiding in water conservation rehabilitatedegraded land and maintain water quality by trapping sediments taking upnutrients and immobilizing toxic substances providing opportunities for agro-forestry as well as use of forest products (adaptation potential) synergies

A6 Community based management throughintegrated management of agriculturewater forest and biodiversity sector (NAPApage 29 2010)

14

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

Policy ID Policy Description Mechanism of interactionA7

Prioritizing and implementing programs onsustainable management of forests agro-forestry pasture rangeland and soilconservation (Climate Change Policy 8732011)

bull 86 of the experts synergistic (sustainable management of resources cancontribute to mitigation by reducing emissions from haphazard management ofthe resources)

bull 14 experts identified trade- offs current pasture and rangeland managementpractices are not conducive for controlling deforestation and land degradation

bull Also potential to compete with land for food production and may be negativefor biodiversity giving rise to trade-offs

A8 Utilization promotion conservation of forestresources as a means of alternativelivelihoods (Climate Change Policy 8722011)

bull Despite being formulated as an adaptation policy potential for mitigationpresent Promoting the use of forest resources as alternative livelihoods forest conservation including community forestry among user groupsenhancing forest carbon stocks

A9

Afforestation in urban areas includingresidential areas and road- side plantationsfor environment friendly infrastructuredevelopment (Forest Policy page 6 2014)

bull Urban greening mitigation potential fostering carbon sequestrationbull They can also affect the micro- climate and help in regulating temperatures in

urban areasbull Linkages between urban planning and forestry inter- sectoral interactions

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

15

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

Policy ID

Policy Description Mechanism of interaction

A10

Use integrated river basin approach for land andwater conservation and increased landproductivity (Forest Policy page 8 2014)

bull Integrated river basin approach is a strong adaptation based program that cancontribute to increased productivity

bull Mitigation potential increased land productivity and consequently increasedsoil carbon stock

bull 28 of the experts no interactions because in the context of Nepal forestmanagement water conservation and land productivity policies are not in linewith one another

A11 Developing mechanism for optimal utilizationof international regional and local fundingsources including REDD (Climate Change Policy877 2011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs because no appropriate mechanisms have beendeveloped yet under the current legal and policy measures Likewise becausecarbon trading is a relatively new concept in Nepal social and other policysupports for this are yet to be harnessed

bull 49 of the experts synergies as REDD+ contribute to increasing livelihoodand adaptive capacity

A12 Use REDD+ as a means for generating financethrough carbon trading (Forest Policy page 132014)

A13 Provide financial and technical support foralternative energy biogas bio- briquetteimproved cooking stoves and biofuel (Forestpolicy page 13 2014)

bull Synergies increased access to energy and diversified livelihood options whilesimultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and promoting renewableenergy and energy efficiency

A14 Enhancing the adaptive capacity of food grainsand species from the possible impacts ofclimate change (Climate Change policy 8442011)

bull 28 of the experts trade- offs climate policies and measures have not beenfully implemented in agriculture sector in Nepal Does not support REDD+ food security is believed to conflict with increasing forest cover and reducingland degradation

Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector

16

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

Energy Sector

bull Energy sector policies primarily directed towards basic access to energy and expanding the energy mix in Nepal

bull Mitigation-adaptation interaction scores range from 0 to 3 bull Not having negative score here reveals that there are no trade-offs between

mitigation and adaptation in energy sector

17

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-2222

1111

1111

4444

-1111

1111

3333

3333

-6667

1111

1111

1111

-1111

1111

6667

1111

-2222

2222

3333

2222

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E1

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E2

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E3

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E4

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

E5

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Sheet1

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

opportunities

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

[]

[]

[]

[]

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

Policy ID

Policy description Mechanism of interaction

E1Expand and decentralize energy mix andpromote renewable energy including solarhydro bioenergy (National Communications2014)

bull Chiefly mitigation policies that aim to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels byencouraging renewable sources of energy

bull Synergies in these policies help to build the adaptive capacity of communitiesbull Decentralized renewable energy energy for irrigation pumping and post-

harvest processing new water resource management options and livelihoodopportunities adaptive capacities increased (Venema amp Rehman 2007)

E2

Encouraging investments in clean energy sourceswith priority on hydropower from nationalregional and international sources (Climatechange policy 874 2011)

bull Synergies increase communitiesrsquo resilience by ensuring reliable power suppliesbull Investments in the countryrsquos hydropower decreasing reliance on diesel

power generators in industries to deal with power cutsmitigationbull No trade- offs of run-of-the-river hydropower schemesbull Potential physical ecological and social impacts of storage- type hydropower

development on aquatic biodiversity riverine habitat land acquisition andinvoluntary displacement (Anderson et al 2015) Can cause communityresettlement (Garada 2015) and affect their livelihoods

