Integrating adaptation and mitigation in climate change and land-use policies in Peru

The interactions between climate change adaptation and mitigation are particularly evident in agriculture, forestry and other land-use-based activities. Adaptation projects can affect ecosystems and their ability to sequester and store carbon, while mitigation projects can enhance adaptive capacity or increase the vulnerability of people. These interactions must be considered when designing policies and strategies. The discussion on policy integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation should focus on two issues: (1) integrating adaptation and mitigation in climate change policies to consider multiple goals, assess trade-offs and seek mutually supportive outcomes; and (2) integrating adaptation and mitigation jointly into sectoral policies, such as agriculture or forestry, in order to balance trade-offs and maximize co-benefits between climate change and other objectives. National strategies and plans related to climate change in Peru as well as key land-use policies encompass both adaptation and mitigation objectives. Frameworks have been developed for the integrated implementation of adaptation and mitigation in the new National Climate Change Strategy and draft National Forests and Climate Change Strategy. Although most of the other strategies and action plans do not mention the joint implementation of adaptation and mitigation, they do emphasis delivery of ecosystem services. And enhancing ecosystem services can ultimately benefit both adaptation and mitigation and other national priorities. What is needed is a strong focus on information and knowledge generation and management and an assessment of the current and potential impacts of national and subnational policies on ecosystem services at different scales. Establishing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating policy implementation, stakeholder engagement and adaptive management are also crucial.


Introduction
Two general strategies to address climate change are usually adopted in negotiations, policies and practice: mitigation -reducing emissions or enhancing the sequestration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) -and adaptation -responding to the impacts of climate change.These strategies have been discussed and treated separately as they have different aims and operate on different spatial and temporal scales; mitigation benefits global climatic conditions in the long-term, while adaptation provides both shortand long-term benefits at the local level (Swart and Raes 2007).
Both adaptation and mitigation are important for Peru.The 69 million ha forest cover in the country provides opportunities for mitigation through programs such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), especially as land use and land-use change are responsible for almost half of Peru's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Menton et al. 2014).Peru is also vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and adaptation measures are urgently required (Chazarin et al. 2014).
There are interactions between adaptation and mitigation and between the two climate change strategies and other sectoral strategies and priorities (Verchot et al. 2007;Locatelli et al. 2011).Adaptation actions can have positive or negative effects on mitigation, and vice versa.The interactions between adaptation and mitigation are particularly evident in agriculture, forestry and other ecosystem management-and land-use-based activities.For example, adaptation projects can affect ecosystems and their ability to sequester and store carbon, while mitigation projects can enhance adaptive capacity or increase the vulnerability of people (Locatelli et al. 2011).
The interactions between adaptation and mitigation must be considered when designing policies and strategies.The lack of consideration of adaptation in initiatives targeting GHG emissions could not only lead to maladaptation but could also jeopardize the permanence of emission reductions (e.g. in the case of fire in REDD+ projects, which are based on forests sequestering and storing carbon).Similarly, the lack of consideration of mitigation in adaptation projects could lead to increased GHG emissions (Barnett and O'Neill 2010), for example, when the construction of a sea wall is energy intensive and affects adjacent mangrove ecosystems that store carbon.
The interactions between adaptation and mitigation can also be positive or mutually reinforcing (Locatelli et al. 2011).For example, mitigation strategies based on introducing improved cooking stoves could lead to improved health and less fuelwood consumption and ecosystem degradation, all of which can result in increased resilience.Similarly, adaptation measures such as agroforestry and land restoration can lead to more carbon sequestration and storage and limit emission leaking (e.g.deforestation) in the same place or elsewhere.Both adaptation and mitigation can have positive effects on other sectors and enhance non-climate related objectives (e.g. in agriculture, health, transport and energy).Furthermore, both adaptation and mitigation are linked to biodiversity.Strong associations exist between biodiversity richness and carbon stocks (Strassburg et al. 2010), biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013), and biodiversity and resilience of socioecological systems (Sandifer et al. 2015).
