Snapfi Report Indonesia-1

National study September 2022

Indonesia
Enabling Conditions and Advantages of Synergy between Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation to Stimulate Implementation of NDC
About this report
Published in September 2022

Authors:
Djoko Santoso Abi Suroso
Dadang Hilman
M.S. Fitriyanto
Novi Puspitasari
Farijzal Arrafisena

Climate Change Center, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Project
Strengthen National Climate Policy Implementation: Comparative Empirical Learning & Creating
Linkage to Climate Finance – SNAPFI. Website: https://www.diw.de/snapfi
Financial support
This project is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI). Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection support this initiative based on a
decision adopted by the German Bundestag.
www.international-climate-initiative.com
Suggested citation
Suroso, D. S. A., Hilman, D., Fitriyanto, M. S., Puspitasari, N., and Arrafisena, F. (2022). Enabling
Conditions and Advantages of Synergy between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation to Stimulate
Implementation of NDC. Strengthen national climate policy implementation: Comparative empirical
learning & creating linkage to climate finance (SNAPFI) National Study Report. DIW Berlin.
Disclaimer
This project is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI - www.international-climateinitiative.
com). The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU)
support this initiative based on a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. The opinions put
forward in this report are the authors‘ sole responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Ministry.
Acknowledgment
We thank our project partners, Prof. Pradono, Dr. Budhi Setiawan, Dr. Niken Prilandita, Mr. Dhimas Bayu
Anindito, Ms. Mulia Asri Hastari, and Ms. Zahara Sitta Iskandar from the Climate Change Center of ITB.
We are indebted to the following organizations for providing invaluable information and assistance to
our research through interviews and discussions: TP2PS/Board Kawal Borneo; PT PLN, Ministry of
Environment and Forestry; and KEMITRAAN (Partnership for Governance Reform).
2 Report of National Study on Adaptation

We are also thankful to Ms. Riyanti Djalante and Mr. Hendricus Andy Simarmata for providing insights
upon the commencement of this report writing.
Contacts
Djoko Santoso Abi Suroso, Climate Change Center (Pusat Perubahan Iklim) Institut Teknologi Bandung
(ITB), Research and Innovation Building 3rd Floor, ITB Campus, Jalan Ganesa No. 10, Bandung-40132,
Indonesia, Website: www.ccc.itb.ac.id. Email: [email protected]
Project in brief
This report is a second-year study of a national study on adaptation by Climate Change Center
ITB in collaboration with DIW Berlin under the project of Strengthening national climate policy
implementation: Comparative Empirical Learning & Creating Linkages to Climate Finance (SNAPFI).
This report analyzes the enabling conditions and advantages of sustainability and ICF opportunities
of the synergy between climate change adaptation and mitigation to stimulate the implementation of
NDC. It provides insights into how climate governance at national levels (in Indonesia) addresses the
issue and utilizes its advantages and opportunities through PROKLIM, Social Forestry, and energy/
electricity.
Supported by:
Based on a decision of the German Bundestag

Table of Contents
List of Figures 5
List of Tables 5
Glossary 5
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Background 8
1.2 General Research Framework 10
2. Literature Review 12
2.1 Forms of Interrelationship Between CCA and CCM 13
2.2 Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM 20
2.3 Advantages and Constraints of Synergies Between CCA and CCM 22
2.4 Key Takeaways 24
3. Methodology 25
4. Progress of Synergy Between CCA and CCM in International and Indonesia 29
4.1 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM at the International Level 30
4.2 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia 39
5. Potential Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia 52
6. Advantages of Synergy Between CCA and CCM in ICF 60
7. Findings and Way Forward 60
7.1 Findings 61
7.2 Way Forward 63
8. References 66
9. APPENDIX 72
9.1 Appendix I. Synergy Assessment on Climate Village Program (PROKLIM) 73
9.2 Appendix II. Enabling Conditions Assessment on Climate Village Program (PROKLIM) 76
9.3 Appendix III. Project/Programme Concept Note 79

List of Figures
Figure 1 Position of Synergy Issue in the Context of Sustainability and ICF 11

Figure 2 Significance and Mechanism of Synergies and Trade-offs 15
Figure 3 Diagrammatic Representation of the Relationships Between Key Terminologies 16
Figure 4 Diagram of Research Design 28
Figure 5 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM at the International Level 31
Figure 6 Examples of Waste Management and Utilization Which can be Synergistic
Between CCA and CCM 42
Figure 7 Energy Efficiency as CCM entry into CCA 43
Figure 8 Reduction Emission Reporting Process Through SPECTRUM 48
Figure 9 Webinar Related to the Potential for Integration of PROKLIM with
Social Forestry Programs 49
List of Tables
Table 1 Main Differences Between CCA and CCM 14

Table 2 Illustrative Examples of CCA and CCM Interrelationships 18
Table 3 List of Interviewees and Their Respective Themes 27
Table 4 Examples of Synergy Implementation in Several Countries 30
Tabel 5 GCF Investment Priority Results Area Clusters 35
Table 6 Overview of Types of CCA and CCM Synergies Found in the Paris Agreement
and Decision Texts by Type 37
Table 7 Different Forms of Interrelationship Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia 41
Table 8 Potential Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia 46
Table 9 Indonesia’s Criteria for Prioritizing Proposed Climate Action to the GCF 55
Table 10 List of Project Ideas That Consider CCA and CCM Impact 57
Glossary
ADB Asian Development Bank

AE Accredited Entity
AF Adaptation Fund
AFOLU Agricultural, Forestry, and Other Land Use
APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (State Budget)
AR Assessment Report
BUR Biannual Update Report
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CCC Climate Change Control
CCM Climate Change Mitigation
CDM Clean Development Mechanism

COP Conference of the Parties
COVID Coronavirus Disease
CRP Climate Resilient Pathways
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DMC Developing Member Country
DRM Disaster Risk Management
EPIC Economics & Policy Innovations for Climate-Smart agriculture
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FPA Fiscal Policy Agency
GCF Green Climate Fund
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GI Governing Instrument
GoI Government of Indonesia
GST Global Stocktake
ICF International Climate Finance
(I)NDC Intended National Determined Contributions
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JAM Joint Adaptation and Mitigation
JMA Joint Mitigation Adaptation
LCDI Low Carbon Development Indonesia
LDC Least Developed Countries
LTS-LCCR Long-Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry
MoNDP Ministry of National Development Planning
NDA National Designated Authority
NDC Nationally Determined Contributions
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NEK Nilai Ekonomi Karbon (Carbon Economic Value)
NFP National Focal Point
NOAK Nordic Working Group for Global Climate Negotiations
NRE New Renewable Energy
PFM Performance Measurement Frameworks
PLN Perusahaan Listrik Negara (State Electricity Company)
PROKLIM Program Kampung Iklim (Climate Village Program)
REDD + Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
RENSTRA Rencana Strategis (Strategic Plan)
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SFEP Social Forestry and Environment Partnership
SIEP Sustainable and Inclusive Energy Program
SREAP Sustainable and Reliable Energy Access Program
SRN Sistem Registri Nasional (National Registry System)
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USD United States Dollar

