With the exception of Chapter and Section headings, all coloured text has been inserted by AccessIPCC. The non-coloured text is the IPCC original.

A number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were published on the Internet in November 2009. This has provided a window into the world of climate science.

We have identified a number of key individuals involved in the emails whom we have designated as Persons of Concern [PoC]; a Journal in which a PoC has published has been designated as a Journal of Concern [JoC].

This is not to suggest that we believe such papers are necessarily flawed, but rather that, as Joseph Alcamo noted at Bali in October 2009, "as policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy".

References occur in a list at the end of each chapter. Citations are within the normal text of sections and paragraphs.

Definition of Tags Used

Tag	Explanation	Where Used	References	Citations
PoC	Person of Concern Key individual involved in CRU emails as defined in this spreadsheet. NOTE: we anticipate that this definition will be expanded as more data is coded.	References, Citations, IPCC Roles	9	8
JoC	Journal of Concern A Journal which has published articles by one or more PoCs (Person of Concern)	References, Citations	58	77
MoS	Model or Simulation Reference appears to be a model or simulation, not observation or experiment	References, Citations	20	24
NPR	Non Peer Reviewed Reference has no Journal or no Volume or no Pages or it has Editors.	References, Citations	125	151
SRC	Self Reference Concern Author of a chapter containing references to own work.	References, Citations, IPCC Roles	42	65
ARC	Paper authored or co-authored by person who is also in list of Authors of another chapter.	References, Citations	70	90
2007	Paper dated 2007, when IPCC policy stated cutoff was December 2005 with mid-February 2006 for exceptions.	References, Citations	15	35
Ambiguous	The short inline citation matched with more than one reference; however, AccessIPCC will link to the first reference found.	Citations	-	13
NotFound	The short inline citation was not matched with any reference. Believed to be caused by typing errors.	Citations	-	4
Clean	The reference was probably peer reviewed. The reference was dated before the cutoff (2005-2006). Its authors were not members of the Team. It was not published in a Journal of Concern. Its authors were not AR4 Authors.	References, Citations	53	57

Chapter Table of Contents

Title	Clean	Tagged	NotFound	Ambiguous
Chapter 18: Inter-Relationships Between Adaptation and Mitigation	-	-	-	-
18.1 Introduction	-	4	-	1
18.1.1 Background and rationale	-	17	-	1
18.1.2 Differences, similarities and complementarities between adaptation and mitigation	1	1	-	-
18.1.3 Structure of the chapter	-	-	-	-
18.2 Summary of relevant knowledge in the IPCC Third Assessment Report	-	16	-	-
18.3 Decision processes, stakeholder objectives and scale	-	-	-	-
18.3.1 The nature of the decision problem	-	9	-	-
18.3.2 Stakeholder roles and spatial and temporal scales	3	29	3	1
18.4 Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation and damages avoided	-	-	-	-
18.4.1 Trade-offs and synergies in global-scale analysis	9	28	-	-
18.4.2 Consideration of costs and damages avoided and/or benefits gained	1	31	-	4
18.4.3 Inter-relationships within regions and sectors	8	17	-	1
18.5 Inter-relationships in a climate policy portfolio	-	4	-	-
18.6 Response capacity and development pathways	30	85	1	2
18.7 Elements for effective implementation	-	-	-	-
18.7.1 Climate policy and institutions	3	21	-	1
18.7.2 Inter-relationships in practice	-	6	-	-
18.8 Uncertainties, unknowns and priorities for research	2	15	-	2
Number of citations of various credibilities	57	283	4	13
Percentages of citations of various credibilities	16.0%	79.3%	1.1%	3.6%

Executive summary

This chapter identifies four types of inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation:

• Adaptation actions that have consequences for mitigation,
• Mitigation actions that have consequences for adaptation,
• Decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between adaptation and mitigation,
• Processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation.

The chapter explores these inter-relationships and assesses their policy relevance. It is a new chapter compared to the IPCC Third Assessment Report and is based on a relatively small, albeit growing, literature. Its key findings are as follows.

Effective climate policy aimed at reducing the risks of climate change to natural and human systems involves a portfolio of diverse adaptation and mitigation actions (very high confidence).

Even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid further impacts of climate change in the next few decades (Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III Fourth Assessment Report), which makes adaptation unavoidable. However, without mitigation, a magnitude of climate change is likely to be reached that makes adaptation impossible for some natural systems, while for most human systems it would involve very high social and economic costs (see Chapter 4 , Section 4.6.1 and Chapter 17 , Section 17.4.2 ). Adaptation and mitigation actions include technological, institutional and behavioural options, the introduction of economic and policy instruments to encourage the use of these options, and research and development to reduce uncertainty and to enhance the options’ effectiveness and efficiency [ 18.3 , 18.5 ]. Opportunities exist to integrate adaptation and mitigation into broader development strategies and policies [ 18.6 ].

Decisions on adaptation and mitigation are taken at different governance levels and inter-relationships exist within and across each of these levels (high confidence).

The levels range from individual households, farmers and private firms, to national planning agencies and international agreements. Effective mitigation requires the participation of major greenhouse-gas emitters globally, whereas most adaptation takes place from local to national levels. The climate benefits of mitigation are global, while its costs and ancillary benefits arise locally. In most cases, both the costs and benefits of adaptation accrue locally and nationally [ 18.1 , 18.4 , 18.5 ]. Consequently, mitigation is primarily driven by international agreements and ensuing national public policies, possibly complemented by unilateral and voluntary actions, whereas most adaptation involves private actions of affected entities, public arrangements of impacted communities, and national policies [ 18.1 , 18.7 ].

Creating synergies between adaptation and mitigation can increase the cost-effectiveness of actions and make them more attractive to stakeholders, including potential funding agencies (medium confidence).

Analysis of the inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation may reveal ways to promote the effective implementation of adaptation and mitigation actions together [ 18.5 ]. However, such synergies provide no guarantee that resources are used in the most efficient manner when seeking to reduce the risks to climate change [ 18.7 ]. In addition, the absence of a relevant knowledge base and of human, institutional and organisational capacity can limit the ability to create synergies. Opportunities for synergies are greater in some sectors (e.g., agriculture and forestry, buildings and urban infrastructure) but are limited in others (e.g., coastal systems, energy, health). A lack of both conceptual and empirical information that explicitly considers both adaptation and mitigation makes it difficult to assess the need for and potential of synergies in climate policy [ 18.3 , 18.4 , 18.8 ].

It is not yet possible to answer the question as to whether or not investment in adaptation would buy time for mitigation (high confidence).

Understanding the specific economic trade-offs between the immediate localised benefits of adaptation and the longer-term global benefits of mitigation requires information on the actions’ costs and benefits over time. Integrated assessment models provide approximate estimates of relative costs and benefits at highly aggregated levels, but only a few models include feedbacks from impacts. Intricacies of the inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation become apparent at the more detailed analytical and implementation levels [ 18.4 , 18.5 , 18.6 ]. These intricacies, including the fact that specific adaptation and mitigation options operate on different spatial, temporal and institutional scales and involve different actors with different interests, beliefs, value systems and property rights, present a challenge to designing and implementing decisions based on economic trade-offs beyond the local scale. In particular the notion of an ‘optimal mix’ of adaptation and mitigation is difficult to make operational, because it requires the reconciliation of welfare impacts on people living in different places and at different points in time into a global aggregate measure of well-being. [ 18.4 , 18.7 ]

People’s capacities to adapt and mitigate are driven by similar sets of factors (high confidence).

These factors represent a generalised response capacity that can be mobilised for both adaptation and mitigation. Response capacity, in turn, is dependent on the societal development path chosen. Enhancing society’s response capacity through the pursuit of sustainable development is therefore one way of promoting both adaptation and mitigation [ 18.6 ]. This would facilitate the effective implementation of both options, as well as their mainstreaming into sectoral planning and development. If climate policy and sustainable development are to be pursued in an integrated way, then it will be important not simply to evaluate specific policy options that might accomplish both goals but also to explore the determinants of response capacity that underlie those options as they relate to underlying socio-economic and technological development paths [ 18.6 , 18.7 ].

18.1 Introduction

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) identifies two responses to climate change: mitigation of climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and enhancing sinks, and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Most industrialised countries have committed themselves, as signatories to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, to adopting national policies and taking corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change and to reducing their overall greenhouse-gas emissions (United Nations, 1997 ). An assessment of current efforts aimed at mitigating climate change, as presented by the Working Group III Fourth Assessment Report (WGIII AR4), Chapter 11 ( Barker et al., 2007 [NPR, SRC, 2007] ), shows that current commitments would not lead to a stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. In fact, according to the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report (WGI AR4), owing to the lag times in the global climate system, no mitigation effort, no matter how rigorous and relentless, will prevent climate change from happening in the next few decades ( Christensen et al., 2007 [NPR, ARC, 2007] ; Meehl et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Chapter 1 in this volume shows that the first impacts of climate change are already being observed.

Adaptation is therefore unavoidable ( Parry et al., 1998 [JoC, ARC] ). Chapter 17 (see Section 17.2 and Section 17.4 ) presents examples of adaptations to climate change that are currently being observed, but concludes that there are limits and barriers to effective adaptation. Even if these limits and barriers were to be removed, however, reliance on adaptation alone is likely to lead to a magnitude of climate change in the long run to which effective adaptation is no longer possible or only at very high social, economic and environmental costs. For example, Tol et al. 2006 [Ambiguous] ) show what would be the difficulties in adapting to a five-metre rise in sea level in Europe. It is therefore no longer a question of whether to mitigate climate change or to adapt to it. Both adaptation and mitigation are now essential in reducing the expected impacts of climate change on humans and their environment.

18.2 Summary of relevant knowledge in the IPCC Third Assessment Report

Compared to the SAR, two of the Working Groups preparing the TAR were restructured. The scope assigned to Working Group II (WGII) was limited to impacts of climate change on sectors and regions and to issues of vulnerability and adaptation, while Working Group III (WGIII) was commissioned to assess the technological, economic, social and political aspects of mitigation. Whereas there were concerted efforts to assess links of both adaptation and mitigation to sustainable development (see Chapter 20 , Section 20.7.3 ), there was little room to consider the direct relationships between these two domains. The integration of results and the development of policy-oriented synthesis were therefore difficult ( Toth, 2003 [MoS, SRC] ).

The attempt to establish the foundations of the TAR Synthesis Report ( IPCC, 2001a [NPR] ) in the final chapters of WGII and WGIII did not shed light on inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. The WGII TAR in Chapter 19 presented “reasons for concern about projected climate change impacts” in a summary figure that outlines the risks associated with different magnitudes of warming, expressed in terms of the increase in global mean temperature. Largely based on IAMs, the WGIII TAR in Chapter 10 summarised the costs of stabilising CO₂ concentrations at different levels. These two summaries are difficult to compare because questions as to what radiative-forcing and climate-sensitivity parameters should be used to bridge the concentration-temperature gap remain unanswered. Moreover, many statements in the two Working Group Reports were themselves distilled from a large number of reviewed studies. Yet the generic assumptions underlying the methods, the specific assumptions of the applications, the selected baseline values for the scenarios, incompatible discount rates, economic growth assumptions and many other postulations implicit in the parameterisation of adaptation and mitigation assessments were largely ignored or remained hidden in the Synthesis Report.

Nonetheless, the TAR presented new concepts for addressing inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Local adaptive and mitigative capacities vary significantly across regions and over time. Superficially they appear to be strongly correlated because they share the same list of determinants. However, aggregate representation across nations or social groups of both adaptation and mitigation is misleading because the capacity to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the ability to adapt to it can deviate significantly. As the TAR pointed out: “one country can easily display high adaptive capacity and low mitigative capacity simultaneously (or vice versa)” ( IPCC, 2001b [NPR] ; see also Yohe, 2001 [JoC, ARC] ). In a wealthy nation, damages of climate change may fall on a small but influential social group and the costs of adaptation can be distributed across the entire population through the tax system. Yet, in the same country, another small group might be hurt by mitigation policies without the possibility to spread this burden. In addition to the conceptual deliberations, the TAR discussed inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation at two levels: at the aggregated, global and national levels, and in the context of economic sectors and specific projects.

