Bringing out the best of land-use policies: An integrated coherence analysis of forestry and agricultural mitigation in Costa Rica

Abstract

High global greenhouse gas emissions and the degradation of ecosystem services from unsustainable land use and land-use change highlight the importance of climate change mitigation activities in the forestry and agricultural sectors. Globally important examples for respective policies are Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Activities (NAMAs), which allow developing countries to reduce sectoral emissions with international funding while considering the national context, and REDD+, a mechanism with a similar approach for the forestry sector. Different land-use related policies interact on various levels, causing synergies, trade-offs and adverse effects. Knowledge about their interactions is therefore indispensable in developing effective land-use policies. However, silo thinking largely confines policy analyses to individual policies. The few existing studies that analyse policy interaction, and the corresponding analytical frameworks, tend to focus on social systems, thereby omitting possible interactions between policy impacts on natural systems, including ecosystem services they provide. There is a lack of frameworks providing a holistic analysis of land-use related policies. To promote more comprehensive policy coherence analyses, I developed a methodological framework that considers interactions of all policy components from the processes to outputs and ecosystem service impacts. This proposed framework includes a content analysis of relevant policy documents, the identification and combination of components that may interact and finally interviews with officials and scientific experts. At the forefront of mitigation and conservation, Costa Rica provides a particularly interesting example for a case study of this policy coherence analysis. The country is currently implementing multiple land-use based mitigation policies, i.e. two agricultural NAMAs and a REDD+ Strategy, which were analysed regarding potential interactions. Applying the methodology revealed a large number of potential synergies, various trade-offs and few adverse effects. Despite increased collaboration between involved organisations, this study found the challenge of coordinating the policy processes of all three initiatives to mostly cause trade-offs and adverse effects, such as the risk of inconsistent carbon accounting. Policy outputs, in contrast, show a high level of coherence with many synergies between the stated policy objectives and instruments. Synergistic objectives are results of the clear prioritisation and consistent targeting of specific ecosystem services in the initiatives’ and broader policy framework. Synergies between the policies’ instruments often emerge from the joint extension of agroforestry systems and the national payment for ecosystem services scheme. Findings indicate that the clear prioritisation of targeted ES improves their enhancement. At the earliest policy stage, a strategic and integrated policy framework and coordination of the policy processes can facilitate coherent outputs.