Chapter one
Introduction

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) identifies two responses
to address climate change impacts. First is an adaptation (protection), an adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects moderate harm or
exploit beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2001a). The second is mitigation (prevention), an anthropogenic
intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2001b). The
conclusion is that mitigation can reduce all positive and negative impacts of climate change, reducing
adaptation challenges. While adaptation is more selective than mitigation, it can take advantage
of positive impacts and reduce negative impacts (Goklany, 2005). However, though both are now
necessary to address climate change issues, they remain different priorities.
Climate change mitigation (CCM) has dominated global climate change policy discourse, with climate
change adaptation (CCA) largely considered a responsibility of individual countries (Ayers and Huq,
2009). While developed countries focus on CCM, CCA is essential for more vulnerable developing
countries. This pattern may result from past beliefs that CCM is sufficient to be the first line of defense
against climate change (van Noordwijk et al., 2011). The architecture of the international agreements
also reflects this approach by setting absolute emission targets indicative under the UNFCCC and the
Kyoto Protocol (Michaelowa, 2001).
Nevertheless, while the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol concentrate overwhelmingly on CCM, a
framework for CCA actions was set up within these legal frameworks (Burton, 2000; Verheyen, 2003).
After being treated as a marginal option by scientists and decision-makers worldwide, CCA is now
receiving more attention as a crucial part of a comprehensive global climate policy along with CCM
(Smith, 1997; UNEP/IVM, 1998; Kates, 2000; IPCC, 2001a; Adger, 2001; Burton et al., 2002; Huq, 2002).
Especially since three new funds were established in the second half of the sixth Conference of the
Parties (COP6) to the UNFCCC in 2000 (Dang et al., 2003): a special climate change fund and a least
developed countries (LDCs) fund under the Convention, and an adaptation fund (AF) under the Kyoto
Protocol.
The special climate change fund will finance activities relating to climate change in the areas of CCA;
technology transfer; energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry, and waste management; as
well as activities to assist developing countries whose economies are highly dependent on income
generated from fossil fuels in diversifying their economies (UNFCCC, 2001). The least developed
countries‘ funds will support a work program for LDCs. The adaptation fund, operating under the Kyoto
Protocol, will be financed from the „share of the proceeds“ on the clean development mechanism (CDM)
and other funding sources. However, the funding mechanism shows CCM still dominates over CCA. For
example, CCM activities alone are 96% of global climate finance allocation (350 billion USD) in 2010/11
(Buchner et al., 2012; Schwarze et al., 2018).

For this reason, pursuing CCA and CCM in joint activities in climate change projects and policies is
gaining prominence (Ravindranath, 2007; Wilbanks et al., 2003a) to gain attention to funding CCA. It
then can already be seen in the latest climate change agreement (Article 5 of the Paris Agreement) that
it encourages policy approaches such as joint mitigation and adaptation (JMA) to integrate sustainable
management of forests. Furthermore, Article 2.1C related to financial flows also strongly encourages
the Climate Resilient Pathways (CRP) concept that seeks to synergize CCA and CCM to enhance
climate action implementation and emphasize the importance of CCA. However, matters related to the
meaning of ‘synergized CCA and CCM’ here need further elaboration to guide parties of this Agreement
to understand easily.
The climate change research community, development organizations, policymakers, NGOs, and
practitioners on the ground use a wide range of terminology to describe synergies: links between
(Verchot et al., 2007; Dang et al., 2003; Locatelli et al., 2011), the complementarity of (Mata and
Budhooram, 2007), integration of (Wilbanks and Sathaye, 2007; Dang et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2003;
Wilbanks et al., 2003b; Swart and Raes, 2007; Ayers and Huq, 2009), and interaction between CCA and
CCM (Rosenzweig and Tubiello, 2007). However, from the various existing terminology, the authors
believe that a more synergy approach to CCA and CCM would be desirable as it can be more effective
and efficient (Dang et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2007) and also reduce trade-offs between the two (Kane
and Shogren, 2000). Synergy can promote sustainable development more effectively, especially in
developing countries (Dang et al., 2003; Swart and Raes, 2007), while more funding is also required,
especially for CCA, to address the CCA and CCM actions appropriately, which is especially important for
vulnerable developing countries (Duguma et al., 2014b).
This synergy approach‘s advantages align with the context in Indonesia. While CCM has a great
potential in Indonesia from carbon sequestration through the existence of tropical forests as
ecosystem services, there was a wealth of natural resources (tropical): clean energy (natural gas)/
renewable energy (solar, wind, micro-hydro, ocean waves). On the other side, there is a dilemma
regarding CCA in Indonesia. As one of the countries most affected by climate change, Indonesia is
more concerned about CCA. However, in terms of funding, CCA gets less attention with the budget
allocation realization for CCA is only about 39% of the total budget (FPA, 2020a).
Whereas the overall financing needs for CCA are growing, within the 2021-2030 timeline USD 77.81
billion and then become USD 309.17 billion in the 2050 timeline based on estimates from NDC
(Nationally Determined Contribution) Adaptation Roadmap (2020). Compare that to the current
CCM needs of USD 281 billion to meet the conditional emission reduction targets between 2018-
2030 according to Indonesia‘s Third Biannual Update Report (BUR) in 2021 and USD 294.97 billion for
unconditional emission reductions based on estimates from NDC Mitigation Roadmap (2019).
For these reasons, the synergy of CCA and CCM can become a crucial issue in Indonesia. The synergies
between CCA and CCM have a great potential to provide solutions to climate problems in Indonesia.
First, synergies can encourage more sustainability in climate change action activities. As one of
the vulnerable countries to climate change impacts, there are worries that climate change‘s impact
threatens sustainability and hinders the achievement of Indonesia‘s NDC targets. Meanwhile, in the
NDCs context, synergies will be a precondition for harvesting potential collaboration/integration and
creating a more substantial alignment between CCA and CCM to deliver on climate targets and broader
sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Second, it recognizes the need for balanced finance across CCA and CCM, and financial decisions
recognize the importance of adequate and predictable finance. Therefore exploring the synergy
between CCA and CCM becomes a potential issue in response to the adequacy and predictability of
funding resources, especially the lack of financial support for CCA programs/activities in Indonesia
to address the CCA and CCM actions appropriately. The synergy can also become a solution to make
it cost-effective and time-efficient for NDC implementation. Thus, the synergy between CCA and
CCM can stimulate the implementation of Indonesia‘s NDC. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the
enabling conditions for synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia to improve the sustainability of the
actions and open up international climate finance (ICF) opportunities to stimulate the implementation
of NDC, with three main research questions:
1) T o what extent is the progress of synergy issues between CCA and CCM internationally and in
Indonesia?
2) What enabling conditions can encourage synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia?
3) Are there any advantages or benefits of addressing synergy between CCA and CCM in
international climate finance (ICF) to stimulate the implementation of NDC?
1.2 General Research Framework
As described previously, in this report, we tried to understand the enabling conditions of synergy
between CCA and CCM in Indonesia to stimulate NDC implementation through utilizing synergy
advantages in the context of sustainability and ICF opportunities. Because it appears the issues of
synergy between CCA and CCM are growing and becoming essential to encourage more sustainability
(encouraging sustainability in climate change action activities). On the other side, there was a need for
balance across CCA and CCM funds, especially the lack of financial support for CCA programs/activities
in Indonesia. At the same time, synergy can be a solution for cost-effective and time-efficient NDC
implementation. Therefore, those potentials are called the advantages of synergy issues that can be
useful in stimulating the implementation of NDC Indonesia. With the research framework used in this
study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Position of Synergy
Issue in the Context of
Finance
Sustainability and ICF (ICF Opportunity)
SDGs
Sustainability
(Quality)
CCA Synergy CCM
Enabling Conditions/
Means of Implementation
Source: Authors’ analysis, 2022
Based on the research framework above, to gain these advantages from the synergy between CCA and
CCM, there are needed means of implementation or enabling conditions to realize it. Therefore, this
study attempts to apply this concept in the Indonesian context by analyzing the progress of synergy
between CCA and CCM implementation in Indonesia through its enabling conditions from several
programs or activities. After we have an overview of the progress of synergy implementation, we will
also analyze the advantages achieved from implementing the synergy between CCA and CCM in the
context of sustainability and ICF, which can be through SDGs and then open up funding opportunities
based on the UNFCCC (AF and Green Climate Fund-GCF) to encourage the improvement of national
climate governance and stimulate NDC implementation.
However, this study has a limitation on considering government/development as enabling condition for
the synergy of CCA and CCM in terms of policy and finance, but not on considering the contribution of
the synergy to government/development.