The WGII report pointed out that “adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation efforts” ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ), but also elaborates the complex relationships between the two domains at various levels. Some relationships are synergistic, while others are characterised by trade-offs. The report noted the arguments in the literature about the trade-off between adaptation and mitigation because resources committed to one are not available for the other, and also noted that this is “debatable in practice because the people who bear emissions reduction costs or benefits often are different from those who pay for and benefit from adaptation measures” ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ). From the dynamic perspective, “climatic changes today still are relatively small, thus there is little need for adaptation, although there is considerable need for mitigation to avoid more severe future damages. By this logic, it is more prudent to invest the bulk of the resources for climate policy in mitigation, rather than adaptation” ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ). Yet, as the WGIII TAR noted, one has to bear in mind the intergenerational trade-offs. The impacts of today’s climate change investments on future generations’ opportunities should also be considered. Investments might enhance the capacity of future generations to adapt to climate change, but at the same time may displace investments that could create other opportunities for future generations ( IPCC, 2001b [NPR] ).

Chapter 10 of the WGIII TAR outlined the iterative process in which nations balance their own mitigation burden against their own adaptation and damage costs. “The need for, extent and costs of adaptation measures in any region will be determined by the magnitude and nature of the regional climate change driven by shifts in global climate. How global climate change unfolds will be determined by the total amount of greenhouse-gas emissions that, in turn, reflects nations’ willingness to undertake mitigation measures. Balancing mitigation and adaptation efforts largely depends on how mitigation costs are related to net damages (primary or gross damage minus damage averted through adaptation plus costs of adaptation). Both mitigation costs and net damages, in turn, depend on some crucial baseline assumptions: economic development and baseline emissions largely determine emissions reduction costs, while development and institutions influence vulnerability and adaptive capacity” ( IPCC, 2001b [NPR] ).

Discussions of inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation are sparser at the sector/project level. Some chapters in the WGII TAR noted the link to mitigation when discussing climate-change impacts and adaptation in selected sectors, primarily those related to land use, agriculture and forestry. Chapter 5 noted that “afforestation in agroforestry projects designed to mitigate climate change may provide important initial steps towards adaptation” ( Gitay et al., 2001 [NPR] ). Chapter 8 emphasised sustainable forestry, agriculture and wetlands practices that yield benefits in watershed management and flood/mudflow control but involve trade-offs such as wetlands restoration helping to protect against flooding and coastal erosion, but in some cases increasing methane release ( Vellinga et al., 2001 [NPR] ).

The WGII TAR in Chapter 12 observed the complexities in land management in Australia and New Zealand “where control of land degradation through farm and plantation forestry is being considered as a major option, partly for its benefits in controlling salinisation and waterlogging, and possibly as a new economic option with the advent of incentives for carbon storage as a greenhouse mitigation measure” ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ). Chapter 15 mentioned soil conservation practices (e.g., no tillage, increased forage production, higher cropping frequency) implemented as mitigation strategies in North America ( Cohen et al., 2001 [NPR, ARC] ). It observed that the Kyoto Protocol mentions human-induced land-use changes and forestry activities (afforestation, reforestation, deforestation) as sinks of greenhouse gases for which sequestration credits can be claimed, and that agricultural sinks may be considered in the future. The market emerging in North America to enhance carbon sequestration leads to land-management decisions with diverse effects. The negative consequences of reduced tillage implemented to enhance soil carbon sequestration include the increased use of pesticides for disease, insect and weed management; capturing carbon in labile forms that are vulnerable to rapid oxidation if the system is changed; and reduced yields and cropping management options and increased risk for farmers. The beneficial consequences of reduced tillage (especially no-till) are reduced input costs (e.g., fuel) for farmers, increased soil moisture and hence reductions in crop-water stress in dry areas, reduction in soil erosion and improved soil quality ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ).

In chapters dealing with other sectors affected by climate-change impacts and mitigation, less attention was paid to their inter-relationships. The WGII TAR in Chapter 8 mentioned energy end-use efficiency in buildings having both adaptation and mitigation benefits, as improved insulation and equipment efficiency can reduce the vulnerability of structures to extreme temperature episodes and emissions. An example of the more remote inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation across space and time was provided by Chapter 17 . Small island states are recognised to be vulnerable to climate change and tourism is a major source of income for many of them. While, over the long term, milder winters in their current markets could reduce the appeal of these islands as tourist destinations, they could be even more severely harmed by increased airline fares “if greenhouse gas mitigation measures (e.g., levies and emissions charges) were to result in higher costs to airlines servicing routes between the main markets and small island states” ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ).

Finally, the WGII TAR in Chapter 8 drew attention to a link between adaptation and mitigation in the Kyoto Protocol that establishes a surcharge (‘set-aside’) on mitigation activities implemented as Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. “One key issue is the size of the ‘set-aside’ from CDM projects that is dedicated to funding adaptation. If this set-aside is too large, it will make otherwise viable mitigation projects uneconomic and serve as a disincentive to undertake projects. This would be counterproductive to the creation of a viable source of funding for adaptation” ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ).

18.3 Decision processes, stakeholder objectives and scale

A portfolio of actions is available for reducing the risks of climate change, within which each option requires evaluation of its individual and collective merits. Decision-makers at all levels need to decide on appropriate near-term actions in the face of the many long-term uncertainties and competing pressures, goals and market signals. Section 18.1 identified four types of inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Investments in mitigation may have consequences for adaptation; and investments in adaptation may have consequences for the emission of greenhouse gases. At the highest level of aggregation, adaptation and mitigation are both policy substitutes and policy complements, and may compete for finite resources. However, this need not be the case: both adaptation and mitigation may be considered in a policy process without invoking trade-offs, often in the context of broader considerations of sustainable development. This section introduces the nature of the decision problem followed by a review of stakeholder objectives, risk and scales.

18.4 Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation and damages avoided

This section presents the main insights emerging from global integrated assessments implemented in different decision-analytical frameworks on trade-offs and synergies between adaptation and mitigation and on avoided damages. This is complemented by lessons from regional and sectoral studies. Principles and technical details of the methods used by the studies reported here are presented in Chapter 2 .

18.5 Inter-relationships in a climate policy portfolio

A wide range of inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation have been identified through examples in the published literature. Taylor et al. 2006 [NPR, SRC] ) present an inventory of published examples including full citations (available in an abbreviated form on the CD-ROM accompanying this volume as supplementary material to support the review of this chapter). The many examples have been clustered according to the type of linkage and ordered according to the entry point and scale of decision-making ( Figure 18.2 ). Table 18.1 lists all of the types of linkages documented. The categories are illustrative; some cases occur in more than one category, or could shift over time or in different situations. For example, watershed planning is often related to managing climatic risks in using water. But if hydroelectricity is an option, then the entry point may be mitigation, and both adaptation and mitigation might be evaluated at the same time or even with explicit trade-offs.

In Figure 18.2 and Table 18.1 , many of the examples are motivated by either mitigation or adaptation, with largely unintended consequences for the other (e.g., Tol and Dowlatabadi, 2001 [ARC] ). Where adaptation leads to effects on mitigation, the linkage is labelled A→M. The categories of linkages include:

individual responses to climatic hazard that increase or decrease greenhouse-gas emissions. For example, a common adaptation to heatwaves is to install air-conditioning, which increases electricity demand with consequences for mitigation when the electricity is produced from fossil fuels;

• more efficient community use of water, land, forests and other natural resources, improving access and reducing emissions (e.g., conservation of water in urban areas reduces energy used in moving and heating water);
• natural resources managed to sustain livelihoods;
• tourism use of energy and water, with outcomes for incomes and emissions (generally to increase both welfare and emissions);
• resources used in adaptation, such as in large-scale infrastructure, increases emissions.

Similarly, mitigation actions might affect the capacity to adapt or actual adaptation actions (M→A). These categories include:

• more efficient energy use and renewable sources that promote local development;
• CDM projects on land use or energy use that support local economies and livelihoods, perhaps by placing a value on their management of natural resources;
• urban planning, building design and recycling with benefits for both adaptation and mitigation;
• health benefits of mitigation through reduced environmental stresses;
• afforestation, leading to depleted water resources and other ecosystem effects, with consequences for livelihoods;
• mitigation actions that transfer finance to developing countries (such as per capita allocations) that stimulate investment with benefits for adaptation;
• effects of mitigation, e.g., through carbon taxes and energy prices, on resource use (generally to reduce use) that affect adaptation, for example by reducing the use of tractors in semi-subsistence farming due to higher costs of fuels.

As noted in Section 18.4.3 , the effect of increased emissions due to adaptation is likely to be small in most sectors in relation to the baseline projections of energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions. Land and water management may be affected by mitigation actions, but in most sectors the effects of mitigation on adaptation are likely to be small. At least some analysts are concerned with the explicit trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation (labelled adaptation or mitigation, ∫(A,M)). Categories include:

• public-sector funding and budgetary processes that allocate funding to both adaptation and mitigation;
• strategic planning related to development pathways, for example scenario and visioning exercises with urban governments that include climate responses (mainstreaming responses in sectoral and regional planning);
• allocation of funding and setting the agenda for UNFCCC negotiations and funds (e.g., the Special Climate Change Fund);
• stabilisation targets that include limits to adaptation (e.g., tolerable windows);
• analysis of global costs and benefits of mitigation to inform targets for greenhouse-gas concentrations (see Section 18.4.2 );
• large-scale mitigation (e.g., geo-engineering) with effects on impacts and adaptation.

Some actions result from the simultaneous consideration of adaptation and mitigation. These concerns may be raised within the same decision framework or sequential process but without explicitly considering their trade-offs or synergies (labelled adaptation and mitigation, A∩M). Examples include:

• perception of impacts and the limits to adaptation (see Chapter 17 ) motivates action on mitigation, conversely the perception of limits to mitigation reinforces urgent action on adaptation;
• watershed planning where water is allocated between hydroelectricity and consumption without explicitly addressing mitigation and adaptation;
• cultural values that promote both adaptation and mitigation, such as sacred forests (e.g., Satoyama in Japan);
• management of socio-ecological systems to promote resilience;
• ecological impacts, with some human element, drive further releases of greenhouse gases,
• legal implications of liability for climate impacts motivates mitigation;
• national capacity-building increases the ability to respond to both adaptation and mitigation (such as through the National Capacity-Building Self Assessment);
• insurance spreads risk and assists with adaptation, while managing insurance funds has implications for mitigation;
• trade liberalisation may have economic benefits (increasing adaptive capacity) but also increases emissions from transport;
• monitoring systems and reporting requirements may cover indicators of both adaptation and mitigation;
• management of multilateral environmental agreements may benefit both adaptation and mitigation.

Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation will vary with the type of policy decisions being made, for example on different scales from local project analysis to global analysis. As discussed in Section 18.4.3 , there will be clear M→A linkages in many mitigation projects, for example ensuring that adaptation is built into the project design (e.g., considering and adjusting for water availability for longer-term hydroelectric renewable or bioenergy/biofuels projects). Similarly, in the design or appraisal of adaptation projects, A→M, the consideration of mitigation options can be brought in, for example in considering reduced energy use in project design. These linkages might be considered through an extension of project risk analysis as part of the appraisal process, but can also be included in cost-benefit analysis explicitly in an economic appraisal framework.

At the policy level (e.g., portfolios, funding, strategies), the same M→A and A→M issues apply, but the wider potential for cross-sectoral linkages makes simultaneous consideration of adaptation and mitigation, A∩M, more important. For example, the shift up to a major (country level) energy policy towards mitigation might need to assess demand changes from adaptation across a wide range of sectors. There may be a need to consider some explicit trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation, ∫(A,M).

