Internationally, allocation of responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is currently based on the production‐based (PB) accounting method, which measures emissions generated in the place where goods and services are produced. However, the growth of emissions embodied in trade has raised the question whether we should switch to, or amalgamate PB accounting, with other accounting approaches. Consumption‐based (CB) accounting has so far emerged as the most prominent alternative. This approach accounts for emissions at the point of consumption, attributing all the emissions that occurred in the course of production and distribution to the final consumers of goods and services. This review has a fourfold objective. First, it provides an account of the logic behind attributing responsibility for emissions on the basis of consumption instead of production. Issues of equity and justice, increased emissions coverage, encouragement of cleaner production practices, and political benefits are considered. Second, it discusses the counterarguments, focusing in particular on issues of technical complexity, mitigation effectiveness, and political acceptability. Third, it presents the spectrum of implementation possibilities—ranging from the status quo to more transformative options—and considers the implications for international climate policy that would accrue under various scenarios of adopting CB accounting in practice. Fourth, it looks at how CB accounting may be adjusted to fit with current political realities and it identifies policy mechanisms that could potentially be utilized to directly or indirectly address CB emissions. Such an approach could unlock new opportunities for climate policy innovation and for climate mitigation. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e438. doi: 10.1002/wcc.438This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation

To be effective, climate change adaptation needs to be mainstreamed across multiple sectors and greater policy coherence is essential. Using the cases of Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia, this paper investigates the extent of coherence in national policies across the water and agriculture sectors and to climate change adaptation goals outlined in national development plans. A two-pronged qualitative approach is applied using Qualitative Document Analysis of relevant policies and plans, combined with expert interviews from non-government actors in each country. Findings show that sector policies have differing degrees of coherence on climate change adaptation, currently being strongest in Zambia and weakest in Tanzania. We also identify that sectoral policies remain more coherent in addressing immediate-term disaster management issues of floods and droughts rather than longer-term strategies for climate adaptation. Coherence between sector and climate policies and strategies is strongest when the latter has been more recently developed. However to date, this has largely been achieved by repackaging of existing sectoral policy statements into climate policies drafted by external consultants to meet international reporting needs and not by the establishment of new connections between national sectoral planning processes. For more effective mainstreaming of climate change adaptation, governments need to actively embrace longer-term cross-sectoral planning through cross-Ministerial structures, such as initiated through Zambia’s Interim Climate Change Secretariat, to foster greater policy coherence and integrated adaptation planning.

Managing integrated social‐ecological systems to reduce risks to human and environmental well‐being remains challenging in light of the rate and extent of undesirable changes that are occurring. Developing frameworks that are sufficiently integrative to guide research to deliver the necessary insights into all key system aspects is an important outstanding task. Among existing approaches, resilience and nexus framings both allow focus on unpacking relationships across scales and levels in a system and emphasize the involvement of different groups in decision making to different extents. They also suffer weaknesses and neither approach puts social justice considerations explicitly at its core. This has important implications for understanding who wins and loses out from different decisions and how social and ecological risks and trade‐offs are shared and distributed, temporally and spatially. This paper conceptually integrates resilience and nexus approaches, developing a combined framework and indicating how it could effectively be operationalized in cases from mountain and mangrove social‐ecological systems. In doing so, it advances understanding of complex social‐ecological systems framings for risk‐based decision making beyond that which could be achieved through use of either resilience or nexus approaches alone. Important next steps in testing the framework involve empirical and field operationalization, requiring interdisciplinary, mixed method approaches.

Ensure open markets for clean technologies and products