Chapter two
Literature
Review

2. Literature Review
2.1 Forms of Interrelationship Between CCA and CCM
Attention to understanding the interrelationship between CCA and CCM to integrate them priorly began
to surface when many developing countries realized that they now should not discuss whether to
implement what measures to use against climate change. Rather how drastic these measures should
be and how to design integrated climate policies that can go hand in hand with national sustainable
development paths to maximize “win-win” opportunities (Dang et al., 2003; Pyke et al., 2007; Swart
and Raes, 2007). Several studies suggest that national-level policies must address and recognize CCA
and CCM interrelationships and explore the balance between the two (Klein et al., 2005; Stoorvogel et
al., 2004; Berry et al., 2014; Landauer et al., 2015; Leonard et al., 2016). Further, several sectors have
been studied regarding the potential interrelationship between CCA and CCM that can occur, including
conservation (Di Gregorio et al., 2016; Locatelli et al., 2015), agriculture (Bryan et al., 2010; Palm et al.,
2010; Kassam et al., 2012; Aguilera et al., 2013), agroforestry (Duguma et al., 2014a), or even AFOLU and
REDD+ (de la Torre et al., 2009).
However, a dichotomy between CCA and CCM policies arises from several factors; these include
differences in spatial, temporal, institutional, and administrative scales, as well as differences in
research traditions and disciplines (Goklany, 2007; Swart and Raes, 2007; Wilbanks et al., 2007;
Moser, 2012; Dymén and Langlais, 2013). Therefore, choices in integrating CCA and CCM will also vary
according to each country‘s circumstances and each locality (Wilbanks, 2003b; De Boer et al., 2010).
CCM benefits accrue globally, whereas the benefits of CCA tend to aggregate at the city and regional
scales, encouraging policies ranging from the regional scale to even the building scale (Ayers and Huq,
2009; Balaban and de Oliveira, 2013). In terms of the temporal scale – due to feed-forward delays in the
carbon cycle in the atmosphere – benefits from CCM measures are realized over longer time scales,
while CCA has more short-term effects by reducing vulnerability to immediate and near-term climate
risks (McEvoy et al., 2006; IPCC, 2007; Ayers and Huq, 2009).
Furthermore, CCM costs are typically local – although benefits are mainly global (although reductions
in energy costs can also be local) – whereas CCA costs and benefits tend to be localized (Jones et al.,
2007; Ayers and Huq, 2009). CCM and CCA policy formation and implementation are also conducted at
different jurisdictional scales. CCA is mainly responsible for municipal-, provincial-, and national-level
administrations, whereas national governments and supranational institutions are the legal governing
institutions for CCM actions (Ayers and Huq, 2009; Ford et al., 2011). In more detail, the differences
between CCA and CCM are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Main Differences Between CCA and CCM
Climate Change Adaptation Climate Change Mitigation
Sectoral focus Selected at-risk sectors All sectors that can reduce GHG emissions
Geographical scale of effect Local, regional Global
The temporal scale of effect Short, medium, and long term Long term
Effectiveness Increases in climate resilience Reduction in global temperature rise

commitment
Ancillary benefits Improve response to extreme events in Multiple

(or co-benefits) the current climate
Actor benefits Almost entirely through reduction of Through ancillary benefits

climate impact and ancillary benefits
Polluter pays Not necessarily Yes
Monitoring More challenging (needs metrics to mea- Relatively easy (measuring the GHG emis-
sure the reduction of climate risk) sions reduction)
Source: Adopted from Dang et al., 2003
Based on the table above, the fundamental differences between CCA and CCM make CCA may be
the highest priority in highly vulnerable countries because there are immediate benefits of reducing
vulnerabilities to current climate variability and extremes and future climate changes. In contrast, CCA
initiatives have often been seen as a lower priority in the case of developed countries because it is
perceived that there is a sizeable adaptive capacity (Naess et al., 2005).
Further, while there is growing interest and encouragement in integrating CCA and CCM, it remains
challenging to identify integration issues and opportunities and the drivers behind the two policies‘
decision-making approaches and implementation mechanisms (Grafakos et al., 2019). Swart and Raes
(2007) suggest several factors that should be taken into consideration when evaluating combined CCA
and CCM policy designs, including (1) avoiding trade-offs when designing policies for CCA and CCM; (2)
identifying synergies; (3) enhancing response capacity; (4) developing institutional links between CCA
and CCM, for example, in national institutions, and international negotiations; and (5) mainstreaming
CCA and CCM considerations into broader sustainable development policies. Therefore, more
understanding of these issues is needed to ensure that effective integration maximizes the synergies
and minimizes the conflicts between CCA and CCM.
Several studies reflect the linkage between CCA and CCM options under the climate change regime
as a “cause and effect” interaction, the more effective CCM is now, the less need for CCA in the future
(Dang et al., 2003). There is also a clear link between CCA and CCM measures are interrelated–in
some cases positively (synergy) and in others negatively (conflicts)–and sometimes implementation
decisions are based on difficult trade-offs, requiring a choice between conflicting policies and
planning objectives (Klein et al., 2007). Zhao et al. (2018) describe the positive and negative relationship
between CCA and CCM in a quadrant shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Significance and Mechanism of Synergies and Trade-offs.
Adaptation
Tradeoffs of adaptation
Positive synergies
(„adaptive emissions“)
Example: wind power generation,
Example: energy used coastal protec-
urban green space, reforestation
tion, fossil fuels cooling and heating
Mitigation
Tradeoffs of mitigation
Negative synergies („new vulnerabilities“)
Example: overgrazing, traffic Example: landfill, hydroelectric
congestion, deforestation power generating competition with
local communities
Source: Modified from Zhao et al., 2003
The top right quadrant represents a synergy, meaning CCA measures can reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions simultaneously or if CCM action does not cause vulnerability in the region in the
context of CCM. Essentially, the action of CCM (or CCA) positively affects CCA (or CCM). For example,
reforestation activities increase carbon sequestration and regional adaptive capacity, creating a
positive synergy effect.
While the top left and bottom right quadrants correspond to trade-off effects. The top left quadrant,
trade-offs of CCA, is where adaptive actions bring “negative external effects” to CCM. It can be
described as inappropriate CCA, which reducing or eliminating regional vulnerabilities can also lead
to more GHG emissions, weakening the CCA effect. For example, to prevent seawater encroachment,
dam construction increases the use of steel and cement, which are higher carbon emission goods,
resulting in “adaptive emissions.”
Further, the bottom right quadrant corresponds to trade-offs of CCM, where a CCM action enhances
regional vulnerabilities or brings new vulnerabilities when reducing GHG emissions. In other words, the
CCM leads to “negative external effects” on CCA, such as hydroelectric power generating competition
with local communities in utilizing water (IPCC AR4 2007; Zheng, Wang, and Pan 2013; Fu, Zheng, and
Wang 2014). The bottom left quadrant is the counter-example: “negative synergies.” For example,
traffic congestion causes an increase in GHGs and pollution, coupled with deforestation leading to a
decrease in regional adaptive capacity and the loss of other carbon sinks.