Energy Sector

18

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

Energy Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionE3

Increases in fuel taxes incentives for mass transportsystems and fiscal incentives and subsidies foralternative fuels and vehicles (Nationalcommunications page 66 2014)

bull Fuel tax as a policy aims to reduce the dependence on fossil fuelsmitigation

bull 66 of the experts No interactions as these are mostly mitigationpolicies with no adaptation co- benefits

bull Revenue subsidize renewable energy technologies and energyefficient technologies thereby aiding in energy security and enhancingrural communitiesrsquo access to such technologies

bull Revenues not efficiently utilized yet which has caused an increasedeconomic burden on consumers as the consumers have to payadditional taxes

E4 Development of solar energy technologies will beencouraged by integrating it with technologies fordrying and cooking of food purifying water lighting andcommunication systems (Rural Energy Policy 4432006)

bull These policies have been formulated primarily to ensure rural energyaccess as well as security

bull Emphasis on renewable rural energy reduces the dependence ontraditional fuel sources (primarily biomass) for domestic purposes reduce emissions

bull These policies also make renewable energy affordable to ruralhouseholds promoting the use of clean and renewable sources ofenergy

E5Subsidies credit and soft loan for Renewable energysources (Renewable Energy Subsidy Policy 2016)

19

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

Urban Planning Sector

bull The scores range from 0 to 3 with the maximum interactions identified as enabling (score= 1) followed by reinforcing (score=2)

bull No negative scoring in this sector means that there is no potential trade- offs in Nepalrsquos urban planning policies

20

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

Chart1

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt-Trade-off Synergies-gtResponses

-1428

4286

1428

2827

-2857

2857

1428

2857

-1428

4286

2857

1428

5714

2857

1428

-1428

1428

5714

1428

-2857

4285

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U1

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U2

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U3

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U4

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U5

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

U6

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

Urban Planning SectorPolicy ID Policy description Mechanism of interaction

U1

Formulating and implementing design standards forclimate resilient construction of bridges dams riverflood control and other infrastructure (Climate Changepolicy 828 2011)

bull Primarily targeted to adapt to the negative impacts of climatechange

bull Effects on mitigation Design standards for dams as well astransmission lines repercussions for mitigation

bull Climate resilient infrastructure designs can also help in mitigationfrom a life- cycle assessment point of view provide loweremissions in the long run than development of the sameinfrastructure multiple times

U2

Building codes with provision for rainwater harvestingand solar lighting (Climate Change Policy 2011)

bull Formulated chiefly as a mitigation policy this policy also haspotential for synergies with adaptation especially in addressingwater and energy security

bull Rainwater harvesting address the pressing issue of waterscarcity (adaptive capacity) Mitigation potential lesser use ofdiesel generators used for groundwater extraction

bull Solar lighting shift from the dependence on fossil fuel backedpower sources in the urban areas

21

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

Urban Planning Sector

Policy ID Policy description Mechanism of interactionU3 Promoting climate smart urban settlement (NAPA page

31 2010)bull Climate smart urban settlement is a rather broad terminology with

an emphasis on adaptationbull 100 of the experts synergies ranging from 1 to 3 can be

achieved with a proper model for smart settlements that hasprovisions of proper water drainage designs for waste-to- energyrainwater harvesting renewable sources of energy urban greeningand other considerations which can all contribute to mitigation

U4

Enforcing building codes in municipal areas with climatechange dimensions (NAPA page 31 2010)

U5 Developing and promoting transport industries that useelectricity (Climate Change policy 827 2011)

bull Chiefly mitigation- drivenbull When applied with other transportation policies including traffic

management as well as modal shifts and development oftransportation infrastructure contribute to climate resilience

U6 Increase electric vehicle up to 20 by 2020(Environment-Friendly Vehicle and Transport Policyas mentioned in INDC page 4 2016)

22

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

Water Sector

bull Majority of water sector related policies are adaptation driven in Nepal

bull These have potential for both synergies and trade- offs with mitigation

bull W1 and W2 trade-offs as constraining (score= -1) ie the adaptation- centric nature of these policies could limit mitigation potential