The idea of pursuing both climate strategies simultaneously in policy and practice has been gaining momentum.It is based on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of climate financing, producing an impact that is greater than the sum of effects related to implementing adaptation and mitigation separately and limiting negative spillovers and consequences (Duguma et al. 2014).However, pressing for the joint implementation of adaptation and mitigation carries risks.It might not always be efficient and effective to pursue the two strategies together and prioritizing only win-win measures could lead to neglecting other measures that can effectively contribute to either adaptation or mitigation separately (Moser 2012).But even if adaptation and mitigation are not implemented jointly, it would make sense to examine the interactions between them when designing and implementing policies and strategies.This will minimize potential negative spillovers and can lead to an increase in co-benefits and mutually reinforcing positive effects.
The concept of policy integration is useful to policy makers and governments for considering the interactions between adaptation and mitigation.Policy integration relates to the management of crosscutting issues in policy making that transcend single-sector boundaries or established policy fields (Meijers and Stead 2004); it refers to both horizontal (e.g. between sectors or departments) and vertical (e.g. between different levels and tiers) integration.Climate change is one such crosscutting issue, which does not just span across distinct land uses; climate change mitigation and adaptation have often been treated as distinct policy fields.Underdal (1980) describes policy integration as the process of bringing together different constituent elements into a single, unifying concept -or integrating different policy objectives that are usually treated separately, but can influence each other.According to Underdal (1980), this process is made up of three consecutive stages: (1) comprehensiveness to the input stage (acknowledges the broader scope of policy consequences related to different issues and actors, as well as time and space); (2) aggregation to the processing of inputs (evaluates policy alternatives from an 'overall' perspective' or aggregate measure of utility); and (3) consistency to outputs (permeates different policy levels and government agencies so that the different policy elements are in line with each other).Policy integration concerns both the decision-making and governance processes as well as the policy outputs.
Policy integration, especially when it concerns climate change or environmental issues, is often used interchangeably with other similar terms such as policy coherence, crosscutting policy making, concerted decision-making, policy consistency, mainstreaming and policy coordination (Meijers and Stead 2004;Nunan et al. 2012).Policy coherence is a central component of policy integration as it implies that the incentives and objectives of different policies are not conflicting ( Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008), but it does not lead to policy integration per se.It relates more to policy consistency i.e. the degree to which contradictions between different aims (e.g.related to mitigation and adaptation) and other policy goals (e.g.agricultural development) have been assessed and efforts have been made to minimize the revealed contradictions (Brouwer et al. 2013).Mainstreaming is about inserting certain objectives (e.g.adaptation to climate change) into different sectoral policies or areas of practice (e.g.agriculture) (Kok and De Coninck 2007), but it does not focus on harmonizing the different objectives of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Most of the thinking on climate policy integration draws from environmental policy integration (EPI), where EPI is generally understood by some scholars as giving principled priority to environmental issues in different policy-making processes (Lafferty and Hovden 2003;Adelle and Russel 2013).Climate policy integration, however, adopts a 'weaker' definition of policy integration, where the aims of climate change adaptation and mitigation are harmonized with other policy aims, allowing for the balancing of trade-offs without assigning a principled priority to any one aim ( Van Bommel and Kuindersma 2008;Adelle and Russel 2013).
The discussion on policy integration between climate change adaptation and mitigation relates to two dimensions: (1) integrating adaptation and mitigation in climate change policies so that they are understood as multiple goals, trade-offs are assessed and mutually supportive outcomes are sought; and (2) integrating adaptation and mitigation jointly into sectoral policies such as agriculture or forestry in order to balance trade-offs and maximize co-benefits between climate change and other objectives.
This analysis assesses the level of integration of both dimensions within existing climate change and broadly defined land-use policies and strategies in Peru.environmental regulations, and required all regions to formulate a Regional Climate Change Strategy covering both adaptation and mitigation.The first National Climate Change Strategy came into force in 2003, with the draft 2014 revised strategy currently undergoing a public consultation process.The revision will be finalized in 2015 and will include all important adaptation and mitigation priorities for Peru.In 2010, the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Action Plan (PAAMCC) was approved, encompassing a balanced amount of adaptation and mitigation programs.