Among its conclusions on the work on interrelationships between CCM and CCA, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that “significant co-benefits, synergies, and trade-offs exist
between CCA and CCM and among different CCA responses, interactions occur both within and across
regions and sectors” (IPCC, 2015). For this reason, the interrelationship between CCA and CCM can be
shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 Diagrammatic Representation of the Relationships Between Key Terminologies
Climate Actions
CCA CCM
Trade-off
Synergy
Co-impacts
Co-benefits Negative effect/

conflict
Source: Modified from Chastin et al., 2021
Where there are several links between CCA and CCM, namely co-impacts, co-benefits, negative
effects or conflict, synergy, and trade-offs, with a more detailed description of each of these
interrelationships, among others:
a. Co-impacts happen when any CCA and/or CCM action or policy has non-climate-related impacts on
society; it can be intentional when a policy or action takes them into account or unintended (Chastin
et al., 2021).
b. C
onflict is a plan, policy, strategy, or practical measure that counteracts or undermines planning
goals between CCA and CCM (Grafakos et al., 2018). Conflict can appear when an attempt to integrate
CCA and CCM results in urban planning failure or the two climate policies are in ‘silos’ which is not
necessarily time and cost-efficient, especially in the long term (Walsh et al. 2011). Conflicts between
CCA and CCM are often spatial, given that many of the CCA measures (such as water management
practices using urban forestry and urban greening) require significant land area to be effective.
Meanwhile, some CCM plans are poorly planned. Such efforts may undermine urban densification
efforts that reduce transportation and energy demands, reducing the land area needed for CCA
(Dymén and Langlais, 2013; Viguié and Hallegatte, 2012; Hamin Gurran, 2009).
c. C
o-benefit is the positive effect a policy or measure may have on one goal on another, regardless
of its net effect on overall social welfare. Co-benefits are often uncertain and depend on local

circumstances and implementation practices, among other factors (IPCC, 2014). It occurs when a
plan, policy, or measure that aims to enhance a CCA objective simultaneously enhances the CCM
objective or vice versa (Grafakos et al., 2019; Berry et al., 2015; Sharifi, 2021). This interrelationship
can result in the cascade of the ‘ripple effect’ resulting from a climate policy or action, providing one
co-benefit, which provides another, and so on (Chastin et al., 2021).
d. Synergy is described as the interaction of CCA and CCM so that the combined effect is greater
than the sum of the effects when applied separately (Klein et al., 2007; Nordic Council of Ministers,
2017; Grafakos et al., 2018; Landauer et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2018). Therefore, the synergy between
CCA and CCM is an approach in which both actions are addressed without priority, especially in the
context of systems thinking to address climate change issues (Duguma et al., 2014b).
e. Trade-off is a situation that requires choosing (balancing) between one or more desired, but
sometimes conflicting, plans, policies, or strategies (Grafakos et al., 2018). Depending on the
goals and priorities of CCA or CCM, trade-offs, i.e., ‘balancing,’ are required when beneficiaries
and policy priorities differ between climate policies (Heidrich et al. 2013). It involves losing one
quality or aspect to gain another quality or aspect. It represents the net impact of CCA and CCM
activities (Klein et al., 2007). Trade-offs between CCA and CCM often appear when deciding on
“hard” versus “soft” engineering and planning solutions. As well as in situations where the temporal
scale of implementation sets limitations or uncertainties regarding planning horizons, availability of
resources such as financing and staff, overall limits of authority, availability of expertise and data,
and availability of physical space to implement integrated solutions (Jordan, 2009; Juhola et al.,
2013; Dymén and Langlais, 2013).
Moreover, Grafakos (2019) provides examples, and an additional type of ‘ripple effect’ as shown in Table 2,
illustrates the types of interrelationship above.

Table 2 Illustrative Examples of CCA and CCM Interrelationships
Type of inter- Action/measure Primary Interrelationship explained

relationship objective
Co-impacts REDD+ program (Reduced CCM More wildlife diversity and carbon stock conserva-
Emissions from Deforestation tion can be achieved through the same budget if
and Forest Degradation plus these two goals are pursued together
conservation)
Conflict Densification of urban CCM The dense urban structure that is key to reducing
structure transportation and energy demands reduces
green areas suitable for natural flood protection
measures
Co-benefit District heating and cooling CCM District cooling can also be used in warm months
system to adapt to high temperatures
Ripple effect Housing energy efficiency CCA and CCM Besides the climate context, it can help break the
policy cycle of poverty through its impact on personal
finances, improved physical and mental health,
and increased attendance and performance in
education for children and adults in the workplace.
This will ultimately result in increased productivity
for the economy and savings through reduced
healthcare costs and benefits payments.
Synergy Construction of green walls CCA and CCM Green walls and rooftops increase the energy
and rooftops efficiency of buildings and decrease water runoff
Trade-off Urban zoning CCA and CCM Challenges to setting priorities in urban planning
due to space limitations in cities
Source: Modified from Grafakos et al., 2019
From these several types of interrelationships, it can be seen that synergies have the most attractive
concept. Because it is essential to note that synergy between CCA and CCM is more significant than
their parts, or the combined effect is greater than the sum of the activities if implemented separately
(Udvardy and Winkelman, 2014). As is identified in the previous NOAK study on synergies (Illman et
al., 2013), the concept of synergies is often taken to mean a range of different things, including links
between, the complementarity of, integration with, co-benefit, added value, and interaction between,
CCA and CCM.
Further reinforcing the concept, Leonard et al. (2016) define synergy as combined or ‘co-operative’
effects, the effects produced by things that operate together. Meaning that effects produced by
the whole are more significant than the two parts operating alone (sometimes described using the
“2+2=5”-metaphor). As well as Zhao et al. (2018) describe synergy as the effect of “1 + 1 > 2,” that is,