At the global level, the potential for ∫(A,M) becomes possible within a theoretical framework (see Section 18.4 ). There has been discussion of the potential for adaptation and mitigation as substitutes within narrow economic analysis (cost-benefit frameworks), and some studies have tried to assess the optimal policy balance of mitigation and adaptation using CBA based on IAMs. However, recent reviews (e.g., Watkiss et al., 2005 [NPR, MoS, SRC] ) have shown that policy-makers are uncomfortable with the use of CBA in longer-term climate policy, because of the range of uncertainty over the relevant economic parameters of marginal mitigation costs and marginal social costs and damages avoided, but also because of the significant lack of data on the costs of adaptation. Instead, wider frameworks are considered to be more informative, using multiple aspects and risk-based approaches, for example iterative decision-making and tolerable windows (see also the risk matrix in Chapter 20 Stern 2007 [NPR, 2007] ) explicitly adopted a risk-based framework appropriate for guiding policy from analysing the marginal costs and benefits at the project level to determination of public policy that affects future economic paths. He recognised that adaptation plays an important role, but not in an explicit trade-off against mitigation, in long-term policy.

18.6 Response capacity and development pathways

As outlined in the TAR ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] , Chapter 18 and IPCC, 2001b [NPR] , Chapter 1) and discussed at more length in Chapter 17 of this volume and in the WGIII AR4, Chapter 12 ( Sathaye et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ), the ability to implement specific adaptation and mitigation measures is dependent upon the existence and nature of adaptive and mitigative capacity, which makes such measures possible and affects their extent and effectiveness. In that sense, specific adaptation and mitigation measures are rooted in their respective capacities ( Yohe, 2001 [JoC, ARC] ; Adger et al., 2003 [SRC] ; Adger and Vincent, 2005 [ARC] ; Brooks et al., 2005 [JoC, ARC] ).

Adaptive capacity has been defined in this volume (see Chapter 17 ) as “the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and change.” In a parallel way, mitigative capacity has been defined as the “ability to diminish the intensity of the natural (and other) stresses to which it might be exposed” (see Rogner et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Since this definition suggests that a group’s capacity to mitigate hinges on the severity of impacts to which it is exposed, Winkler et al. 2007 [SRC, 2007] ) have suggested that capacity be defined instead as “a country’s ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases or enhance natural sinks”. Clearly these two categories are closely related although, in accordance with the differences between adaptation and mitigation measures discussed in Section 18.1 , capacities also differ somewhat. In particular, since adaptation measures tend to be both more geographically dispersed and smaller in scale than mitigation measures ( Dang et al., 2003 [JoC] ; Ruth, 2005 [NPR] ), adaptive capacities refer to a slightly broader and more general set of capabilities than mitigative capacities. Despite these minor differences, however, adaptive and mitigative capacities are driven by similar sets of factors.

The term response capacity may be used to describe the ability of humans to manage both the generation of greenhouse gases and the associated consequences ( Tompkins and Adger, 2005 [ARC] ). As such, response capacity represents a broad pool of resources, many of which are related to a group or nation’s level of socio-technical and economic development, which may be translated into either adaptive or mitigative capacity. Socio-cultural dimensions such as belief systems and cultural values, which are often not addressed to the same extent as economic elements ( Handmer et al., 1999 [SRC] ), can also affect response capacity (see IPCC, 2001b [NPR] ; Sathaye et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ).

Although the concept of response capacity is new to the IPCC and has yet to be sufficiently investigated in the literature, efforts have been made to define the nature and determinants of its conceptual components: adaptive and mitigative capacity. With regard to mitigative capacity, Yohe 2001 [JoC, ARC] ) has suggested the following list of determinants, which play out at the national level:

• range of viable technological options for reducing emissions;
• range of viable policy instruments with which the country might affect the adoption of these options;
• structure of critical institutions and the derivative allocation of decision-making authority;
• availability and distribution of resources required to underwrite the adoption of mitigation policies and the associated broadly-defined opportunity cost of devoting those resources to mitigation;
• stock of human capital, including education and personal security;
• stock of social capital, including the definition of property rights;
• a country’s access to risk-spreading processes (e.g., insurance, options and futures markets);
• the ability of decision-makers to manage information, the processes by which these decision-makers determine which information is credible, and the credibility of decision-makers themselves.

In the context of developing countries, many of which possess limited institutional capacity and access to resources, mitigative and adaptive capacity could be fashioned by additional determinants. For instance, political will and the intent of decision-makers, and the ability of societies to form networks through collective action that insulates them against the impacts of climate change ( (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000 ) ), may be especially important in developing countries, especially in societies where policy instruments are not fully developed and where institutional capacity and access to resources are limited.

Yohe suggests a similar set of determinants for adaptive capacity, but adds the availability of resources and their distribution across the population. Recent research has sought to offer empirical evidence that demonstrates the relative influence of each of these determinants on actual adaptation ( Yohe and Tol, 2002 [JoC, ARC] ). In particular, this research indicates that the influence of each determinant of capacity is highly location-specific and path-dependent, thus revealing the importance of investigations into micro- and macro-scale determinants that influence capacity across multiple stressors ( Yohe and Tol, 2002 [JoC, ARC] ). These determinants of both adaptive and mitigative capacity expand on those identified in the TAR and agree closely with those offered by Moss et al. 2001 [NPR, ARC] and Adger et al. 2004 [NPR, ARC] ). The linkages between adaptive and mitigative capacity are demonstrated by the striking similarities between these sets of determinants, which show that both the ability to adapt and the ability to mitigate depend on a mix of social, biophysical and technological constraints ( Tompkins and Adger, 2005 [ARC] ). Recent research has pointed to the necessity of broadening these lists of determinants to include other important factors such as socio-political aspirations ( Haddad, 2005 [JoC] ), risk perception, perceived adaptive capacity ( Grothmann and Patt, 2005 [JoC, ARC] ) and political will ( Winkler et al., 2007 [SRC, 2007] ).

These discussions of determinants indicate the close connection that exists between response capacities and the underlying socio-economic and technological development paths that give rise to those capacities. In several important respects, the determinants listed above are important characteristics of such development paths. Those development paths, in turn, underpin the baseline and stabilisation emissions scenarios discussed in the WGIII AR4, Chapter 3 ( Fisher et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ) and used to estimate emissions, climate change and associated climate-change impacts. As a result, the determinants of response capacity can be expected to vary across the underlying emissions scenarios reviewed in this report. The climate change and climate-change impact scenarios assessed in this report will be primarily based on the SRES storylines, which define a spectrum of different development paths, each with associated socio-economic and technological conditions and driving forces (for an extended discussion of emissions pathways and climate policies, see Fisher et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Each storyline will therefore give rise to a different set of response capacities, and thus to different likely, or even possible, levels of adaptation and mitigation.

Adaptation and mitigation measures, furthermore, are rooted in adaptive and mitigative capacities, which are in turn contained within, and strongly affected by, the nature of the development path in which they exist. The concept of development paths is discussed at more length in the WGIII AR4 in Chapters 2 ( Halsnaes et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ), 3 ( Fisher et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ) and 12 ( Sathaye et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Here, it is sufficient to think of a development path as a complex array of technological, economic, social, institutional and cultural characteristics that define an integrated trajectory of the interaction between human and natural systems over time at a particular scale. Such technological and socio-economic development pathways find their most common expression in the form of integrated scenarios ( Geels and Smit, 2000 [MoS] ; Grubb et al., 2002 [MoS, SRC] ; Swart et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ; see also WGIII AR4, Chapter 3), but are also incorporated into studies of technological diffusion ( (Foray and Grubler, 1996; ) ( Dupuy, 1997; ) ( Andersen, 1998; ) Grubler, 2000 [NPR] ; Berkhout, 2002 [JoC, ARC] ; Rogers, 2003 [NPR] ), socio-technical systems ( (Geels, 2004 ) ) and situations in which large physical infrastructures and the requisite supportive organisational, cultural and institutional systems create conditions of quasi-irreversibility ( (Arthur, 1989; ) ( Sarkar, 1998; ) ( Geels, 2005; ) ( Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006 ) ). Technological and social pathways co-evolve through a process of learning, coercion and negotiation ( Rip and Kemp, 1998 [NPR] ), creating integrated socio-technical systems that strongly condition responses to risks such as climate change.

In the climate-change context, the TAR noted that “climate change is thus a potentially critical factor in the larger process of society’s adaptive response to changing historical conditions through its choice of developmental paths” ( Banuri et al., 2001 [NPR, ARC] ). Later in the same volume, the following typology of critical components of development paths is presented ( Toth et al., 2001 [NPR, SRC] ):

• technological patterns of natural resource use, production of goods and services and final consumption,
• structural changes in the production system,
• spatial distribution patterns of population and economic activities,
• behavioural patterns that determine the evolution of lifestyles.

The influence of economic trajectories and structures on the adaptability of a nation’s development path is important in terms of the patterns of carbon-intensive production and consumption that generate greenhouse gases ( (Smil, 2000; ) ( Ansuategi and Escapa, 2002 ) ), the costs of policies that drive efficiency gains through technological change ( (Azar and Dowlatabadi, 1999 ) ), and the occurrence of market failures which lead to unsustainable patterns of energy use and technology adoption ( (Jaffe and Stavins, 1994; ) ( Jaffe et al., 2005 ) ).

In addition to these components, scholars from widely varying disciplines and backgrounds have noted the importance of institutional structures and trajectories ( Olsen and March, 1989 [NPR] ;( Agrawal, 2001; ) Pierson, 2004 [NPR] ; Adger et al., 2005 [Ambiguous] ; Ruth, 2005 [NPR] ) and cultural factors such as values ( (Stern and Dietz, 1994; ) ( Baron and Spranca, 1997 ) ), discourses ( (Adger et al., 2001 ) ) and social rules ( (Geels, 2004 ) ), as elements of development paths that help determine the ability of a system to respond to change.

The importance of the connection between measures, capacities and development paths is threefold. First, as pointed out in the TAR, a full analysis of the potential for adaptation or mitigation policies must also include some consideration of the capacities in which these policies are rooted. This is increasingly being reflected in the literature being assessed in both regional/sectoral and conceptual chapters of this assessment. Second, such an analysis of response capacities should, in turn, encompass the nature and potential variability of underlying development paths that strongly affect the nature and extent of those capacities. This suggests the desirability of an integrated analysis of climate policy options that assesses the linkages between policy options, response capacities and their determinants, and underlying development pathways. Although such an integrated assessment was proposed in the Synthesis Report of the TAR ( IPCC, 2001a [NPR] ), this type of assessment is still in its infancy.

Third, the linkages between climate policy measures and development paths described here suggest a potential disconnection between the degree of adaptation and/or mitigation that is possible and that which may be desired in a given situation. On the one hand, the development path will determine the response capacity of the scenario. On the other, the development path will strongly influence levels of greenhouse-gas emissions, associated climate change, the likely degree of climate-change impacts and thus the desired mitigation and/or adaptation in that scenario (Naki?enovi? and Swart, 2000 [Ambiguous] ; Metz et al., 2002 [JoC, ARC] ; Swart et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ).

However, there is no particular reason that the response capacity and desired levels of mitigation and/or adaptation will change in compatible ways. As a result, particular development paths might give rise to levels of desired adaptation and mitigation that are at odds with the degree of adaptive and mitigative capacity available. For example, particular development path scenarios that give rise to very high emissions might also be associated with a slower growth, or even a decline, in the determinants of response capacity. Such might be the case in scenarios with high degrees of military activity or a collapse of international co-operation. In such cases, climate-change impacts could increase, even as response capacity declines.