23

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

Chart1

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-4285

-1428

2857

1428

-2857

1428

5714

-4285

2857

2857

-2714

1428

2857

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W2

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W3

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W4

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

W5

barrier

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

C1		Impact of barrier		249
C2		Level of political effort		594
C3		Lifespan of barrier		157
	Impact of barrier		Level of political effort		Lifespan of barrier
Donor interest driven implementation		163		202		195
Inadequate institutional coordination		278		278		239
Knowledge gaps		195		176		165
Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation		16		166		148
Resource and capacity constraint		204		177		253

barrier

Donor interest driven implementation

Inadequate institutional coordination

Knowledge gaps

Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

Resource and capacity constraint

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

opportunities

Impact of barrier

Level of political effort

Lifespan of barrier

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Energy

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Urban

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

	Administrative Feasibility		Anticipated effectivenss		Political acceptability		Sustainability
Carbon Market and Finance		113		146		203		121
Climate Change Dedicated Insitution		298		201		204		217
Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy		164		19		174		153
Payment of Ecosystem Services		148		149		131		169
Private Sector and Civil Society		14		136		134		162
Transformative Adaptation		136		177		155		178
Administrative Feasibility		236
Anticipated effectivenss		18
Political acceptability		347
Sustainability		237
	100

Urban

Carbon Market and Finance

Climate Change Dedicated Insitution

Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

Payment of Ecosystem Services

Private Sector and Civil Society

Transformative Adaptation

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Water

Administrative Feasibility

Anticipated effectivenss

Political acceptability

Sustainability

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

[]

[]

[]

[]

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
E1					-2222		1111		1111		4444
E2					-1111		1111		3333		3333
E3					-6667		1111		1111		1111
E4					-1111		1111		6667		1111
E5					-2222		2222		3333		2222

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

	Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Consistent(0)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
U1					-1428		4286		1428		2827
U2					-2857		2857		1428		2857
U3					-1428		4286		2857		1428
U4						5714		2857		1428
U5					-1428		1428		5714		1428
U6					-2857		4285		2857

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Consistent(0)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt--Tradeoffs Synergies--gtResponses

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

	Consistent(0)		Cancelling (-3)		Counteracting(-2)		Constraining(-1)		Enabling(1)		Reinforcing(2)		Indivisible(3)
W1		-4285				-1428			2857		1428
W2		-4285				-1428		2857		1428
W3		-2857					1428		5714
W4		-4285					2857		2857
W5		-2714					1428		2857

Consistent(0)

Cancelling (-3)

Counteracting(-2)

Constraining(-1)

Enabling(1)

Reinforcing(2)

Indivisible(3)

Policy ID

lt- Trade-off Synergy-gtResponses

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Water SectorPolicy ID Policy description MechanismW1 Conserve soil and water through measures such as

source protection rain water harvesting andenvironmental sanitation (Climate Change policy875 2011)

bull Addressing water scarcity can indirectly help mitigate emissions by reducingthe dependency on diesel pumps for water extraction or fossil fuel operatedwater tankers to meet with the water demands thus resulting in synergies

bull Extent of interactions depends on the processes used for water conservationwater conservation in ponds increased methane emissions (possibletrade-offs) vs groundwater harvesting

bull Basin approach for source protection potentially limit hydropowerdevelopment impacting potential mitigation

W2 Adopting a basin approach for watermanagement through regular monitoring of waterresource availability (Climate Change Policy 8782011)

W3

Cost-Effective Hydropower Developed in aSustainable Manner (National Water Plan page 122002)

bull 71 of the experts interviewed responded that there are possible synergiesin this policy while 29 stated that this was solely mitigation oriented

bull Synergies when the energy generated is affordable and accessible to allespecially in rural communities infrastructures for the hydropower are builtin a climate resilient manner components of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)as well as climate change into consideration

W4 GLOF monitoring and Disaster Risk Reduction(NAPA page 30 2010)

bull Primarily focused on adaptationbull 50 of the experts solely adaptation policiesNo interactionsbull Synergies with mitigation further the development of climate resilient

infrastructures including dams reservoirs and transmission lines forhydropower which can enhance mitigation potential

bull Plantations for reducing flood risk can also add to mitigation potential

W5 Forecasting water-induced disasters and riskscreated from climate change and providing earlywarning information developing necessarymechanism for the implementation of preventivemeasures and ensuring regular supervision andenhancing capacity (Climate Change policy 8142011)

24

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP

bull AHP is a multiple-criteria decision analysis tool that combines practical andtheoretical considerations to make pairwise compromises

bull In AHP a pairwise comparison of criteria converts them qualitative data intoa numerical format using weights

Interaction Score Name Explanation3 Indivisible Inextricably linked to the achievement of another

policy2 Reinforcing Aids the achievement of another policy1 Enabling Creates conditions that further another policy0 Consistent No significant positive or negative interactions-1 Constraining Limits options on another policy-2 Counteracting Clashes with another policy-3 Cancelling Makes it impossible to reach another policy

Source Saaty 198025

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull Six opportunities identified 1 Carbon Market and Finance