the aggregation (effects) is greater than the sum of each part. Therefore the synergy in this study, as
we summarized, is CCA and CCM activities that are possibly planned and implemented at the same
location and in the same arrangement so that the combined effect is expected to be greater than the
sum of the effects when applied separately.
However, in work on interrelationships between CCA and CCM, the IPCC (Klein et al., 2007) captures
this critical type of synergy in their conceptual framework, which includes four different types of
interaction. The first is CCA actions that have consequences for CCM (A→M). One of the forms is
individual responses to climate hazards that increase or decrease GHGs. For example, a common
adaptation to heat waves is installing air conditioning, increasing electricity demand with mitigating
consequences when electricity is generated from fossil fuels. The second is CCM actions that have
consequences for CCA (M→A). For example, CCM measures that transfer finance to developing
countries (such as per capita allocations) that stimulate investment with CCA benefits.
Then the third is decisions that include trade-offs or synergies between CCA and CCM (∫(A, M)).
These analysts are concerned with the explicit trade-offs between CCA and CCM, such as public
sector funding and budgeting processes that allocate funding for both CCA and CCM. The last is
processes that have consequences for CCA and CCM (A M). These concerns can be raised within the
same decision framework or sequential process without explicitly considering their trade-offs or
synergies. For example, monitoring systems and reporting requirements may include CCA and CCM
indicators. Therefore, according to this typology, the true synergies between CCA and CCM are ∫(M,
A). In other words, action must benefit both CCA and CCM to be labeled a synergy. The other three are
complementary actions, which can have co-benefits (A →M and M→A) or side-effects stemming from
actions in other areas (A M).
The interrelationships between CCA and CCM will vary with the type of policy decisions made, for
example, at different scales, from regional project analysis to global analysis (Klein et al., 2007).
There will be a clear M→A relationship across many CCM projects, for example, ensuring that CCA is
incorporated into project designs. Similarly, in the design or appraisal of a CCA project, the CCM option
may be included, for example, in considering reducing energy use in project design (A →M). The same
M→A and A →M issues apply at the policy level (e.g., portfolio, funding, strategy), but the broader
potential for cross-sectoral linkages makes simultaneous consideration of CCA and CCM (A M) more
critical (Klein et al., 2007). For example, a significant shift in energy policy (country level) towards
CCM may require assessing changes from CCA across various sectors. There may even be a need to
consider some explicit trade-off between CCA and CCM (∫(A, M)).
Then, in many cases, synergies are also examined in a broader sustainable development context.
Reference is often made to developing adaptive and mitigative or even response capacity (Klein et al.
2007, Swart and Raes 2007), climate compatible development (Mitchell and Maxwell, 2010), reducing
vulnerabilities, seeking co-benefits with development policy and enabling sustainable livelihoods,
and Climate Resilient Development (IPCC, 2022). In conclusion, it should be understood that synergies
and trade-offs are between CCA and CCM actions and among the different CCA or CCM measures
(Felgenhauer and Webster 2013). Finding and exploiting synergistic relationships can lower costs and
help balance the dual objectives of CCA and CCM under limited resources (Fu, Zheng, and Wang 2014) to
be more effective and efficient in tackling the impacts of climate change while promoting sustainable
development.

2.2 Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM
The details of specific CCA and CCM activities in the regions and sectors show that they can positively
and negatively influence each other’s effectiveness. These interrelationships (positive or negative)
often depend on local conditions and national circumstances. While the topic has recently gained
international policy recognition, the main challenge lies at the national (and sub-national) level despite
increasing recognition in international policy and national-level implementation (Leonard et al., 2016).
Little knowledge of how such approaches are applied “on the ground’’. Therefore, international policies
are provided to assist countries in incorporating the enabling conditions necessary for synergistic
design and implementation (Duguma et al., 2014; Leonard et al., 2016).
According to Grafakos et al. (2019), a city’s capacity to undertake integrated actions for CCA and CCM
is determined by structural conditions that provide the necessary opportunities or, on the contrary,
impede and hinder integrated climate change action. Structural conditions define the current context
and boundaries of a city’s operating system. Structural conditions comprise the environmental and
physical setting, institutions and governance, economic and financial conditions, and socio-cultural
characteristics of a city. Structural conditions are difficult to change in the short run and often require
coherent, continuous, and persistent action. To a large extent, structural conditions determine a city’s
vulnerability and capacity to adapt to climate change impacts and reduce GHG emissions.
Further, besides structural conditions, a wide range of urban actors (government, practitioners,
public and private companies, the scientific community, and stakeholders from civil society such
as boundary organizations) are also vital for effective planning and implementation and broad
outreach during the preparation and execution of policies and actions including integrating CCA and
CCM. Especially political leadership is needed that can often drive climate policy and determine its
successful implementation (Burch, 2010; Johnson and Breil, 2012; Lesueur et al., 2015). For these
reasons, stakeholder engagement and participation in the planning and decision-making process and
information in all dimensions and forms (such as awareness-raising campaigns and education) are
parts of the capacity needed. In addition, there is also a need for financial resources and mechanisms
at all stages of policy development, project initiation, and implementation, along with planning and
regulatory instruments. These resources and technical means at cities’ disposal have to consider to
overcome these barriers and better manage climate change challenges in an integrated manner.
While Grafakos et al. (2018) focus on the city level, Klein et al. (2005) and Duguma et al. (2014b) focus
on the national level. Klein et al. (2005) point out that an analytical and institutional framework for
monitoring the inter-relationships and organizing periodic assessments needs to be developed.
Effective institutional development, financial instruments, participatory planning, and risk-
management strategies are areas for learning from the emerging experience. Duguma et al. (2014b)
also consider four primary enabling conditions. Unless such enabling conditions are prioritized, the
accompanying inefficiency in tackling the problem of climate change will remain a challenge. The
enabling conditions referred to include:
• Emphasis on integrated national laws, policies, and strategies.

• Existing and planned financial means and measures to promote synergies.

• Institutional arrangements in countries with particular reference to climate change issues
• International plans, programs, and initiatives.
The results of the formulation of enabling conditions by Duguma et al. (2014b) and Klein et al.
(2005) align with this study that focuses on Indonesia‘s national climate governance to support the
implementation of synergies between CCA and CCM. However, we also consider the resource and
technical means proposed by Grafakos et al. (2018), considering that they are still in line with the scope
of governance instruments, and synergies are generally implemented at the site scale. Therefore,
based on the literature review results, we can conclude four enabling conditions for implementing the
synergy between CCA and CCM.
The first is effective institutions and governance (stakeholders and political leadership). The first
enabling conditions for synergy are improving the institution‘s coordination and cooperation in
governance (across scales and sectors) or national-level committee or implementing body to address
synergy issues between CCA and CCM. For synergy can happen, a wide range of urban actors (e.g.,
government, practitioners, public and private companies, the scientific community, and stakeholders
from civil society such as boundary organizations) are needed for realizing effective planning and
implementation—also broad outreach during the preparation and execution of policies and actions.
Meanwhile, improving institutions and coordination and cooperation in governance can help overcome
regional constraints associated with mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction.
Second, some standard or relevant guidelines as technical guidelines for implementing synergy
between CCA and CCM. These standards or tools are needed to help understand interactions and
support decision-making at local and regional scales. While third, there is a need for financial
resources, more specifically, a common climate fund for CCA and CCM that combines various sources
of funds. Because public-private partnerships and private-sector engagement are crucial means for
financing climate change measures mainly related to capital-intensive, energy-efficient, and climate-
resilient infrastructure, implementing different climate change actions (particularly the structural
ones) can be costly. Therefore, a transparent budget allocation and financial commitment for financing
climate actions are imperative for implementation.
The last is policy/planning/regulatory instruments (at any level) that encourage the implementation of
synergy between CCA and CCM (e.g., CCM projects will be approved if they consider CCA or vice versa).
It can be said that the previous supporting instruments will depend on policy/planning/regulations,
which is a big umbrella for the implementation of synergies. As we know, CCA and/or CCM actions
can be mainstreamed into existing sectoral plans and policies, whereas existing plans and actions
in different sectors can incorporate climate change objectives. Actions can be implemented so that
urban and infrastructure plans contain climate considerations (e.g., land use, transport, water, and
sanitation). The provision of services (e.g., water, transport) can incorporate low-carbon and climate-
proof regulations and specifications. In addition, a particular climate change unit can be created
within the municipal structure to be held responsible for climate policy (within an existing unit or as
a separate unit), or climate considerations can be mainstreamed into a range of municipal units. A
standard policy or regulatory framework can also enhance the integration of CCA and CCM. Moreover, a
standard implementation body could also ensure a more efficient combined CCA and CCM actions.