The linkages between climate policy, response capacities and development paths suggested above help us to understand the nature of the relationship between climate policy and sustainable development. There is a small but growing literature on the nature of this relationship ( Cohen et al., 1998 [JoC, SRC] ; Markandya and Halsnaes, 2000 [NPR, ARC] ; Munasinghe and Swart, 2000 [NPR] ; Schneider et al., 2000 [PoC, JoC, ARC] ; Banuri et al., 2001 [NPR, ARC] ; Robinson and Herbert, 2001 [SRC] ; Smit et al., 2001 [NPR, SRC] ; Beg et al., 2002 [JoC, SRC] ; Metz et al., 2002 [JoC, ARC] ; Najam et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ; Swart et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ; Wilbanks, 2003 [JoC, ARC] ). Much of this literature emphasises the degree to which climate-change policies can have effects, sometimes called ancillary benefits or co-benefits, that will contribute to the sustainable development goals of the jurisdiction in question ( (Van Asselt et al., 2005 ) ). This amounts to viewing sustainable development through a climate-change lens. It leads to a strong focus on integrating sustainable development goals and consequences into the climate policy framework, and on assessing the scope for such ancillary benefits. For instance, reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions can reduce the incidence of death and illness due to air pollution and benefit ecosystem integrity – both of which are elements of sustainable development ( Cifuentes et al., 2001 [JoC] ). These co-benefits, furthermore, are often more immediate rather than long term in nature and can be significant. van Harmelen et al. 2002 [ARC] ) find that to comply with agreed upon or future policies to reduce regional air pollution in Europe, mitigation costs are significant, but these are reduced by 50-70% for SO₂ and around 50% for NO_x when combined with greenhouse-gas policies.

The challenge then becomes one of ensuring that actions taken to address environmental problems do not obstruct regional and local development ( Beg et al., 2002 [JoC, SRC] ). A variety of case studies demonstrates that regional and local development can in fact be enhanced by projects that contribute to adaptation and mitigation. Urban food-growing in two UK cities, for example, has resulted in reduced crime rates, improved biodiversity and reduced transport-based emissions ( (Howe and Wheeler, 1999 ) ). As such, these cities have both enhanced resilience to future climate fluctuations and have made strides towards the mitigation of climate change. Similarly, agro-ecological initiatives in Latin America have helped to preserve the natural resource base while empowering rural communities ( (Altieri, 1999 ) ). The concept of networking and clustering used mainly in entrepreneurial development and increasingly seen as a tool for the transfer of skills, knowledge and technology represents an interesting concept for countries that lack the necessary adaptive and mitigative capacities to combat the negative impacts of climate change.

An alternative approach is based on the findings in the TAR that it will be extremely difficult and expensive to achieve stabilisation targets below 650 ppm from baseline scenarios that embody high-emissions development paths. Low-emissions baseline scenarios, however, may go a long way towards achieving low stabilisation levels even before climate policy is included in the scenario ( Morita et al., 2001 [NPR, SRC] ). This recognition leads to an approach to the links between climate policy and sustainable development – equivalent to viewing climate change through a sustainable development lens – that emphasises the need to study how best to achieve low-emissions development paths ( Metz et al., 2002 [JoC, ARC] ; Robinson et al., 2003 [NPR, SRC] ; Swart et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ).

It has further been argued that sustainable development might decrease the vulnerability of developing countries to climate-change impacts ( IPCC, 2001c [NPR] ), thereby having implications for the necessary amount of both adaptation and mitigation efforts. For instance, economic development and institution building in low-lying, highly-populated coastal regions may help to increase preparedness to sea-level rise and decrease vulnerability to weather variability ( McLean et al., 2001 [NPR, ARC] ). Similarly, investments in public health training programmes, sanitation systems and disease vector control would both enhance general health and decrease vulnerability to the future effects of climate change ( McMichael et al., 2001 [NPR, ARC] ). Framing the debate as a development problem rather than an environmental one helps to address the special vulnerability of developing nations to climate change while acknowledging that the driving forces for emissions are linked to the underlying development path ( Metz et al., 2002 [JoC, ARC] ). Of course it is important also to acknowledge that climate change policy cannot be considered a substitute for sustainable development policy even though it is determined by similar underlying socio-economic choices ( Najam et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ).

Both approaches to linking climate change to sustainable development suggest the desirability of integrating climate-policy measures with the goals and attributes of sustainable development ( Robinson and Herbert, 2001 [SRC] ; Beg et al., 2002 [JoC, SRC] ; Adger et al., 2003 [SRC] ;( van Asselt et al., 2005; ) Robinson et al., 2006 [SRC] ). This suggests an additional reason to focus on the inter-relationships between adaptation, mitigation, response capacity and development paths. If climate policy and sustainable development are to be pursued in an integrated way, then it will become important not simply to evaluate specific policy options that might accomplish both goals, but also to explore the determinants of response capacity that underlie those options and their connections to underlying socio-economic and technological development paths ( Swart et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ). Such an integrated approach might be the basis for productive partnerships with the private, public, non-governmental and research sectors ( Robinson et al., 2006 [SRC] ).

There is general agreement that sustainable development involves a comprehensive and integrated approach to economic, social and environmental processes ( Munasinghe, 1992 [NPR] ; Banuri et al., 1994 [NPR] ; Najam et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ; see also Sathaye et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). However, early work tended to emphasise the environmental and economic aspects of sustainable development, overlooking the need for analysis of social, political or cultural dimensions ( Barnett, 2001 [NPR] ;( Lehtonen, 2004; ) Robinson, 2004 [SRC] ). More recently, the importance of social, political and cultural factors (e.g., poverty, social equity and governance) has increasingly been recognised ( (Lehtonen, 2004 ) ), especially by the global environmental change policy and climate change communities (Redclift and Benton, 1994 [NotFound] ; Banuri et al., 1996 [NPR, SRC] ; Brown, 2003 [JoC] ; Tonn, 2003 [JoC] ; Ott et al., 2004 [NPR, SRC] ; Oppenheimer and Petonsk, 2005 ) to the point that social development, which also includes both political and cultural concerns, is now given equal status as one of the ‘three pillars’ of sustainable development. This is evidenced by the convening of the World Summit on Social Development in 1995 and by the fact that the Millennium Summit in 2000 highlighted poverty as fundamental in bringing balance to the overemphasis on the environmental aspects of sustainability. The environment-poverty nexus is now well recognised, and the link between sustainable development and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (United Nations, 2000 ) has been clearly articulated ( (Jahan and Umana, 2003 ) ). In order to achieve real progress in relation to the MDGs, different countries will settle for different solutions ( Dalal-Clayton, 2003 [NPR] ), and these development trajectories will have important implications for the mitigation of climate change.

In attempting to follow more sustainable development paths, many developing nations experience unique challenges, such as famine, war, social, health and governance issues ( (Koonjul, 2004 ) ). As a result, past economic gains in some regions have come at the expense of environmental stability ( (Kulindwa, 2002 ) ), highlighting the lack of exploitation of potential synergies between sustainable development and environmental policies. In the water sector, for instance, response capacity can be improved through co-ordinated management of scarce water resources, especially since reduction in water supply in most of the large rivers of the Sahel can affect vital sectors such as energy and agriculture, which are dependent on water availability for hydroelectric power generation and agricultural production, respectively ( (Ikeme, 2003 ) ). Technology, institutions, economics and socio-psychological factors, which are all elements of both response capacity and development paths, affect the ability of nations to build capacity and implement sustainable development, adaptation and mitigation measures ( (Nederveen et al., 2003 ) ).

18.7 Elements for effective implementation

This section considers the literature assessment of the previous sections with respect to its implications for policy and decision-making. It reviews the policy and institutional contexts within which adaptation and mitigation can be implemented and discusses inter-relationships in practice.

18.8 Uncertainties, unknowns and priorities for research

Many of the inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation have been described in previous assessments of climate policy, and the literature is rapidly expanding. Nevertheless, well-documented studies at the regional and sectoral level are lacking. Adaptation and mitigation studies tend to focus only on their primary domains, and few studies analyse the secondary consequences (e.g., of mitigation on impacts and adaptation options or of adaptation actions on greenhouse-gas emissions and mitigation options). Experiences with climate change adaptation are relatively recent and large-scale, and global actions, such as insurance, adaptation protocols or issues of liability and compensation, have not been tested.

Learning from the expanding case experience of inter-relationships is a priority. Reviews, syntheses and meta-analyses should become more common in the next few years. An analytical and institutional framework for monitoring the inter-relationships and organising periodic assessments needs to be developed. At present, no organisation appears to have a leading role in this area. The experiences of stakeholders in making decisions concerning both adaptation and mitigation should be compared. The experience of the research on land-use and land-cover change would be insightful (e.g., ( Geist and Lambin, 2002 ) ). Effective institutional development, use of financial instruments, participatory planning and risk-management strategies are areas for learning from the emerging experience ( Klein et al., 2005 [SRC] ).

A key research need is to document which stakeholders link adaptation and mitigation. Decisions oriented towards either adaptation or mitigation might be extended to evaluate unintended consequences, to take advantage of synergies or explicitly evaluate trade-offs. Yet, the constraints of organisational mandates and administrative capacity, finance and linking across scales and sectors (e.g., Cash and Moser, 2000 [JoC, ARC] ) may outweigh the benefits of integrated decision-making. Formulation of policies that support renewable energy in developing countries is likely to meet fiscal, market, legal, knowledge and infrastructural barriers that may limit uptake.

The effects on specific social and economic groups need to be further documented. For example, development of hydroelectricity may reduce water availability for fish farming and irrigation of home gardens, potentially adversely affecting the food security of women and children ( Andah et al., 2004 [NPR, ARC] ;( Hirsch and Wyatt, 2004 ) ). Linking carbon sequestration and community development could generate new opportunities for women and marginal socio-economic groups, but this will depend on many local factors and needs to be evaluated with empirical research.

The links between a broad climate-change response capacity, specific capacities to link adaptation and mitigation, and actual actions are poorly documented. Testing and quantification of the relationship between capacities to act and actual action is needed, taking into account sectoral planning and implementation, the degree of vulnerability, the range of technological options, policy instruments and information including experience of climate change.

Analytical frameworks for evaluating the links between adaptation and mitigation are inadequate, or in some cases competing. A suite of frameworks may be necessary for particular stakeholders and levels of decision-making. Decision frameworks relating adaptation and mitigation (separately or conjointly) need to be tested against the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders at all levels of action. Global optimising models may influence some decisions, while experience at the project level is important to others. The suitability of IAMs needs to be evaluated for exploring multiple metrics, discontinuities and probabilistic forecasts ( Mastrandrea and Schneider, 2001 [PoC, JoC, ARC] , 2004; Schneider, 2003 [NPR, PoC, ARC] ). Global cost-benefit models should include clear analyses of uncertainty in the use of valuation schemes and discounting as well as the assumptions inherent in climate impacts models (including the role of adaptation in reducing impacts). Hybrid approaches to integrated assessments across scales (top-down and bottom-up) should be further developed ( Wilbanks and Kates, 2003 [ARC] ). Representations of risks and uncertainties need to be related to decision frameworks and processes ( Dessai et al., 2004 [JoC, SRC] ; Kasperson and Kasperson, 2005 [NPR] ; Lorenzoni et al., 2005 [ARC] ). Climate risk, current and future, is only one aspect of adaptation-mitigation decision-making; the relative importance and effect of other drivers needs to be understood.

The magnitude of unintended consequences is uncertain. The few existing studies (e.g., Dang et al., 2003 [JoC] ) indicate that the repercussions from mitigation for adaptation and vice versa are mostly marginal at the global level, although they may be significant at the regional scale. The effects on demand or total emissions are likely to be a small fraction of the global baseline. However, in some domains, such as water and land markets, and in some locales, the inter-relationships might affect local economies. Quantitative evaluation of direct trade-offs is missing: the metrics and methods for valuation, existence of thresholds in local feedbacks, behavioural responses to opportunities, risks and adverse impacts, documentation of the baseline and project scenarios, and scaling up from isolated, local examples to systemic changes are part of the required knowledge base.