The National Climate Change Strategy is being revised to reflect institutional and regulatory changes, advances in scientific research related to climate change projections and scenarios, and the need to involve new actors and the public.The revised strategy identifies strategic objectives and proposes related lines of action and progress indicators so that public entities and government sectors deliver adaptation and mitigation products and services that contribute to climate compatible development.The National Climate Change Commission will coordinate and evaluate the integration of the National Climate Change Strategy in the plans and budgets of public entities and sectors at different levels.It will work together with the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) to design an incentive mechanism for integration.Furthermore, the country has started the Planning Project on Climate Change (PlanCC) that explores the feasibility of different clean or lowcarbon development scenarios and promotes their integration in national and regional development planning processes.Peru is also planning to establish a National Program for the Management of Climate Change (CC-PRONAGECC) that will serve as a multi-stakeholder platform to ensure the most effective and efficient use of public resources in tackling climate change.The program will establish a group that will regularly review progress in implementing the National Climate Change Strategy.
Forests are an essential component of Peru's climate change policy landscape, especially with regard to mitigation, as the country hosts the second-largest National policies, elaborated in accordance with the country's laws and regulations, define "what must be done" with related goals, objectives and timelines.Different national strategies guide the "how to" for achieving the objectives and goals of national policies.Strategies are temporary and subject to revision every few years (e.g.every 10 years).National plans and programs are action instruments that indicate the concrete steps to be undertaken in order to achieve the strategic objectives.
There are a number of policies, strategies and action plans that aim to address climate change issues in Peru.Some have climate change as their main focus, while others integrate related objectives.The National Environment Policy ( 2009 were classified under six different categories that expressed co-benefit relationships, one expressing integration and four negative interactions (trade-offs) categories.These were: Positive interactions: 1. Adaptation actions or aims that result in mitigation co-benefits 2. Adaptation actions or aims that result in nonclimate co-benefits 3. Mitigation actions or aims that result in adaptation co-benefits 4. Mitigation actions or aims that result in nonclimate co-benefits 5. Non-climate actions or aims that result in adaptation co-benefits 6. Non-climate actions or aims that result in mitigation co-benefits 7. Integrated actions considering both adaptation and mitigation aimed at enhancing mutual benefits Negative interactions: 1. Adaptation actions or aims that result in negative impacts on mitigation 2. Adaptation actions or aims that result in negative impacts on non-climate change specific domains 3. Mitigation actions or aims that result in negative impacts on adaptation 4. Mitigation actions or aims that result in negative impacts on non-climate change specific domains All text passages mentioning ecosystem services, either by using the term 'services' or by relevant concepts such as water regulation, were coded under a general category.The same was done for text passages that referred to the links between climate change and development (e.g.impacts affecting development, opportunities for green growth etc.).Although these concepts do not directly relate to the synergies between adaptation and mitigation, they are relevant for both climate strategies.Ecosystem services can facilitate both adaptation and mitigation (Locatelli et al. 2011;Pramova et al. 2012) and so can different development pathways (Kok and The research design includes the analysis of climate change and land-use related policy documents. The selection of documents focused on national level laws, regulations, strategies, plans and major programs from national government institutions with regulatory mandates, and cross-sectoral working groups or semi-independent bodies with a mandate to devise strategies or plans in the following sectors: climate change, forestry, agriculture and key environmental policy documents that include a focus on biodiversity and linkages to climate change, disaster risk reduction and management, and development with a focus on agriculture and forestry and land-use policies.In total, we coded 26 policy documents that were available electronically up to November 2014 (see Annex 1 for a full list of policy documents).
The content of the policy documents was coded using a directed coding approach where an initial list of categories was identified in advance of the coding (Weber 1996;Hsieh and Shannon 2005) and was undertaken using NVivo software (QSR 2012).These initial categories were taken from the literature that analyzed interactions between mitigation and adaptation (Klein et al. 2007;Swart and Raes 2007;Verchot et al. 2007;Locatelli et al. 2011;Moser et al. 2012;Denton et al. 2014;Duguma et al. 2014).
All text passages that discussed any of the predefined categories were coded accordingly and any further text relevant to synergies that did not fall under these initial categories was coded under a new category.