2.3 Advantages and Constraints of Synergies Between
CCA and CCM
The synergy between CCA and CCM has severe advantages to be more explored for better climate
change action implementation at the national level. Many authors suggested that a synergy approach
for mitigation and adaptation (∫(M, A)) could be desirable as it can be more effective and efficient rather
than as an afterthought (M→A and A→M) (Klein et al., 2007). The synergies between CCA and CCM can
increase the cost-effectiveness and make them more attractive to stakeholders, including potential
funding agencies (IPCC, 2007).
Atmospheric scientists widely agree that climatic changes‘ projected rate and magnitude can reduce
GHG emissions (IPCC, 2001a). At the exact time, CCA costs and challenges can also be lessened by CCM
(IPCC, 2001c). Therefore, the need for future adaptation is inextricably related to the current level of
GHG emissions/CCM action (AfDB et al., 2002). Meanwhile, regarding funding-related issues, CCA has
another particular link to CCM through the Kyoto Protocol adaptation fund (Article 12), mainly through
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Therefore the more effective the CDM is, and the more used, the
greater the funds that can be expected for CCA assistance (Burton, 2000).
In other words, the synergy between CCA and CCM can lower costs and help balance the dual objectives
of CCA and CCM under limited resources, which is an urgent and practical problem for high emission
and high vulnerability areas (Fu, Zheng, and Wang, 2014 ). For example, urban design can pay proper
attention to climate-safe seating, energy-efficient building characteristics, and low transportation
requirements. This activity will limit energy use and reduce exposure to the possible negative
consequences of climate change in coastal areas or flooding areas (Swart and Raes, 2007). It can also
be applied to the land use and forestry sectors. For example, reforestation can prevent flooding and
erosion and absorb carbon emissions (Dang et al., 2003).
The synergy between CCA and CCM can also reduce trade-offs (Kane and Shogren, 2000). If CCA
and CCM action can be more effective and efficient through this synergy concept, they can promote
sustainable development more effectively, especially in developing countries (Dang et al., 2003; Swart
and Raes, 2007). Synergies of CCA and CCM to sustainable development planning can optimize SDGs
and tackle climate change. Linkages between CCA and CCM actions and sustainable development
have also been addressed in the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. In the
Convention, for example, the relationship between CCM, CCA, and sustainable development has been
initially reflected in Article 2. The article states that CCM action must be achieved within a sufficient
timeframe to enable ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure that food production is
not threatened, and enable economic development to continue sustainably (United Nations, 1992).
In addition, under the commitments of the Convention, Parties should take into account climate
change, to the extent possible, in relevant social, economic, and environmental policies and actions,
and use appropriate methods, for example, impact assessments, formulated and determined
nationally, to minimize adverse impacts on the economy, public health, and environmental quality,
projects or actions taken by them to mitigate or adapt to climate change (United Nations, 1992).
An example of linkage is the CDM under the Kyoto Protocol, which assists developing countries in
achieving sustainable development and contributing to the Convention’s ultimate objective (United

Nations, 1998). However, the article does not explain whether this two-kind activity has to be
implemented at the same time only or whether this should be conducted at the exact location and
arrangement. Therefore, further elaboration on this issue is needed.
Then the synergy between CCA and CCM also impacts the ICF. Because synergy can promote more
funding for CCA to ensure that CCA and CCM are addressed appropriately, which is vital to vulnerable
developing countries (Duguma et al., 2014b). Furthermore, given that CCM activities can benefit
or hinder CCA, and vice versa, promoting activities that contribute to both goals can increase the
efficiency of the allocation of funds and minimize trade-offs, especially in land-related activities such
as agriculture and forestry (Locatelli et al., 2016). All of these advantages can lead to stimulating the
implementation of NDC Indonesia. Because with synergies that can minimize trade-offs between the
two, CCA can make CCM actions more resilient, thus, promoting more sustainability in both climate
actions. Second, from ICF opportunities, promoting CCA funds to balance CCA and CCM can also
contribute to the implementation of Indonesia‘s NDC, considering that the implementation of CCA in
Indonesia is experiencing obstacles in terms of funding.
However, synergies have a constraint that can potentially hinder their implementation. Synergies
are not equally possible in all sectors because inherent characteristics of the sector and various
supportive elements (including technology, finance, social capital, and know-how) that facilitate
actions on CCA and CCM are not present nor needed to the same extent in the sectors. For example,
some CCM actions in the urban sector will require finance and technology, while others require know-
how. Similarly, CCM actions in the forestry sector to support afforestation is about social capital and
know-how. In contrast, forest protection generally depends on a combination of finance and social
capital (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2017).
Further, CCA options should be designed and implemented while considering the goal of sustainable
development. It is to ensure that CCA actions at one scale or sector do not lead to inequitable and
unsustainable outcomes or increasing vulnerability in another, such as increased GHG emissions and
water use, human encroachment into natural systems, and gender and social inequality increased.
Meanwhile, CCM options must be designed well to avoid undermining sustainable development. For
example, plantations for bioenergy production, if poorly designed or managed, can encroach on
agricultural lands, forests, or indigenous or local ownership. However, if decision-makers stay in a
vicious “apple or orange” circle of viewing CCA and CCM differently, they may act without information
about comparisons between the two options (Smith, 2002). This approach would have unfavorable
implications on national efforts to avoid GHG emissions and adapt to severe potential impacts of
climate change (Dang et al., 2003).
Furthermore, the lack of well-documented studies at the regional and sectoral levels hinders the
implementation of the synergies between CCA and CCM. Several studies about CCA and CCM only
focus on their primary domains, and few studies analyze the secondary consequences (Klein et al.,
2007). The literature is also very diverse: there is no consensus as to whether or not exploiting inter-
relationships between CCA and CCM is possible, much less desirable. Even some analysts see the
potential for creating synergies between CCA and CCM and may produce insufficient CCA and CCM
benefits (Venema and Cisse, 2004; Goklany, 2007).

At the same time, others are skeptical about considering CCA and CCM in tandem. There is a risk of
the project developer describing the CCM project as a CCA project or vice versa to obtain funds (Klein
et al., 2005). Studies in Vietnam and Indonesia have shown that competition for funding resources and
limited experience and capacity from related stakeholders contribute to arguments in favor of keeping
the two policy approaches on separate tracks (Pham et al., 2014). Furthermore, the integration of
CCA and CCM projects can be complex and bring difficulties in coordinating such projects (Dang et al.,
2003). It also burdens beneficiary countries and project developers with low technical expertise and
awareness if applying and reporting to multiple climate funds (Adaptation Committee, 2020).
However, suppose a comprehensive national climate policy could strike a rational balance between
CCA and CCM instruments that maximize their potential synergies. Climate policies could become
socially and economically efficient and offer more significant opportunities for countries to achieve
sustainable development targets despite the large scientific uncertainty (Dang et al., 2003). This is
especially important given developing countries‘ limited financial and human resources.
2.4 Key Takeaways
• The typical concept of the interrelationships between CCA and CCM is synergies and conflicts
between the two climate policies or trade-offs in cases where a seek the balance. Understanding
this interrelationship is needed to ensure that effective integration maximizes the synergies and
minimizes the conflicts between CCA and CCM.
• There is four enabling condition for synergy between CCA and CCM: policy, effective institution,
standard, and financial resources. Prioritization of enabling conditions is needed to overcome the
inefficiency challenges accompanying the synergies of addressing CCA-CCM issues.
• The synergy between CCA and CCM has advantages for sustainable development and can
promote more funding, especially for CCA, for balancing CCA and CCM. While it can contribute to
stimulating the implementation of NDC, the lack of international agreement and conceptual and
empirical information has created a barrier to reaching the full potential of synergy between CCA
and CCM.
• Often type synergy, including M→A, A→M, and A M interrelationship, can be massive potential for
a funding opportunity, in particular for approved projects under AF or GCF (under ICF) because
these proposals have been designed under approval standardized criteria of formally authorized
finance institutions under UNFCCC or Paris Agreement.