At a global or international level, defining a socially, economically and environmentally justifiable mix of mitigation, adaptation and development remains difficult and a research need. While IAMs are relatively well developed, they can only provide approximate estimates of quantitative inter-relationships at a highly aggregated scale. Fourteen experts in estimating the social cost of carbon rated their estimates as low confidence, due to the many gaps in the coverage of impacts and valuation studies, uncertainties in projected climate change, choices in the decision framework and the applied discount rate ( Downing et al., 2005 [Ambiguous] ). Estimates of the marginal abatement cost range from -2% to +8% of GDP, while estimates of the marginal damages avoided span three orders of magnitude (see Chapter 20 ). The marginal cost of adaptation has not been calculated, although some estimates assume a reduction in impacts due to adaptation (see Chapter 17 ). Combining the marginal abatement cost, marginal damages avoided and the marginal cost of adaptation into an optimal strategy for climate response is subject to considerable uncertainty that is unlikely to be effectively reduced in the near term (see Harvey, 2006 [JoC] ).

A systematic assessment with a formal risk framework that guides expert judgement and grounded case studies, and interprets the sample of published estimates, is required if policy-makers wish to identify the benefits of climate policy (e.g., Downing et al., 2005 [Ambiguous] ). Existing estimates of damages avoided are based on a sample of sectors exposed to climate change and a small range of climate stresses. Better understanding across a matrix of climate change and exposure is required ( Chapter 20 Fisher et al., 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Socio-economic conditions and locales that are likely to experience early and significant impacts (often called ‘hotspots’) should be a high priority for additional studies. The extent to which targets that are set globally are consistent with national or local mixes of strategies requires a concerted effort. The distributional effects would be an important factor in evaluating tolerable windows and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. The lack of high-quality studies of the benefits of mitigation, and the social cost of carbon, limits confidence in setting targets for stabilisation.

The relationship between development paths and adaptation-mitigation inter-relationships requires further research. Unintended consequences, synergies and trade-offs might be unique to some development paths; equally, they might be possible in many different paths. Existing scenarios of development paths are particularly inadequate in framing some of the major determinants of vulnerability and adaptation ( Downing et al., 2003 [JoC, SRC] ). Exogenous projections of GDP are a particular obstacle for modelling the inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Few global scenarios address local food security in realistic ways ( Downing and Ziervogel, 2005 [NPR, SRC] , but see related discussion of Millennium Development Goals in Chapters 9 and 20 ). Scenarios of abrupt climate change, streams of extreme events, and realistic social, economic and political responses would add insight into adaptive management (the ‘act, then learn, then act again’ approach). Few reference scenarios explicitly frame issues related to inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation (e.g., from the extent to which a global decision-maker makes optimising judgements to the institutional setting for local projects to exploit synergies). While the direct energy input in large infrastructure projects may be small, including a shadow price for climate change externalities may shift adaptation portfolios. An assessment of actual shifts in energy demand and ways to reduce emissions is desirable. Most integrated assessments are at the large scale of regions to world views, although local dialogues are beginning to explore synergies ( Munasinghe and Swart, 2005 [NPR] ).

The feasibility and outcome of many of the inter-relationships depend on local conditions and management options. A systematic assessment and guidance for mitigating potentially adverse effects would be helpful. The nature of links between public policy and private action at different scales, and prospects for mainstreaming integrated policy, are worth evaluating. Many of the consequences depend on environmental processes that may not be well understood; for example, the resilience of systems to increased interannual climate variability and long-term carbon sequestration in agro-forestry systems.

References

Adger, W.N. and K. Vincent, 2005: Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. C. R. Geosci., 337, 399-410. [ARC]

Adger, W.N., T.A. Benjaminsen, K. Brown and H. Svarstad, 2001: Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Dev. Change, 32, 687-715. Clean

Adger, W.N., S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway and M. Hulme, 2003: Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Prog. Dev. Stud., 3, 179-195. [SRC]

Adger, W.N., N. Brooks, M. Kelly, S. Bentham and S. Eriksen, 2004: New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, Norwich, 126 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter and J. Rockström, 2005: Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309, 1036-1039. [JoC, ARC]

Adger, W.N., J. Paavola, S. Huq and M.J. Mace, Eds., 2006: Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 335 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Agrawal, A., 2001: Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev., 29, 1649-1672. Clean

Altieri, M.A., 1999: Applying agroecology to enhance the productivity of peasant farming systems in Latin America. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1, 197-217. Clean

Andah, W., N. van de Giesen, A. Huber-Lee and C. Biney, 2004: Can we maintain food security without losing hydropower? The Volta Basin. Climate Change in Contrasting River Basins: Adaptation Strategies for Water, Food and Environment, J. Cayford, Ed., CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 181-194. [NPR, ARC]

Andersen, B., 1998: The evolution of technological trajectories 1890-1990. Struct. Change Econ. Dynam., 9, 5-34. Clean

Ansuategi, A. and M. Escapa, 2002: Economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol. Econ., 40, 23-37. Clean

Arnell, N., M.G.R. Cannell, M. Hulme, R.S. Kovats, J.F.B. Mitchell, R. Nicholls, M. Parry, M. Livermore and A. White, 2002: The consequences of CO₂ stabilization for the impacts of climate change. Climatic Change, 53, 413-446. [JoC, ARC]

Arthur, W.B., 1989: Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J., 99, 116-131. Clean

Ayub, M.S. and W.M. Butt, 2005: Nuclear desalination: harnessing the seas for development of coastal areas of Pakistan. Int. J. Nucl. Desalination, 1, 477-485. Clean

Azar, C., 1998: Are optimal CO₂ emissions really optimal? Four critical issues for economists in the greenhouse. Environ. Resour. Econ., 11, 301-315. Clean

Azar, C. and H. Dowlatabadi, 1999: A review of technical change in assessment of climate policy. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env., 24, 513-545. Clean

Bakkenes, M., B. Eickhout and R. Alkemade, 2006: Impacts of different climate stabilization scenarios on plant species in Europe. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 19-28. [JoC]

Banuri, T., G. Hyden, C. Juma and M. Rivera, 1994: Sustainable Human Development: From Concept to Operation. A Guide for the Practitioner. United Nations Development Programme, New York. [NPR]

Banuri, T., K. Goran-Maler, M. Grubb, H.K. Jacobson and F. Yamin, 1996: Equity and social considerations. Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 79-124. [NPR, SRC]

Banuri, T., J. Weyant, G. Akumu, A. Najam, L. Pinguelli Rosa, S. Rayner, W. Sachs, R. Sharma and G. Yohe, 2001: Setting the stage: climate change and sustainable development. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 73-114. [NPR, ARC]

Barker, T., J. Koehler and M. Villena, 2002: The costs of greenhouse gas abatement: a meta-analysis of post- SRES mitigation scenarios. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud., 5, 135-166. Clean

Barker, T., and Co-authors, 2007: Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press. [NPR, SRC, 2007]

Barnett, J., 2001: The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era. Zed Books, London, 192 pp. [NPR]

Baron, J. and M. Spranca, 1997: Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec., 70, 1-16. Clean

Beg, N., J. Corfee Morlot, O. Davidson, Y. Arfrane-Okesse, L. Tyani, F. Denton, Y. Sokona, J.P. Thomas, E.L. Rovere, J. Parikh, K. Parikh and A. Rahman, 2002: Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Clim. Policy, 2, 129-144. [JoC, SRC]

Bell, M.L., B.F. Hobbs and H. Ellis, 2003: The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci., 37, 289-316. Clean

Berkhout, F., 2002: Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 1-4. [JoC, ARC]

Berrittella, M., A. Bigano, R. Roson and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: A general equilibrium analysis of climate change impacts on tourism. Tourism Manage., 27, 913-924. [ARC]

Boehm, M., B. Junkins, R. Desjardins, S. Kulshreshtha and W. Lindwall, 2004: Sink potential of Canadian agricultural soils. Climatic Change, 65, 297-314. [JoC]

Borges, P. C. and A. Villavicencio, 2004: Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emissions abatement studies with MCDA: the Peruvian case. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 152, 641-654. Clean

Bosello, F., R. Roson and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: human health. Ecol. Econ., 58, 579-591. [MoS, ARC]

Boutkan, E. and A. Stikker, 2004: Enhanced water resource base for sustainable integrated water resource management. Nat. Resour. Forum, 28, 150-154. Clean

Brooks, N., W.N. Adger and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 151-163. [JoC, ARC]

Brown, P., 1998: Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests. Issues and Opportunities Emerging from the Kyoto Protocol. World Resources Institute, Washington, District of Columbia. [NPR]

Brown, D.A., 2003: The importance of expressly examining global warming policy issues through an ethical prism. Global Environ. Chang., 13, 229-234. [JoC]

Bulkeley, H., 2001: Governing climate change: the politics of risk society? T. I. Brit. Geogr., 26, 430-447. Clean

Burton, I. and M. van Aalst, 1999: Come Hell or High Water: Integrating Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation into Bank Work. World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 60 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Butt, T.A. and B.A. McCarl, 2004: Farm and forest sequestration: can producers employ it to make some money? Choices, Fall 2004, 27-33. Clean

CAG Consultants and Oxford Brookes University, 2004: Planning Response to Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, 108 pp. [NPR]

Caparros, A. and F. Jacquemont, 2003: Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programmes: economic and legal implications. Ecol. Econ., 46, 143-157. Clean

Carbon International, undated: The Gold Standard: Premium Quality Carbon Credits. [NPR]

Cash, D.W. and S. Moser, 2000: Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ. Chang., 10, 109-120. [JoC, ARC]

CBD, 2003: Climate Change and Biodiversity: Executive Summary of the Report on the Interlinkages Between Biological Biodiversity and Climate Change. CBD Technical Series No. 10. Convention on Biological Diversity. [NPR]

Christensen, J.H. and Co-authors, 2007: Regional climate projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 847-940. [NPR, ARC, 2007]

Christensen, N.S., A.W. Wood, N. Voisin, D.P. Lettenmaier and R.N. Palmer, 2004: The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change, 54, 269-293. [JoC]

Cifuentes, A.L., V.H. Borja-Aburto, N. Gouveia, G. Thurston and D.L. Davis, 2001: Hidden health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Science, 293, 1257-1259. [JoC]

Clark, W.C., J. Jaeger, J. van Eijndhoven and N. Dickson, 2001: Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks: A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid Rain. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 361 pp. [NPR]

Clark, W.C., P.J. Crutzen and H.-J. Schellnhuber, 2004: Science for global sustainability: toward a new paradigm. Earth System Analysis for Sustainability, H.-J. Schellnhuber, P.J. Crutzen, W.C. Clark, M. Claussen and H. Held, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1-28. [NPR]

Clarkson, R. and K. Deyes, 2002: Estimating the social cost of carbon emissions. Government Economic Service Working Paper 140. HM Treasury and Defra, London. [NPR, MoS]

Cohen, S., D. Demeritt, J. Robinson and D. Rothman, 1998: Climate change and sustainable development: towards dialogue. Global Environ. Chang., 8, 341-373. [JoC, SRC]

Cohen, S., K. Miller, K. Duncan, E. Gregorich, P. Groffman, P. Kovacs, V. Magaña, D. McKnight, E. Mills and D. Schimel. 2001: North America. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 735-800. [NPR, ARC]

Corfee-Morlot, J. and S. Agrawala, 2004: The Benefits of Climate Change Policies: Analytical and Framework Issues. OECD, Paris, 323 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Dalal-Clayton, B., 2003: The MDGs and Sustainable Development: The Need for a Strategic Approach. IIED, London, 73-91. [NPR]

Dang, H.H., A. Michaelowa and D.D. Tuan, 2003: Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Clim. Policy, 3, S81-S96. [JoC]