Relevant categories used in this particular analysis included different types of interactions between adaptation, mitigation and non-climate specific domains, types of co-benefits, actions facilitating synergies, ecosystem services, and linkages between sustainable development and climate.The central categories of "types of interactions" and "trade-offs" identified all text passages that mentioned positive and negative interactions between mitigation and adaptation and between these and non-climate change specific policy domains.Positive interactions De Coninck 2007), while at the same time other pathways can either increase vulnerability to climate and/or increase GHG emissions.
In addition, metadata of the policy documents were also coded identifying the name, date, type of document, lead institutions and main sector of each document.When coding the interaction types, we coded according to what was explicitly mentioned.For example, if an adaptation strategy mentioned reforestation, the mitigation co-benefit was only coded if it was described in terms of carbon sequestration, reduction of GHG emissions and other related concepts.Likewise, adaptation cobenefits were coded only when they were mentioned explicitly e.g.resilience, reduction of vulnerability, decreased drought risk, protection from flood, etc.
We analyzed the coding both quantitatively and qualitatively, assessing which positive and negative interactions were considered, how this changed over time and we highlighted key differences across types of interactions and how they were portrayed in different policy documents.This allowed us to draw some implications about the extent to which policies were attentive (or not) to possible interactions between adaptation, mitigation and non-climate objectives and the extent to which the policy architecture and policy priorities considered integrated approaches.
Solving governance issues (e.g.recognition of tenure and rights, collective and participatory forest management, etc.), providing development benefits through an enhanced productive forest sector, and protecting the environment and biodiversity, are all fundamental requirements for sustainable forest-based mitigation, which are mentioned in most of the related strategies, plans and policies in Peru.
The Forest Investment Plan (FIP) outlines developing governance instruments and assigning land rights to communities (governance co-benefits) and discusses development co-benefits linked to ecotourism, ecosystem service valuation, low-emission rural development, sustainable forestry and enhancing forest product competitiveness.Co-benefits to agriculture are also articulated resulting from territorial zoning, which will facilitate agricultural intensification and the restoration of degraded lands.Biodiversity will be supported by all conservation and restoration activities (environment and biodiversity co-benefits).The cobenefits described in the FCPF documents follow similar lines.
The PAAMCC contains forest conservation and restoration projects (with the main purpose of mitigation) that will also result in: development and livelihood benefits (from sustainable management of forest goods and services), strengthening of the forestry sector and enhancing of biodiversity.The plan also includes other non-forest projects such as the introduction of improved cooking stoves (mitigation coupled with health and forest and environment benefits).
Lastly, only two text passages were found that described the adaptation co-benefits of mitigation.The PAAMCC mentioned the design of a plantation forestry program eligible for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that would promote adaptation as a side benefit by reducing desertification and poverty.The FIP listed several co-benefits, including increased resilience of forested landscapes to climate variability and change.

Co-benefits of adaptation
Co-benefits resulting from adaptation actions were less numerous than those resulting from mitigation actions

Interactions
Most of the text passages related to interactions between adaptation and mitigation, or between one of the two climate strategies and other objectives, fell under the "co-benefits" type and specifically under "mitigation with other co-benefits" type where we coded 116 text passages in 13 documents (Figure 1).and were described in the PAAMCC (12 references).

Co-benefits of mitigation
The related text passages were from ecosystem-based strategies such as sustainable watershed management, soil conservation and reforestation, and thus most of the co-benefits were linked to environment and biodiversity, as well as to forestry.Any additional mitigation co-benefits that might occur from these strategies were not mentioned.Other co-benefits, such as livelihood and agriculture, were only mentioned in six and five text passages, respectively.
One example from the Adaptation and Mitigation Action Plan was a proposal to implement adaptation measures in prioritized watersheds in Mayo, Santa, Piura, Mantaro, Caplina, Locumba, Chili and Ica.The main objective was to implement integrated watershed management to reduce the adverse effects of climate change, desertification and drought.Activities included the improvement and recovery of wetlands, grasslands and degraded soils in basins, the restoration of vegetation, and reforestation, all of which are expected to bring co-benefits related to environment and biodiversity.The Integrated Watershed Management Plans to be developed are also expected to include payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes and capacity-building programs to foster sustainable development projects (co-benefit for development).