Chapter three
Methodology

3. Methodology
This study uses primary data from in-depth interviews and secondary data from relevant documents.
The in-depth interviews were conducted with several actors that play a strategic role in three cases
that we chose in the context of Indonesia. These three cases are several programs or sectors that we
believe have high potential in encouraging the implementation of synergies between CCA and CCM,
namely:
1) A
land-based sector with a particular topic on social forestry, coordinated by the Directorate Of
Social Forestry Area Preparation of MoEF (NFP-UNFCCC).
Social Forestry, according to Government Regulations 23/2021, is a sustainable forest management
system implemented in State Forest Areas or private forest/customary forests carried out by local
communities or customary law communities as the main actors to improve welfare, environmental
balance, and socio-cultural dynamics in the form of Hutan Desa, Hutan Kemasyarakatan, Hutan
Tanaman Rakyat, Hutan Adat, dan Kemitraan Kehutanan. Because its activities are related to forest
management, we believe that the Social Forestry program has the potential to implement synergies
between CCA and CCM.
2) The energy sector, with a potential topic on climate risks to be addressed in electricity generating
plants and distribution by PT PLN.
The energy sector has traditionally focused on CCM. However, climate change can also affect the
energy sector, especially in vulnerable countries such as Indonesia. Therefore, the energy sector
also needs to consider CCA‘s efforts to deal with the impacts of climate change that may affect the
energy supply. Most recently, AR6 (IPCC, 2022) has also provided scientific support regarding the
potential synergies between CCA and CCM in energy systems. Therefore, we try to take the case of
energy, especially electricity through PT PLN, to see to what extent the synergy between CCA and
CCM has been considered.
3) L
ocal-based climate change actions through the climate village program (PROKLIM), coordinated by
the Directorate of Climate Change Adaptation of MoEF (NFP-UNFCCC).
PROKLIM, according to Regulation of the Director-General of Climate Change Control P.4/PPI/API/
PPI.6/3/2021, is a national-wide program managed by the MoEF to increase the involvement of the
community and other stakeholders to increase climate resilience, reduce emissions or increase
greenhouse gas (GHG) absorption and provide recognition of CCA and CCM efforts that have been
carried out can improve welfare at the local level according to regional conditions. Therefore,
PROKLIM has much potential to implement the synergy between CCA and CCM.
In addition, to obtain in-depth information on updated financial support from ICF, we interviewed
leading institutions on this matter in Indonesia, i.e., KEMITRAAN/Partnership for Governance Reforms
as of Accredited Entities (AE) for both AF and GCF. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that limits offline
meetings, all primary data collection processes are conducted through online interviews. Table 3
shows the relevant actors from each case we selected as key informants and the discussion themes.

Table 3 List of Interviewees and Their Respective Themes
Position/Institution Themes
Member of TP2PS/Board Kawal Borneo Exploring Information Regarding Social Forestry as Part of
Programs/Activities to Achieve NDC Targets
Manager of Climate Change PT PLN To what extent can the Synergy of Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation be applied to Indonesia's energy
sector, especially electricity at PLN?
Director for Climate Change Adaptation, The Synergy of Climate Change Adaptation & Mitigation in
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) the Climate Village Program (PROKLIM)
Program Director For Sustainable Governance Strategic Funding Opportunities to Promote Synergy of Climate
Kemitraan (Partnership for Governance Reform) Change Adaptation and Mitigation for Effective NDC
Implementation
Furthermore, this research will be analyzed using qualitative analysis methods through qualitative de-
scriptive analysis. Qualitative descriptive analysis is a method for condensing large amounts of data to
develop a more coherent understanding or to create a solid basis for analyzing the „how“ or „why“ of some-
thing that happened. (Miles et al., 2014). Therefore Figure 4 shows the research design used in this study.

Figure 4 Diagram of Research Design
Assessment of Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM
International
1. International agenda/agreement (Paris Agreement, IPCC, SDGs ect.)
2. Funding agencies (GCF, AF, ADB, ect.)
3. Related research
Indonesia
Cases:
∙ Local based (Climate Village Program-PROKLIM) - MoEF
∙ Land-based sector (Social Forestry) - MoEF
∙ Energy/electricity sector – PT PLN
Assessment on Potential Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM
Planning/Regulatory Effective Institutions and

Instruments (at any level) Governance
Standard/Relevant
Financial Resources
Guidelines
Assessment on Advantages or Disavantages of Synergy Between

CCA and CCM in ICF
Content Analysis
The first analysis assesses the progress of synergy issues between CCA and CCM at the international
level, referencing Indonesia‘s climate change governance and policy. While the international context
will depend on the literature review results on several relevant documents, the Indonesian context,
apart from the literature review results, will also be supported by discussions with key stakeholders
or resource persons. Then we scrutinize the documents from each case based on the four enabling
conditions for synergy between CCA and CCM. Finally, we will review the benefits of implementing the
synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia regarding the ICF opportunities, especially for CCA.

Chapter four
Progress of Synergy Issues

Between CCA and CCM in
International and Indonesia

4. Progress of Synergy Issues Between
CCA and CCM in International and
Indonesia
4.1 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM at the

International Level
Emergent climate change risks have become vital for current and future sustainable development.
The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change threatens human well-being and
planetary health. Any delay in concerted anticipatory global action on CCA and CCM will miss a brief and
rapidly closing window to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (IPCC, 2022). For this reason,
synergy issues are growing from time to time, highlighting the advantages of implementing a synergy
between CCA and CCM that will lead to sustainability, which is a pathway to the SDGs (especially
in climate action). For this reason, currently, several countries have tried to implement synergies
between CCA and CCM in several sectors, some examples of which are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Examples of Synergy Implementation in Several Countries
Sector Cases CCA Potential CCM Potential Source
Agriculture EPIC (Economics & Policy Innovations for Enabling/ maximizing Enhanced carbon sequestra- EPIC, 2012
Climate-Smart agriculture), under the FAO’s production under heavier tion potential of soil
Agricultural and Development Economics precipitation conditions
Division has initiated a climate-smart
agriculture project to increase the capacity of
agricultural systems to support food security
while incorporating the need for CCA and the
potential of CCM into sustainable agricultural
development strategies
Forestry and REDD + mechanism could have the potential Increasing adaptive capa- Enhanced carbon sequest- Illman, J., M. Halo-
land use to harness several synergies between CCM city to increasing climate ration potential nen, P. Rinne, S. Huq,
and CCA systematically variability and extreme S. Tveitdal, 2013
events
Energy Promoting sustainable charcoal briquettes Erosion prevention and Reduced emissions from Illman, J., M. Halo-
in Tanzania, which as a renewable raw ma- improved watershed avoidance of fossil fuel- nen, P. Rinne, S. Huq,
terial, charcoal briquettes are also nearly management, reduced based energy, improved S. Tveitdal, 2013
carbon neutral vulnerability to increasing carbon sequestration due to
energy prices avoided deforestation
Infrastructure The city of Copenhagen suggests synergies Reduced vulnerability to Reduced emissions from the Municipality of
construction from reducing watertight areas in city sea level rise or flooding decreased need to pump Copenhagen, 2009 in
and planning spatial plans starting in 2009 rainwater and decreased Larsen Kornov and
energy consumption Wejs, 2012
Waste Waste Concern, an NGO in Bangladesh, is Increased moisture reten- Reduced emissions from Ayers and Huq, 2008
treatment implementing a program to manage organic tion and fertility reducing avoided landfill, increased
waste from landfills to produce organic vulnerability to drought carbon sequestration
compost
Source: Modified from Illman et al., 2013