Den Elzen, M., P. Lucas and D. van Vuuren, 2005: Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes. Energ. Policy, 33, 2138-2151. [ARC]

Denton, F., Y. Sokona and J.P. Thomas, 2002: Climate Change and Sustainable Development Strategies in the Making: What Should West African Countries Expect? OECD, Paris, 27 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Dessai, S., W.N. Adger, M. Hulme, J. Turnpenny, J. Kohler and R. Warren, 2004: Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change. Climatic Change, 64, 11-25. [JoC, SRC]

DETR, 2000: Climate Change Programme. DETR, London, 3 pp. [NPR]

Döll, P., 2002: Impact of climate change and variability on irrigation requirement: a global perspective. Climatic Change, 54, 269-293. [JoC, ARC]

Dowie, J., 1999: Against risk. Risk Decision Policy, 4, 57-73. Clean

Downing, T.E., M. Munasinghe and J. Depledge, 2003: Introduction to special supplement on climate change and sustainable development. Clim. Policy, 3, 3-8. [JoC, SRC]

Downing, T.E. and G. Ziervogel, 2005: Food system scenarios: exploring global/local linkages. Working Paper, SEI Poverty and Vulnerability Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 35 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Downing, T.E., D. Anthoff, R. Butterfield, M. Ceronsky, M. Grubb, J. Guo, C. Hepburn, C. Hope, A. Hunt, A. Li, A. Markandya, S. Moss, A. Nyong, R.S.J. Tol and P. Watkiss, 2005: Scoping uncertainty in the social cost of carbon. Final Project Report, Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty (SCCU). Defra/SEI, Oxford. [NPR, SRC]

Dumanski, J., 2004: Carbon sequestration, soil conservation, and the Kyoto Protocol: summary of implications. Climatic Change, 65, 255-261. [JoC]

Dupuy, D., 1997: Technological change and environmental policy: the diffusion of environmental technology. Growth Change, 28, 49-66. Clean

Edenhofer, O., K. Lessmann and N. Bauer, 2006: Mitigation strategies and costs of climate protection: the effects of ETC in the hybrid model MIND. Energy Journal Special Issue: Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization, 207-222. [NPR]

Edmonds, J., J. Clarke, J. Dooley, S.H. Kim, S.J. Smith, 2004: Stabilization of CO₂ in a B2 world: insights on The Roles of Carbon Capture and Disposal, Hydrogen, and Transportation Technologies. Energy Economics, 26, 517-537. Clean

EEA, 2005: Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. EEA Technical Report No. 7/2005. EEA, Copenhagen. [NPR]

Eriksen, S. and L.O. Næss, 2003: Pro-Poor Climate Adaptation: Norwegian Development Cooperation and Climate Change Adaptation – An Assessment of Issues, Strategies and Potential Entry Points. Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, University of Oslo, Oslo. [NPR]

Evans, D. and H. Sezer, 2004: Social discount rates for six major countries. Appl. Econ. Lett., 11, 557-560. Clean

Fankhauser, S. and R.S.J. Tol, 2005: On climate change and economic growth. Resour. Energy Econ., 27, 1-17. [ARC]

Fisher, B.S., G. Jakeman, H.M. Pant, M. Schwoon and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: CHIMP: a simple population model for use in integrated assessment of global environmental change. Integr. Assess. J., 6, 1-33. [JoC, MoS, ARC]

Fisher, B.S. and Co-authors, 2007: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

Foray, D. and A. Grubler, 1996: Technology and the environment. Technol. Forecast. Soc., 53, 3-13. Clean

GAIM Task Force, 2002: GAIM’s Hilbertian questions. Research GAIM: Newsletter of the Global Analysis, Integration and Modelling Task Force, 5, 1-16. [NPR, MoS]

Geels, F.W., 2004: From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy, 33, 897-920. Clean

Geels, F.W., 2005: Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc., 72, 681-696. Clean

Geels, F.W. and W.A. Smit, 2000: Failed technology futures: pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32, 867-885. [MoS]

Geist, H.J. and E.F. Lambin, 2002: Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience, 52, 143-150. Clean

Gitay H. and Co-authors, 2001: Ecosystems and their goods and services. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 235-342. [NPR]

Goklany, I.M., 2000a: Potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration compared to other environmental problems. Technology, 7S, 189-213. Clean

Goklany, I.M., 2000b: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming. Weidenbaum Center Working Paper, PS 158. Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. [NPR]

Goklany, I.M., 2003: Relative contributions of global warming to various climate sensitive risks, and their implications for adaptation and mitigation. Energ. Environ., 14, 797-822. Clean

Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilization or adaptation? Energ. Environ., 16, 667-680. Clean

Goklany, I.M., 2007: Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 755-786. [2007]

Gough, C. and S. Shackley, 2001: The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic communities and NGOs. Int. Aff., 77, 329-346. Clean

Greco, S., R.H. Moss, D. Viner and R. Jenne, 1994: Climate Scenarios and Socio-Economic Projections for IPCC WGII Assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Washington, District of Columbia, 67 pp. [NPR, MoS, ARC]

Gregory, J.M., K.W. Dixon, R.J. Stouffer, A.J. Weaver, E. Driesschaert, M. Eby, T. Fichefet, H. Hasumi, A. Hu, J.H. Jungclaus, I.V. Kamenkovich, A. Levermann, M. Montoya, S. Murakami, S. Nawrath, A. Oka, A.P. Sokolov and R.B. Thorpe, 2005: A model intercomparison of changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L12703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023209. [JoC, MoS]

Grothmann, T. and A. Patt, 2005: Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 199-213. [JoC, ARC]

Grubb, M., 2003: The economics of the Kyoto Protocol. World Econ., 4, 143-189. [SRC]

Grubb, M., J. Kohler and D. Anderson, 2002: Induced technological change in energy and environmental modelling: analytic approaches and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Energy Env., 21, 271-308. [MoS, SRC]

Grubler, A., 2000: Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 462 pp. [NPR]

Guo, J., C. Hepburn, R.S.J. Tol and D. Anthoff, 2006: Discounting and the social cost of carbon: a closer look at uncertainty. Environ. Sci. Policy, 9, 205-216. [ARC]

Haddad, B., 2005: Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when socio-political goals are explicit. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 165-176. [JoC]

Halsnaes, K. and Co-authors, 2007: Framing issues. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P.Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

Handmer, J.W., S. Doers and T.E. Downing, 1999: Societal vulnerability to climate change and variability. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, 267-281. [SRC]

Hare, B., 2006: Relationship between increases in global mean temperature and impacts on ecosystems, food production, water and socio-economic systems. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.-J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Naki?enovi?, T. Wigley and G. Yohe, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 177-185. [NPR]

Harvey, L.D.D., 2006: Uncertainties in global warming science and near-term emission policies. Clim. Policy, 6, 573-584. [JoC]

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan and C.B. Field, 2004: Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 12422-12427. [PoC, JoC, ARC]

Hirsch, P. and A. Wyatt, 2004: Negotiating local livelihoods: scales of conflict in the Se San River Basin. Asia Pac. Viewpoint, 45, 51-68. Clean

Hitz, S. and J. Smith, 2004: Estimating global impacts from climate change. Global Environ. Chang. 14, 201-218. [JoC, MoS, ARC]

Holdridge, L.R., 1947: Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science, 105, 367 – 368. [JoC]

Holdridge, L. R., 1967: Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Centre, San Jose, Costa Rica. [NPR]

Howe, J. and P. Wheeler, 1999: Urban food growing: the experience of two UK cities. Sustain. Dev., 7, 13-24. Clean

Huq, S. and H. Reid, 2004: Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bull., 35, 15-21. [SRC]

Huq, S., A. Rahman, M. Konate, Y. Sokona and H. Reid, 2003: Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). IIED, London, 40 pp. [NPR, SRC]

ICLEI, 2006: Climates for City Protection (CCP) Campaign, http://www.iclei.org/. [NPR]

IEA (International Energy Agency), 2005: Electricity Information 2005. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 783 pp. [NPR]

Ikeme, J., 2003: Climate change adaptation deficiencies in developing countries: the case of sub-Saharan Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8, 29-52. Clean

IPCC, 1992: Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K. Varney, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 200 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2001a: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.T. Watson and the Core Team, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 398 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2001b: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 760 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2001c: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press., Cambridge, 1032 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2002: Climate Change and Biodiversity, H. Gitay, A. Suárez, R.T. Watson and D.J. Dokken, Eds., IPCC, Geneva, 85 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

IRM, AIRMIC and ALARM, 2002: A Risk Management Standard. AIRMIC, IRM, ALARM, London, 17 pp. [NPR]

Jaffe, A.B. and R.N. Stavins, 1994: The energy-efficiency gap: what does it mean? Energ. Policy, 22, 804-810. Clean

Jaffe, A.B., R.G. Newell and R.N. Stavins, 2005: A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ., 54, 164. Clean

Jahan, S. and A. Umana, 2003: The environment–poverty nexus. Dev. Policy J., 3, 53-70. Clean

Kane, S. and J.F. Shogren, 2000: Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Climatic Change, 45, 75-102. [JoC]

Kasperson, J.X. and R.E. Kasperson, 2005: The Social Contours of Risk. Earthscan, London, 578 pp. [NPR]

Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa, 1976: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 600 pp. [NPR]

Keller, K., G. Yohe and M. Schlesinger, 2007: Managing the risks of climate thresholds: uncertainties and information needs. Climatic Change, doi:10. 1007/s10584-006-9114-6. http://www.geosc.psu.edu/?~kkeller/?Keller?_cc_07.pdf. [JoC, ARC, 2007]

Klein, R.J.T., 2001: Adaptation to Climate Change in German Official Development Assistance: An Inventory of Activities and Opportunities, With a Special Focus on Africa. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn, 44 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Klein, R.J.T., 2002: Climate change, adaptive capacity and sustainable development. Paper presented at an Expert Meeting on Adaptation to Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 13–14 March 2002, 8 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Klein, R.J.T., E.L. Schipper and S. Dessai, 2005: Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 579-588. [SRC]

Köhler, J., M. Grubb, D. Popp and O. Edenhofer, 2006: The transition to endogenous technical change in climate-economy models. Energy Journal Special Issue: Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization, 17-55. [NPR, SRC]

Koonjul, J., 2004: The special case of Small Island States for sustainable development. Nat. Resour. Forum, 28, 155-156. Clean

Kulindwa, K., 2002: Economic reforms and the prospect for sustainable development in Tanzania. Dev. S. Afr., 19, 389-404. Clean

Lal, R., 2004: Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304, 1623-1627. [JoC]

Lehtonen, M., 2004: The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol. Econ., 49, 199-214. Clean

Lempert, R. and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Robust strategies for abating climate change. Climatic Change, 45, 387- 401. [JoC]

Lempert, R.J., S.W. Popper and S.C. Bankes, 2004: Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-term Policy Analysis. Rand, Santa Monica, California, 170 pp. [NPR]

Levine, M. and Co-authors, 2007: Residential and commercial buildings. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

Link, P.M. and Tol, R.S.J., 2004: Possible economic impacts of a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation: an application of FUND. Port. Econ. J., 3, 99-114. [ARC]

Lorenzoni, I., N.F. Pidgeon and R.E. O’Connor, 2005: Dangerous climate change: the role for risk research. Risk Anal., 25, 1387-1398. [ARC]

Manne, A.S. and R.G. Richels, 1992: Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Costs of CO₂ Emission Limits. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 194 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Markandya, A. and K. Halsnaes, 2000: Climate Change and its Linkages with Development, Equity and Sustainability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. [NPR, ARC]

Markandya, A. and K. Halsnæs, 2002: Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Prospects for Developing Countries. Earthscan, London, 291 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Martens, P. and J. Rotmans, Eds., 2002: Transitions in a Globalising World. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, 135 pp. [NPR]