In general, the co-benefits of adaptation linked to development were not clearly articulated in many of the policy documents analyzed.But this could be because it is well understood that adaptation in any sector is good for overall development, while the links between mitigation and development are less clear and there is more pressure to articulate that mitigation actions do not hinder development.Furthermore, ecosystem-based strategies such as soil conservation and reforestation are likely to contribute to mitigation as well, even when mitigation objectives are not included in the design of the strategies.

Integrated approaches
Text referring to an integrated approach is mostly identified in newer policies such as the draft National Forests and Climate Change Strategy (ENBCC 2014) and the draft of the revised National Climate Change Strategy (NCC 2014) with 14 and six text passages respectively.Both strategy documents include a landscape approach to ecosystem management, i.e. the different ecosystem services (for adaptation, mitigation, livelihoods, etc.) and their linkages are considered.
In the ENBCC, it is stated, for example, that the strategy is based on the sustainable management of forested landscapes and the consideration of the different mosaics of land uses, policies, institutions, norms, technologies, stakeholders, markets and finances.The NCC prioritizes five themes under which synergistic plans and actions could be developed -air, water and soils, forests, biodiversity, and ecosystems and landscapes.
In terms of finance, field interventions based on the double objective of adaptation and mitigation will be given higher priority due to their efficiency according to the ENBCC.Such interventions include those related to forest conservation and sustainable forest management, the management of secondary forests, and reforestation (especially in watersheds) that are expected to deliver multiple ecosystem services.The NCC also aims to promote PES mechanisms that will favor the joint objective of climate risk management and the reduction of GHG emissions.
Information and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems under the ENBCC will include both adaptation and mitigation data related to forest cover, meteorological trends and hazard risks, safeguards, vulnerability and delivery of ecosystem services.
The National REDD+ Plan, which is embedded in the ENBCC, recognizes the key role of REDD+ in maintaining the resilience of natural and socioeconomic systems, a role that clearly goes beyond mitigation.In the plan it is stated that REDD+ will contribute to the three objectives of the ENBCC, which are: economically competitive mitigation, adaptation for both people and ecosystems, and sustainable increase in forest value (forest goods and services).Peru will seek to maximize the synergies between REDD+ and other adaptation, mitigation and forest management mechanisms.
Additionally, the draft of the revised National Climate Change Strategy (NCC) has a focus on cities and technologies that are both low carbon and resilient to climate hazards.The NCC further underlines the synergies between biodiversity and climate change, where the resilience of ecosystems needs to be built so that they can continue to provide important services for adaptation.
In the other documents where we found some text passages to an integrated approach (e.g. the PAAMCC and the Mitigation Action Plan and the first National Climate Change Strategy) the text is mostly referring to general actions of forest ecosystem management for reducing vulnerability and enhancing carbon sequestration and storage.A strategic framework for achieving this is not discussed.

Benefits of non-climate activities and plans for adaptation and/or mitigation
Text passages describing the adaptation or mitigation co-benefits of activities and plans that do not address climate change as their primary objective were mostly found in the National Forestry Strategy (2002) and National Reforestation Plan ( 2005) with six and five text passages, respectively.These text passages relate to forestry activities such as establishment of plantations and sustainable forest management, and the subsequent co-benefit of carbon sequestration and storage.
The 4th National Communication (2011) to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) also mentions that more than a quarter of the projects to combat desertification are designed to deliver global benefits such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation.These benefits are expected to materialize through land restoration and reforestation.
Finally, only two text passages describe the adaptation co-benefits of non-climate activities or plans and these are included in the 4th National Communication to the UNCCD, where reversing dry-land degradation is linked to drought resilience and reducing climate change impacts overall.

Trade-offs
We also searched for text mentioning trade-offs between the different climate objectives of adaptation and mitigation, and trade-offs between climate strategies and other national priorities related to development, conservation, gender equality and poverty alleviation, and we found almost no text passages.Only three documents mentioned that mitigation strategies could potentially bring about trade-offs in other sectors.The Readiness Plan Proposal and the Peru Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN) submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) outline the need to monitor both positive and negative potential impacts in relation to: indigenous rights, ecosystem and community resilience, migration, gender equality and food security, among other issues.

