A policy network analysis on synergies betweenclimate change adaptation and mitigation in Brazil

Background

66Research Institutions

State Actors

NGO / Civil Society

Business

Multi-Actor Orgs

Other

19

18

16

4

4

5

73 Business

2 Multi-Actor Orgs

1 State Actors

1 NGOs / Civil Society

42 State Actors

1 NGO / Civil Society

1 Business

4 3 Business

1 NGO / Civil Society

Responses to cope with climate change have been developed in two subdomains, mitigation and adaptation. �e two domains have often developed separated, as they have distinct objectives, di�erent time scales, geo-graphical priority areas, and at times involve separate organizations and institutions (Swart and Raes 2007, Biesbroek, Swart and van der Knaap 2009, Moser 2012). In land use systems mitigation and adaptation often interact with each other, leading to positive (synergies or co-benefits) or negative (trade-o�s) outcomes. If policies do not take into account these interactions they might disregard negative impacts, or they might lose opportunities to deliver more e�ective solutions (Berry et al. 2014). Land use activities have the potential to deliver benefits in both mitigation and adaptation domains (Locatelli et al. 2011, Schoeneberger et al. 2012, Harvey et al. 2014). Yet, overall information is still limited on the exact synergies that exist between climate change mitigation and adaptation in forests and agriculture. �is work uses policy network analysis to identi-fy the structural features of interactions between policy actors in these two climate change policy domains.

Coallitions Building

Bridging Mitigation and Adaptation

Information Exchange Collaboration

Information Exchange Collaboration

We interviewed 102 actors from di�erent sectors and with di�erent policy agendas, that had some connection with climate issues in land use systems. We mapped the interactions (net-works) of information exchanges and collaboration between relevant policy actors in the mitigation and adaptation domains in Brazil. We used Social Network Analysis (Borgatti et al. 2013) to measure the density of linkages in two integrated mitigation and adaptation net-works - information exchange and collaboration and we identified sub-groups in these two networks that might form policy coalitions and we characterized them. Finally, we identified important brokers, which are actors that connect the two climate change domains of mitiga-tion and adaptation.

5719

12

10

8

4

State Actors

NGO / Civil Society

Research Institutions

Business

Other

16Business

State Actors

NGOs / Civil Society

Research Institutions

7

5

1

3

97 NGOs / Civil Society

1 Multi-Actor Org

1 State Actor

Approaching synergies between mitigationand adaption through policy networks

Figure 2: Bridging actors across-levels

National Level

State Level

Municipality Level

1

2

3

5

6

4

1

5

6

7

Figure 1: Subgroups formation based on networks density. Dark blue circles represent bigger and denser subgroups in each network.�e numbers mean the totality of actors and the sector composition in each subgroup.

Leandra Fatorelli | Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds (L.Fatorelli@leeds.ac.uk)Monica Di Gregorio | Lecturer at the Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds (M.DiGregorio@leeds.ac.uk)

ResultsIn the Information Network we observe 4 subgroups. �e densest and biggest group is formed primarily by actors from government, NGOs, research institutions with no particular sectoral dominance. Two smaller subgroups are composed primarily by municipal actors. In the Collaboration Network we see three major subgroups. �e business sector pays a bigger role, and the NGO sector less the collaboration network. We find another dense group composed by 16 actors from Mato Grosso state and municipal levels. �e third group is represented by seven NGOs and one multi-actor organization whose work has a strong focus social-environmental issues. �e biggest challenge for communication and collaboration interaction is to reach out across levels of governance (national, state, municipality).

We identified brokers that facilitate information exchange across levels government level (national, state, municipal). While some ministries with high broker scores, others, including national institutions with a formal leading role on climate change are not structural bridges between mitigation and adaptation domains across governance levels. Agribusiness associations are key brokers between domains. NGOs instead seem to be important in linking di�erent types of policy actors together (state, business, other NGOs).

1. Ministry of Science and Technology | 2. Brazilian Forum on Climate Change | 3. Ministry of Social Development4. National Climate Fund | 5. State Agribusiness Association | 6. Local University | 7. Local Agribusiness Association

Conclusion�e structured subgroups in the two networks show a policy arena on synergies between mitigation and adaptation. �e main subgroups are split in function of the administrative level which indicates that cross-scale interaction and collaboration remain a challenge. �e exception is one subgroup in the collaboration network composed primarily by NGOs whose e�orts are focused on adaptation. �is group is able to overcome cross-level constraints and undertakes collaborative e�orts with actors with whom it shares similar interests.

Amongst the brokers we would have expected to find key state actors with a formal coordination mandates on actions and programs on climate change. �e limited role of the NGO sector and the presence of agribusiness actors as cross-level brokers in both networks suggest a role of the private sector that has so far gone unnoticed. Further analysis on the role of non-state actors will help to clarify these trends.

Berry et al. 2014. Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and mitigation measures. Climatic Change.Biesbroek and Swart and van der Knaap. 2009. �e mitigation–adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning.Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson. 2013.Analyzing social networks.Fatorelli et al. 2015. �e REDD+ Governance Landscape and the Challenge of Coordination in Brazil. Gebara et al. 2014. REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: Constraints and opportunities for successful policy makingHarvey et al. 2014. Climate‐Smart Landscapes: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture.Locatelli et al. 2011. Forests and climate change in Latin America: linking adaptation and mitigation.Locatelli. 2011. Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in a nutshell.Moser. 2012. Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents: an essay.Schoeneberger et al. 2012. Branching out: agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture.Swart and Raes. 2007. Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? ES/K00879X/1