Mastrandrea, M.D. and S.H. Schneider, 2001: Integrated assessment of abrupt climate change. Clim. Policy, 1, 433-449. [PoC, JoC, ARC]

Mastrandrea, M.D. and S.H. Schneider, 2004: Probabilistic integrated assessment of “dangerous” climate change. Science, 304, 571-575. [PoC, JoC, ARC]

McCarl, B.A. and U.A. Schneider, 2000: Agriculture’s role in a greenhouse gas emission mitigation world: an economic perspective. Rev. Agr. Econ., 22, 134-159. Clean

McDonald, S., S. Robinson and K. Thierfelder, 2006: Impact of switching production to bioenergy crops: the switchgrass example. Energ. Econ., 28, 243-265. Clean

McLean, R.F., A. Tsyban, V. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, D.L. Forbes, N. Mimura, R.J. Beamish, V. Ittekkot, L. Bijlsma and I. Sanchez-Arevalo, 2001: Coastal zones and marine ecosystems. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 343-379. [NPR, ARC]

McMichael, A., A. Githeko, R. Akhtar, R. Carcavallo, D. Gubler, A. Haines, R. Kovats, P. Martens, J. Patz and A. Sasaki, 2001: Human health. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 453-478. [NPR, ARC]

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 160 pp. [NPR]

Meehl G. and Co-authors, 2007: Global climate projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 747-846. [NPR, 2007]

Metz, B., M. Berk, M. den Elzen, B. de Vries and D. van Vuuren, 2002: Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development. Clim. Policy, 2, 211-230. [JoC, ARC]

Michaelowa, A., 2001: Mitigation versus adaptation: the political economy of competition between climate policy strategies and the consequences for developing countries. HWWA Discussion Paper No. 153, University of Hamburg, Hamburg. [NPR]

Michaelowa, A. and K. Michaelowa, 2005: Climate or development: is ODA diverted from its original purpose? HWWI Research Paper 2, Hamburg, 32 pp. [NPR]

Michaelowa, A., K. Tangen and H. Hasselknippe, 2005: Issues and options for the post-2012 climate architecture: an overview. Int. Environ. Agreements, 5, 5-24. Clean

Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment Malta, 2004: The First Communication of Malta to the UNFCCC. [NPR]

Misra, B.M., 2003: Advances in nuclear desalination. Int. J. Nucl. Desalination, 1, 19-29. Clean

Moomaw, W.R., J.R. Moreira, K. Blok, D.L. Greene, K. Gregory, T. Jaszay, T. Kashiwagi, M. Levine, M. McFarland, N. Siva Prasad, L. Price, H.-H. Rogner, R. Sims, F. Zhou and P. Zhou, 2001: Technological and economic potential of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 167-299. [NPR]

Morita, T., J. Robinson, J. Adegulugbe, J. Alcamo, D. Herbert, E. La Rovere, N. Naki?enovi?, H. Pitcher, P. Raskin, K. Riahi, A. Sankovski, V. Sokolov, B. de Vries and D. Zhou, 2001: Greenhouse gas emission mitigation scenarios and implications. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 115-166. [NPR, SRC]

Moser, S.C., 2005: Impacts assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise in three U.S. states: an exploration of human dimension uncertainties. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 353-369. [JoC, ARC]

Moss, R., A. Brenkert and E. Malone, 2001: Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Quantitative Approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL-SA-33642). [NPR, ARC]

Munasinghe, M., 1992: Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. World Bank., Washington District of Columbia, 111 pp. [NPR]

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart, Eds., 2000: Climate Change and its Linkages with Development, Equity and Sustainability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. [NPR]

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart, 2005: Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 458 pp. [NPR]

Nagai, H. and C. Hepburn, 2005: How cost-effective are carbon emission reductions under the Prototype Carbon Fund? MSc Environmental Change and Management, Oxford University, Oxford, 132 pp. [NPR]

Najam, A., A. Rahman, S. Huq and Y. Sokona, 2003: Integrating sustainable development into the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Clim. Policy, 3, S9-S17. [JoC, SRC]

Naki?enovi?, N. and R. Swart, Eds., 2000: IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 599 pp. [NPR]

Nederveen, A., J. Konings and J. Stoop, 2003: Globalization, international transport and the global environment: technological innovation, policy making and the reduction of transport emissions. Transport. Plan. Technol., 26, 41-67. Clean

Newell, R.G. and W.A. Pizer, 2000: Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 99-10-REV. Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia. [NPR, MoS]

Nicholls, R.J. and J.A. Lowe, 2004: Benefits of mitigation of climate change for coastal areas. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 229-244. [JoC, ARC]

Nicholls R.J. and J.A. Lowe, 2006: Climate stabilisation and impacts of sea-level rise. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.-J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Naki?enovi?, T. Wigley and G. Yohe, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 195-202. [NPR]

Nicholls, R.J. and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: a global analysis of the SRES scenarios over the twenty-first century. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 364, 1073-1095. [JoC, ARC]

Nicholls, R.J., R.S.J. Tol and A.T. Vafeidis, 2005: Global Estimates of the Impact of a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: An Application of FUND. Working Paper FNU-78, Research Unit on Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, Hamburg. [NPR, MoS, ARC]

Nicholls R.J., R.S.J. Tol and J.W. Hall, 2007: Assessing impacts and responses to global-mean sea-level rise. Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment, M. Schlesinger, J. Reilly, H. Kheshgi, J. Smith, F. de la Chesnaye, J.M. Reilly, T. Wilson and C. Kolstad, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [NPR, ARC, 2007]

Nordhaus, W.D., 2001: Global warming economics. Science, 294, 1283-1284. [JoC]

ODPM, 2004: The Planning Response to Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. [NPR]

ODPM, 2005: Planning Policy Statement I: Delivering Sustainable Development. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. [NPR]

OECD, 2005: Bridge over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, S. Agrawala, Ed., OECD Publications, Paris, 153 pp. [NPR]

OECD, 2006: Declaration on Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation Adopted by Development and Environment Ministers of OECD Member Countries. OECD Publications, Paris. [NPR]

Olsen, J.P. and J.G. March, 1989: Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press, New York. [NPR]

Oppenheimer, M. and A. Petsonk, 2005: Article 2 of the UNFCCC: historical origins, recent interpretations. Climatic Change, 73, 195-226. [JoC, ARC]

Ott, H.E., H. Winkler, B. Brouns, S. Kartha, M. Mace, S. Huq, Y. Kameyama, A.P. Sari, J. Pan, Y. Sokona, P.M. Bhandari, A. Kassenberg, E.L. La Rovere and A.A. Rahman, 2004: South-North Dialogue on Equity in the Greenhouse: A Proposal for an Adequate and Equitable Global Climate Agreement. GTZ, Eschborn. [NPR, SRC]

Pal, R.C. and Sharma, A., 2001: Afforestation for reclaiming degraded village common land: a case study. Biomass Bioenerg., 21, 35-42. [ARC]

Parry, M., N. Arnell, M. Hulme, R. Nicholls and M. Livermore, 1998: Adapting to the inevitable. Nature, 395, 741. [JoC, ARC]

Parry, M.L., C.A. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, M. Livermore and G. Fisher, 2004: Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socioeconomic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 53-67. [NPR, JoC, ARC]

Payne, J.T., A.W. Wood, A.F. Hamlet, R.N. Palmer and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004: Mitigating the effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. Climatic Change, 62, 233-256. [JoC, ARC]

Pelling, M., 2003: The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disaster and Social Resilience. Earthscan, London, 212 pp. [NPR]

Peters, M., R. House, J. Lewandrowski and H. McDowell, 2001: Economic impacts of carbon charges on U.S. agriculture. Climatic Change, 40, 445-473. [JoC]

Pew Center, 2002: Climate change mitigation in developing countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey. Pew Center Global Warming Research Reports, October 24, 2002. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia. [NPR]

Pidgeon, N., R.E. Kasperson and P. Slovic, Eds., 2003: The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 464 pp. [NPR]

Pierson, P., 2004: Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 208 pp. [NPR]

Rahmstorf, S., 2000: The thermohaline ocean circulation: a system with dangerous thresholds? Climatic Change, 46, 247-256. [PoC, JoC]

Raiffa, H., 1968: Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 310 pp. [NPR]

Raskin, P., G. Gallopin, P. Gutman, A. Hammond and R. Swart, 2002a: Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability. A Report of the Global Scenario Group. SEI PoleStar Series Report No. 8. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 144 pp. [NPR]

Raskin, P., T. Banuri, G. Gallopin, P. Gutman, A. Hammond, R. Kates and R. Swart. 2002b: Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. A Report of the Global Scenario Group. SEI PoleStar Series Report No. 10. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. [NPR, ARC]

Rayner, S. and E.L. Malone, Eds., 2001: Climate change, poverty, and intragenerational equity: the national level. Int. J. Global Environ. Iss., 1, 175-202. [NPR]

Redclift, M. and T. Benton, Eds., 1994: Social Theory and the Global Environment. Routledge, London and New York, 280 pp. [NPR]

Richels, R.G., A.S. Manne and T.M.L. Wigley, 2004: Moving beyond concentrations: the challenge of limiting temperatures change. AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper 04-11, April 2004. [NPR, PoC, SRC]

Rip, A. and R. Kemp, 1998: Technological change. Human Choice and Climate Change: Volume 2: Resources and Technology, E.L. Malone and S. Rayner, Eds., Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. [NPR]

Robinson, J., 2004: Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ., 48, 369-384. [SRC]

Robinson, J. and D. Herbert, 2001: Integrating climate change and sustainable development. Int. J. Global Environ. Iss., 1, 130-149. [SRC]

Robinson, J., M. Bradley, P. Busby, D. Connor, A. Murray and B. Sampson, 2003: Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Realizing the Opportunity at the World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, 30 September–4 October. [NPR, SRC]

Robinson, J., M. Bradley, P. Busby, D. Connor, A. Murray, B. Sampson and W. Soper, 2006: Climate change and sustainable development: realizing the opportunity. Ambio, 35, 2-8. [SRC]

Rogers, E.M., 2003: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, 384 pp. [NPR]

Rogner, H.-H., D. Zhou and Co-authors, 2007: Introduction. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

Rosenberg, N.J. and M.J. Scott, 1995: Implications of policies to prevent climate change for future food security. Climate Change and World Food Security: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop “Climate Change and World Food Security”, Oxford, 11-15 July 1993, T.E. Downing, Ed., Springer, Berlin, 551-589. [NPR, ARC]

Ruth, M., 2005: Future socioeconomic and political challenges of global climate change. From Resource Scarcity to Ecological Security: Exploring New Limits to Growth, D.C. Pirages and K. Cousins, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 145-164. [NPR]

Ruth, M. and A.-C. Lin, 2006: Regional energy demand and adaptations to climate change: methodology and application to the state of Maryland, USA. Energ. Policy, 34, 2820-2833. Clean

Sarkar, J., 1998: Technological diffusion: alternative theories and historical evidence. J. Econ. Surv., 12, 131-176. Clean

Sathaye, J. and Co-authors, 2007: Sustainable development and mitigation. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

Sawin, J. and C. Flavin, 2004: Policy Lessons for the Advancement and Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies around the World. Thematic background paper prepared for The Energy Research Institute, New Delhi, India. Presented at the International Conference for Renewable Energies, Bonn, Germany. [NPR]

Schelling, T.C., 1995: Intergenerational discounting. Energ. Policy, 23, 395-401. Clean

Schipper, E.L.F., 2006: Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 15, 82-92. [NPR]

Schneider, S.H., 1997: Integrated assessment modelling of global climate change: transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environ. Model. Assess., 2, 229-249. [PoC, JoC, MoS, ARC]

Schneider, S.H., 2003: Abrupt Non-linear Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Surprise. OECD, Paris, 32 pp. [NPR, PoC, ARC]