Ecosystem services
Ecosystem The PAAMCC mentions the conservation of fragile ecosystems as a priority adaptation measure in different areas of the country for both ecosystem resilience and human well-being.The importance of analyzing the effects of climate change on the ecosystem services themselves, including water regulation and carbon sequestration, is another important point which relates to both adaptation and mitigation.
Similarly, the Action Plan encourages the identification of silvicultural and agroforestry production systems that are both sustainable and efficient in sequestering carbon for climate change mitigation purposes.Although the adaptation goal is not explicit in this specific example, sustainable production systems are likely to contribute to adaptation as well, through the delivery of ecosystem services and the provision of diversified and resilient income sources.The ecosystem services approach can foster the integration of adaptation and mitigation without the need for a forced marriage in policies, provided that synergies are maximized and trade-offs are properly analyzed and managed.
In June 2014, the Peruvian congress approved the Compensation Mechanisms for Ecosystem Services Law (Law no.30215, 29 June 2014).The specific regulation mechanisms for its implementation are yet to be defined.Nevertheless, the law represents significant progress towards embracing the ecosystem services approach, as it clearly defines the different elements of a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme and the role of the government in supporting and promoting PES.The law also establishes a national registry for PES schemes.

Climate change and development
Climate change affects development and also offers opportunities for pursuing it sustainably.Adaptation and mitigation both have links to development and to poverty reduction and related text passages were found in almost all of the documents.
In the policy documents analyzed, climate change was most frequently linked to development through concepts such as low-carbon growth, low-emission sustainable development and the CDM.The draft of the new National Climate Change Strategy for example, mentioned that its frameworks are designed to foster a level of development that is both satisfactory and sustainable, and that is based on a low-carbon economy.The PAAMCC refers to the CDM as a good mechanism for supporting sustainable development.The latter also emphasizes the links between biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services relevant to adaptation and mitigation.The landscape approach is broadly defined as "a framework to integrate policy and practice for multiple land-uses, within a given area, to ensure equitable and sustainable use of land while strengthening measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change" (Reed et al. 2014, 1).However, it is still unclear how the two climate strategies relate to each other.The same is true for most policies that incorporate ecosystem-based strategies and there can be trade-offs even between different ecosystem services (Locatelli et al. 2008;Pramova et al. 2012).
The ecosystem and landscape approaches recognize that multiple trade-offs can occur in relation to adaptation, mitigation, development and other policy priorities.Balancing trade-offs is especially relevant in landscape management where multiple land uses interact.Both approaches do however offer frameworks for assessing and balancing trade-offs during implementation and for working towards policy coherence and integration.For example, assessing the current and potential impacts of different policies on the goods and services provided by ecosystems gives a holistic view of policy coherence from an ecosystem service perspective and can foster new types of policy debates (Makkonen et al. 2015).
Such an assessment related to forest mitigation services was conducted in Finland and revealed an imbalance between promoting bioenergy and carbon sequestration in favor of the former (Makkonen et al. 2015).Furthermore, it was shown that the specific bioenergy policies tend to induce trade-offs between ecosystem services, while the more general policies Peruvian climate change and land-use related policies showcase a number of examples of adaptationmitigation interactions, mostly through an ecosystem or landscape approach.These approaches have potential for integrating adaptation, mitigation and other sectoral objectives, but central questions remain such as how will the different policies influence ecosystem services and development pathways across objectives and sectors, and how will trade-offs be managed.Perhaps before anything else, a sustainable knowledge and information generation and sharing system needs to be established, to aid policy impact evaluation and the assessment of policy coherence, the implementation of adaptive management, and ultimately to support integrative planning.
Although the PAAMCC treats adaptation and mitigation in separate sections and geographical areas, the links between the two climate objectives are illustrated when the co-benefits of the different strategies are discussed.The potential of ecosystem-based activities and the landscape approach to deliver co-benefits across objectives and sectors is recognized in many policy documents.Existing scientific evidence suggests that ecosystem-based adaptation can be an effective strategy to increase the resilience of people while at the same time delivering co-benefits across sectors (Pramova et al. 2012;Doswald et al. 2014).Both promote the supply and demand of both bioenergy and carbon sequestration.As almost all climate change and land-use related policies in Peru include priorities or strategies that target or impact ecosystem services, it makes sense to use this kind of assessment, but include a broader array of services.