2 Climate Change Dedicated Institution

3 Low Carbon Economic Development Strategy

4 Payment of Ecosystem Services

5 Private Sector and Civil Society

6 Transformative Adaptation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of four criteria (Heinrich Blechinger and Shah 2011 Konidari and Mavrakis 2007 Thanh Nguyen et al 2010bull Administrative feasibility sustainability anticipated effectiveness and political acceptability

26

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs

bull O2gt O3gt O6gt O5gt O1gt O4

bull A climate change dedicated institution is the most important opportunity for pursuing mitigation- adaptation synergies

bull Chief institutions in Nepal Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration(MoFAGA)

bull Ministry of Energy Water Resources and Irrigation (MoEWRI) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC)

bull MoFENational Climate Change Support Group (NCCSP)

bull Environment ministries are traditionally less powerful within national government and may be less able to influence mainstreamdevelopment planning that might offer some of the main win-wins ndash such as energy access transport or agriculture (Fisher 2013)

bull A single institution that is dedicated to all climate change related decisions in the country is desirable so that other departments cannotoverride its decisions and inter- sectoral trade- offs can also be managedClimate Change Council (pre- existing body) 27

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull Five barriers identified 1 Inadequate institutional co- ordination

2 Donor-interest driven implementation

3 Knowledge gaps

4 Resource and capacity constraint

5 Lack of willingness to pursue mitigation

bull Pairwise comparison on the basis of three criteria bull impact of barrier on operationalizing the opportunity level of political effort required to remove the

barrier and lifespan of the barrier

28

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs

bull B2gt B1gt B5gt B3gt B4

bull Most prominent barrier inadequate institutional co- ordination

bull Also highlighted by other studies there are diverse stakeholders involved (Klein 2005) and reaching a consensus cantherefore be difficult Several ministries are key in implementing climate change relevant programs

bull MoFE is the UNFCCC focal ministry MOEWRI is responsible for energy sector policies Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development for agriculture sector policies

bull National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) are two key national government institutionswith an advisory and financial role

bull Siloed approach is prevalent and each institution has biases to develop its respective sector over other sectors couldcreate the possibility of competition (Nightingale 2017)

29

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Conclusions

bull Mitigation-adaptation inter-linkages in the national level policies in Nepal both synergies and trade-offsScores range from -2 to 3 (clash to indivisible)

bull Inter-ministerial co- ordination lacking overarching policies of resource use development and climatechange are formed in silos and important inter-linkages missed

bull Challenges in implementing these synergies Overcome these challenges bybull Initiating pilot projects that aim to harness synergies that showcase under which criteria and how synergies can be

harnessed and trade-offs avoided in the best possible way Pilot projects throughout Nepal are already makinguse of these opportunities (PES transformative adaptation carbon markets) albeit there is plenty of room forscaling up

bull Link synergies with climate mainstreaming agenda invested in demonstrating mitigation and adaptationsynergies should be integrated into ongoing climate change risk management activities The government canensure that NAPA NDC and other national level policies are complementary to reach the same target andgovernments can also set up policy frameworks institutional arrangements and planning processes that supportthe integration of adaptation and mitigation goals (Harvey et al 2014)

bull Attention should be paid to opportunities to catalyze private sector climate action also in harnessing synergies(Illman et al 2014) and incentivizing synergies through funding criteria (Nordic Council of Ministers 2017)

30

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Policy Implications

bull Based on the findings of this study following policy implications are observed

bull An institution dedicated to climate change promote adequate andeffective co-ordination among relevant institutions and explorepotential synergies and trade-offs in climate change policies

bull Policy formulation should be a comprehensive and integrative process calls for mainstreaming of climate change impacts into alldevelopment policies

bull Comprehensive need-analyses missing links in policies betweenmitigation and adaptation especially from AFOLU and urban planningsectors as these have the highest number of identified synergies

31

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you

Thank you

32

• An Assessment of Potential Synergies and Trade- offs between Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policies of Nepal
• Mitigation vs Adaptation
• Integrating Mitigation- Adaptation
• Mitigation- Adaptation Interactions
• Climate Vulnerabilities of Nepal
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change policies
• Nepalrsquos Climate Change Policies
• Why synergies
• Methodology
• Methodology
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Extent and Mechanism of Interactions
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Energy Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Urban Planning Sector
• Water Sector
• Water Sector
• Prioritizing Opportunities and Barriers using AHP
• Identification of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Prioritization of Opportunities for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade- offs
• Identification of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Prioritization of Barriers for Harnessing Synergies and Addressing Trade-offs
• Conclusions
• Policy Implications
• Thank you