Schneider, S.H. and R.S. Chen, 1980: Carbon dioxide flooding: physical factors and climatic impact. Annu. Rev. Energy, 5, 107-140. [PoC, JoC, ARC]

Schneider, S.H., W. Easterling and L. Mearns, 2000: Adaptation: sensitivity to natural variability, agent assumptions and dynamic climate changes. Climatic Change, 45, 203-221. [PoC, JoC, ARC]

Seck, M., N.A. Mamouda and S. Wade, 2005: Senegal adaptation and mitigation through produced environments: the case for agricultural intensification in Senegal. Vulnerability, Adaptation and Climate Disasters: A Conceptual Overview, F. Yamin, A. Rahman and S. Huq, Eds., IDS Bull., 36, 71-86. [NPR]

Smil, V., 2000: Energy in the 20th century: resources, conversions, costs, uses and consequences. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env., 25, 21-51. Clean

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein and G. Yohe, 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 879-906. [NPR, SRC]

Smith, J. and D. Tirpak, Eds., 1989: The Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on the United States. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, District of Columbia. [NPR, ARC]

Smith, J.B., H.-J. Schellnhuber, M. Mirza, S. Fankhauser, R. Leemans, Lin Erda, L. Ogallo, B. Pittock, R. Richels, C. Rosenzweig, U. Safriel, R.S.J. Tol, J. Weyant and G. Yohe, 2001: Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: a synthesis. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 914-967. [NPR, SRC]

Smith, J.B., R.J.T. Klein and S. Huq, Eds., 2003: Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development. Imperial College Press, London, 347 pp. [NPR]

Southampton City Council, 2004: Climate Change, Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan. [NPR]

Sperling, F., Ed., 2003: Poverty and Climate Change: Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation. AfDB, ADB, DFID, EC DG Development, BMZ, DGIS, OECD, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 43 pp. [NPR]

Stainforth, D.A., T. Aina, C. Christensen, M. Collins, N. Faull, D.J. Frame, J.A. Kettleborough, S. Knight, A. Martin, J.M. Murphy, C. Piani, D. Sexton, L.A. Smith, R.A. Spicer, A.J. Thorpe and M.R. Allen, 2005: Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature, 433, 403-405. [JoC, MoS]

Stern, N., 2007: The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 692 pp. [NPR, 2007]

Stern, P.C. and T. Dietz, 1994: The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues, 50, 65-84. Clean

Swart, R., J. Robinson and S. Cohen, 2003: Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Clim. Policy, 3, S19-S40. [JoC, SRC]

Taylor, A., B. Hassan, J.A. Downing and T.E. Downing, 2006: Toward a typology of adaptation–mitigation inter-relationships. Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford. http://www.vulnerabilitynet.org/. [NPR, SRC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2001: Equitable cost–benefit analysis of climate change. Ecol. Econ., 36, 71-85. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2002: Welfare specifications and optimal control of climate change: an application of fund. Energ. Econ., 24, 367-376. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2003: Is the uncertainty about climate change too large for expected cost-benefit analysis? Climatic Change, 56, 265-289. [JoC, ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2005a: Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 572-578. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2005b: The marginal damage cost of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energ. Policy, 33, 2064-2074. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2005c: Emission abatement versus development as strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate change: an application of FUND. Environ. Dev. Econ., 10, 615-629. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2007: The double trade-off between adaptation and mitigation for sea-level rise: an application of FUND. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 741-753. [ARC, 2007]

Tol, R.S.J. and H. Dowlatabadi, 2001: Vector-borne diseases, climate change, and economic growth. Integr. Assess., 2, 173-181. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J. and G. Yohe, 2006: Of dangerous climate change and dangerous emission reduction. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.-J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Naki?enovi?, T. Wigley and G. Yohe, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 291-298. [NPR, ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., M. Bohn, T.E. Downing, M.-L. Guillerminet, E. Hizsnyik, R. Kasperson, K. Lonsdale, C. Mays, R.J. Nicholls, A.A. Olsthoorn, G. Pfeifle, M. Poumadère, F.L. Toth, A.T. Vafeidis, P.E. van der Werff and I.H. Yetkiner, 2006: Adaptation to five metres of sea level rise. J. Risk Res., 9, 467-482. [SRC]

Tompkins, E. and W.N. Adger, 2005: Defining a response capacity for climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 562-571. [ARC]

Tonn, B., 2003: An equity first, risk-based framework for managing global climate change. Global Environ. Chang., 13, 295-306. [JoC]

Toth, F.L., 2003: State of the art and future challenges for integrated environmental assessment. Integr. Assess., 4, 250-264. [MoS, SRC]

Toth, F.L., M. Mwandosya, C. Carraro, J. Christensen, J. Edmonds, B. Flannery, G. Gay-Garcia, H. Lee, K.M. Meyer-Abich, E. Nikitina, A. Rahman, R. Richels, R. Ye, , A. Villavicencio, Y. Wake and J. Weyant, 2001: Decision-making frameworks. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 601-688. [NPR, SRC]

Toth, F.L., T. Bruckner, H.-M. Füssel, M. Leimbach, G. Petschel-Held and H.-J. Schellnhuber, 2002: Exploring options for global climate policy in an inverse integrated assessment framework. Environment, 44, 23-34. [SRC]

Toth, F.L., T. Bruckner, H.-M. Füssel, M. Leimbach and G. Petschel-Held, 2003a: Integrated assessment of long-term climate policies. Part 1. Model presentation. Climatic Change, 56, 37-56. [JoC, MoS, SRC]

Toth, F.L., T. Bruckner, H.-M. Füssel, M. Leimbach and G. Petschel-Held, 2003b: Integrated assessment of long-term climate policies. Part 2. Model results and uncertainty analysis. Climatic Change, 56, 57-72. [JoC, MoS, SRC]

UK FRP (United Kingdom Forestry Research Programme), 2005: From the Mountain to the Tap: How Land Use and Water Management can Work Together for the Rural Poor. UK FRP, London, 54 pp. [NPR]

United Nations, 1997: Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/convkp/kp eng.pdf. [NPR]

United Nations, 2000: United Nations Millennium Declaration: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 55th Session, 18 September. A/RES/55/22. United Nations. [NPR]

Unruh, G. and J. Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006: Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energ. Policy, 34, 1185-1197. Clean

Van Asselt, H., J. Gupta and F. Biermann, 2005: Advancing the climate agenda: exploiting material and institutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law, 14, 255-263. Clean

Van Harmelen, T., J. Bakker, B. de Vries, D. van Vuuren, M. den Elzen and P. Mayerhofer, 2002: Long-Term Reductions in Costs of Controlling Regional Air Pollution in Europe Due to Climate Policy. Environ. Sci. and Policy, 5, 349-365. [ARC]

VanRheenen, N.T., A.W. Wood, R.N. Palmer and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004: Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin hydrology and water resources. Climatic Change, 62, 257-281. [JoC]

Van Vuuren, D.P., B. Eickhout, P.L. Lucas and M.G.J. den Elzen, 2006: Long-term multi-gas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing: exploring costs and benefits within an integrated assessment framework. Energ. J., 27, 201-233. [MoS, ARC]

Vaughan, D.G. and J.R. Spouge, 2002: Risk estimation of collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Climatic Change, 52, 65–91. [JoC, MoS, ARC]

Vellinga, P. and Co-authors, 2001: Insurance and other financial services. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 417-450. [NPR]

Venema, D.H. and M. Cisse, 2004: Seeing the Light: Adapting to Climate Change with Decentralized Renewable Energy in Developing Countries. IISD, Canada, 174 pp. [NPR]

Venema, D.H., E.J. Schiller, K. Adammowski and J.M. Thizy, 1997: A water-resource planning response to climate change in Senegal River basin. J. Environ. Manage., 49, 125-155. Clean

Verheyen, R., 2005: Climate Change Damage and International Law: Prevention, Duties and State Responsibility. Martinus Nijhoff, Netherlands, 418 pp. [NPR]

Warren, R., 2006: Impacts of global climate change at different annual mean global temperature rises. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.-J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Naki?enovi?, T. Wigley and G. Yohe, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 93-131. [NPR, SRC]

Watkiss, P., D. Anthoff, T. Downing, C. Hepburn, C. Hope, A. Hunt and R. Tol, 2005. The Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) Review: Methodological Approaches for Using SCC Estimates in Policy Assessment, Final Report. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London, 121 pp. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/carbon?cost/?pdf/?aeat-scc-report.pdf. [NPR, MoS, SRC]

WEA, 2000: World Energy Assessment. UN Development Program, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and the World Energy Council, New York, 500 pp. [NPR]

Weyant, J.P., 2004: Introduction and overview. Special Issue: EMF19 Alternative Technology Strategies for Climate Change Policy. Energ. Econ., 26, 501-515. Clean

Wilbanks, T., 2003: Integrating climate change and sustainable development in a place-based context. Clim. Policy, 3, S147-S154. [JoC, ARC]

Wilbanks, T. and R. Kates, 2003: Making the global local: responding to climate change concerns from the bottom up. Environment, 45, 12-23. [ARC]

Winkler, H., K. Baumert, O. Blanchard, S. Burch and J. Robinson, 2007: What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energ. Policy, 35, 15-28. [SRC, 2007]

Woolcock, N. and D. Narayan, 2000: Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res. Obser., 15, 225-249. Clean

World Bank, undated: Community Development Carbon Fund and BioCarbon Fund. World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, http://carbonfinance.org /Router.cfm?Page=CDCF, http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=BioCF. [NPR]

Yamin, F., 2005: The European Union and future climate policy: is mainstreaming adaptation a distraction or part of the solution? Clim. Policy, 5, 349–361. [JoC, MoS, ARC]

Yohe, G., 2001: Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change, 49, 247-262. [JoC, ARC]

Yohe, G. and R.S.J. Tol, 2002: Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 25-40. [JoC, ARC]

Young, O., 2002: The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 237 pp.[NPR]

NOTE: In the Summary of Reviewer Comments,
Accepted includes only those responses that were unambiguously Accepted.
There are other categories of responses that we have not yet quantified
due to inconsistencies of usage.

Summary of Reviewer Comments - Second Order Draft

Reviewer	Total Comments	Accepted	IPCC Roles	Papers
Government of USA	91	18	0	0
Moser, SC	60	12	1	12
Corfee-Morlot, J	58	5	1	2
Goklany, IM	46	7	0	15
Skea, J	43	3	0	1
Harvey, D	33	4	0	1
Government of Australia	31	7	0	0
Drexhage, J	29	5	0	1
Warren, R	28	1	2	6
Venema, HD	23	3	0	2
Sokona, Y	22	5	0	8
Michaelowa, A	19	1	0	4
Hare, W	18	0	0	2
Government of Finland	18	2	0	0
Government of Netherlands	17	2	0	0
Palutikof, JP	14	3	2	7
Welp, M	11	2	0	2
Llanes-Reguerio, Juan	10	0	0	0
Kohler, J	10	0	0	3
Kram, T	7	0	0	5
Liotta, PH	6	1	0	0
Government of Germany	5	0	0	0
Government of Sweden	5	0	0	0
Morton, J	4	0	2	5
Bero, James	4	0	0	0
Kelly, M	4	1	0	2
Government of Norway	3	0	0	0
Tol, RSJ	2	0	1	63
Government of Japan	2	1	0	0
Government of Belgium	2	0	0	0
Hansen, LJ	1	0	0	4
Government of India	1	0	0	2
Government of Spain	1	0	0	0
Rodriguez, AG	1	0	0	0
Price, JT	1	0	2	7
Totals	630	83	11	154

Overview of Reviewer Comments - Second Order Draft

Reviewer Type	Total Comments	Accepted	% Accepted
Govt	175	30	17%
IPCC	434	52	11%
Indep	21	1	4%
Total	630	83	13%

Main AR4 Index | Working Group WG2 Index | Table of Contents | Authors | Executive Summary | Annotated Text | References | Reviewer Comments