As Moser (2012) has suggested, assessments can go further and examine each policy's implications on the potential action space for enacting complementary climate or other policies in the present or future.
Common policy tools that are already available can be used for this purpose, such as specifically designed environmental impact assessment (EIA) tools.
The landscape approach, which can encompass ecosystem-based strategies, necessitates involving multiple actors across sectors and levels in order to best manage multiple land-uses for agriculture, settlements, conservation, industry and other objectives across time.As the approach is inherently cross-sectoral it can promote policy integration that goes beyond assessing trade-offs (Reed et al. 2014).
Experience from Denmark has shown that landscape strategy making is a promising way of improving policy integration in rural contexts, although more efforts are needed to engage large-scale intensive farming with community-based priorities and practices (Primdahl et al. 2013).Similarly, Biesbroek et al. (2009) view spatial planning, one of the tools of landscape management, as a switchboard for integrating adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development.
In terms of implementation, any strategy related to ecosystems and landscapes must: recognize uncertainty, involve actors across disciplines, sectors and levels, and be pursued through adaptive management (Reed et al. 2014;Richter et al. 2014).The sustainability of such initiatives will depend on fostering continuous knowledge generation and reevaluation of objectives, and stakeholder engagement based on an evolving, shared vision (Richter et al. 2014).This includes the monitoring and evaluation of policy impacts on ecosystem services and the different national and subnational priorities.
The ideas of integration, for example through ecosystem and landscape management, are present in several policies but there is an overarching gap in terms of information and knowledge generation and management.With the exception of PLANGRACC-A, plans and strategies are not based on vulnerability analyses, which are largely missing in Peru.Future climate projections are often based on global models at a coarse resolution, which limits their value for decision-making at the regional and local level.Seasonal and inter-annual forecasts are issued from multiple sources and are conflicted, thus reducing the confidence of decisionmakers in using them (Dilling and Lemos 2011).
This presents a problem of information management across institutions.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Number of documents and text passages coded under the different types of synergy.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Types of benefits expected from adaptation and mitigation actions by sector or thematic area.
(a: adaptation objective, m: mitigation objective, x: non-climate related objective, [ ]: secondary objective, : results in, +: positive outcome, -: negative outcome, A: adaptation outcome, M: mitigation outcome, +AA or +MM increased outcome as a result of an interaction between A and M, -AA or -MM decreased outcome as a result of an interaction between A and M, frequency * less than 5% of the 274 cases, ** 5-10%, *** 10-25%, **** more than 25%) Climate Change Commission exists, which groups actors from all sectors and types of organizations, but it meets sporadically.Until both adaptation and mitigation become important policy objectives for development across ministries connected with land use, including in the Ministry of Finance, maximizing the synergies between adaptation and mitigation will be difficult.mitigation,andforother national priorities such as biodiversity conservation.What is needed is a strong focus on information and knowledge generation and management, and an assessment of the current and potential impacts of national and subnational policies on ecosystem services at different scales.Establishing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating policy implementation, stakeholder engagement and adaptive management should be another high priority.A further step forward would be to mainstream a broader concept of climate change, such as the one related to climate compatible development, and landscape approaches in land-use sector policies and policy processes.This will facilitate policy integration and synergies between adaptation, mitigation, socioeconomic development and biodiversity conservation.A revived and empowered Climate Change Commission with the participation of multiple stakeholders engaged in adaptation, mitigation and development, can play an active role in achieving this.Climate change considerations are evident in the land-use related policy priorities of Peru and national strategies and plans encompass both adaptation and mitigation objectives.Frameworks have been developed for the integrated implementation of adaptation and mitigation in the new National Climate Change Strategy and draft National Forests and Climate Change Strategy.Different ministries also work together in planning, breaking the sectoral barrier to some extent, as evidenced by the joint collaboration of the environment and agriculture ministries in the design of the National Forests and Climate Change Strategy (which incorporates a forest landscape approach).How the different policies relate to each other though is not clear.Many of the strategies outlined in the different policy documents do not explicitly mention achieving both adaptation and mitigation objectives jointly.There is however a strong focus on delivering ecosystem services in most of the policies analyzed.And enhancing ecosystem services can ultimately be beneficial for both adaptation and