To reach this stage, the issue of synergy has come a long way since it first received attention. Where
the synergy issue began was still doubtful due to the lack of further research until many more studies
developed synergy issues with other issues, including sustainable development. However, several
recent studies also show that the issue of CCA and CCM synergies still faces some challenges and has
not developed as expected. Including the development of international climate finance in supporting
synergies. Progress on the synergy between CCA and CCM at the international level can be seen in
Figure 5.
Figure 5 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM at International Level
2003 2007 2011 2014
Synergy of adaptation and mitigation stra- AR4 IPCC Report of the Conference of the AR5 IPCC
tegies in the context of sustainable develop- (Klein, et.al. 2007) Parties on its seventeenth session (Denton, et.al. 2014)
ment: the case of Vietnam (Dang et.al., 2003) Explores inter-relation- Points out the necessity for promo- Considers the interrela-
Addressing there was large scientific ships between CCA and ting the full development of the Joint tionships between CCA and
uncertainty to implementing synergy. However, CCM and assesses their Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism, CCM and demonstrates the
synergy could create social and economic effi- policy relevance considering the full integration of potential for integration of
ciency and offer more significant opportunities the multiple benefits of forests into CCA and CCM in sustainable
to achieve sustainable development targets. mitigation and adaptation to climate development and CRP
change
2017 2016 2015
Climate Change Operational Framework 2017–2030: GCF insight: Cross-cutting projects Paris Agreement and SDGs
Enhanced Actions for Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions and and the mitigation-adaptation Requires that climate action
Climate-Resilient Development (ADB, 2017) balance (GCF, 2016) and climate finance deliver GHG
ADB will take a proactive strategic approach to achieve the SDGs in Cross-sectoral projects strike a emission reductions and adaptation
tandem with climate actions (CCA and CCM) and DRM good balance between CCA and CCM, and resilience in a harmonized and
and can also provide a competitive synergistic approach
Mitigation & Adaptation Synergies in the NDCs advantage
(Nordic Council of Ministers, 2017)
∙ Analysis shows that a CCA-CCM disconnect remains, and there was a
weak link between climate funding and synergies
∙ S ynergy could be mainstreamed across the funds where it is not
implicit in the funding criteria and issuing of more specific guidance
on how to address the synergy
2019 2020 2022
Global Conference on Strengthening Adaptation Committee (UNFCCC, 2020) AR6 IPCC

Synergies Between the Paris Agreement on Provide an overview of the linkages (including syner- ∙ Provide results of synergies feasibility assess-
Climate Change and the 2030 Agenda for gies and trade-offs) between CCA and CCM in the over- ment between CCA and CCM in several sectors.
Sustainable Development (UN, 2019) all sustainable development context to understand ∙ Underlines the urgency of CRP action compared
Submitted INDC for Paris Agreement indicates how links have been addressed in different sectors to previously assessed in AR5. Comprehensive,
the initial ambition of individual countries’ and under the UNFCCC effective, and innovative responses can leverage
efforts to reduce GHG emissions and, in many synergies and reduce trade-offs between CCA
cases, to adapt to climate change and build and CCM to advance sustainable development.
resilience Updated Strategic Plan for the Green Climate Fund:
2020-2023 (GCF, 2020) ∙ Underlines implementation of CCA and CCM
Seek to promote projects and programs with potential together and taking trade-offs into account to
for innovation, replication, scale, and financial sus- realize multiple benefits and synergies for human
tainability (reflecting the components of a paradigm well-being as well as ecosystem and planetary
shift), as well as projects which deliver integrated CCA health
and CCM , and development benefits

Feedback and interrelationships between CCA and CCM, including synergy, have received some
attention in recent literature, most notably in work conducted under the IPCC (c.f Klein et al., 2007).
However, before that, Dang et al. (2003) tried to analyze the possible contradictions and synergies
between the two actions and their implications for developing countries and targets for sustainable
development. This study concludes that trying to amalgamate the two options and achieve double
benefits from each action to reduce GHG emissions or adapt to climate change is not realistic at
the national or global scales because of fundamental distinctions between CCA and CCM from
different perspectives. However, despite the large scientific uncertainty, this study also admits that a
comprehensive national climate policy could maximize social and economic efficiency synergies and
offer more significant opportunities to achieve sustainable development targets.
Based on this study, in the AR4 of IPCC, Klein, et al. (2007) explored the potential synergy between CCA
and CCM and identified four types of interrelationship. A true synergy between CCA and CCM is ∫ (M, A),
and the other three are complementary actions, which can have co-benefits (A→M and M→A) or side-
effects stemming from actions in other areas (A M). Apart from identifying these four types of linkages
between CCA and CCM, this study also assesses their policy relevance. Some of the conclusions drawn
include:
• Effective climate policies to reduce climate change risks to natural and human systems involve a
diverse portfolio of CCA and CCM actions (very high confidence).
• Decisions about CCA and CCM are taken at different government levels, and there is reciprocity
within and across these levels (high confidence).
• Creating synergy between CCA and CCM can increase the cost-effectiveness of actions and
make them more attractive to stakeholders, including potential funding institutions (medium
confidence).
• It is still not possible to answer whether investing in CCA will buy time for CCM (high confidence).
• Community capacity to adapt and mitigate is driven by the same factor (high confidence).
Therefore, although there is a potential synergy between CCA and CCM, there still needs confirmation
regarding the synergy‘s implementation. Because there is a lack of conceptual and empirical
information explicitly, the fact that CCA and CCM operate on different spatial, temporal, and
institutional scales and involve different actors with different interests, beliefs, value systems, and
property rights presents a challenge to implementing synergies. So the concern of Dang et al. (2003)
related to the problem of sizeable scientific uncertainty still needs further research.
However, the finding by Klein et al. (2007) in AR4 IPCC encourages further studies related to synergy,
which is not only in climate change but is also starting to be linked to sustainable development issues
with sustainable development is increasingly threatened by climate change. Therefore, it will be more
challenging for many countries, systems, and populations to achieve it unless they pursue resilient
development pathways to climate change. In 2011, the Report of the Conference of the Parties, in
its seventeenth session (later approved at Rio+20), pointed out the necessity for promoting the full
development of the Joint Mitigation and Adaptation (JMA) mechanism, considering the full integration
of the multiple benefits of forests into CCA and CCM to climate change.
This occasion also approved the Governing Instrument (GI) for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Paragraph
2 of the GI defines the purpose of the GCF to provide support to developing countries means to limit

or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. While the
following paragraph in Paragraph 3 defines that the GCF will strive to maximize the impact of its
funding for CCA and CCM and seek a balance between the two. It can be understood from here that
although it does not explicitly state the synergy between CCA and CCM, it has shown that the idea of
integrating CCA and CCM already exists. It also means that the GCF is starting to open an opportunity
for CCA and CCM funding so that it is more likely that synergistic programs or activities in the future
will arise.
Further, along with the synergy issues with sustainable development, there were calls for new
approaches to sustainable development that consider complex interactions between climate and
social and ecological systems. Then was born Climate Resilient Pathways (CRP), a development
trajectory combining CCA and CCM to realize sustainable development goals (Denton et al., 2014).
The pursuit of CRP involves identifying vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, assessing
opportunities for reducing risks, and taking actions consistent with sustainable development
goals. These actions may involve a combination of incremental and transformative responses that
consider: (1) current and anticipated changes in both average and extreme climates; (2) the dynamic
development context that influences social vulnerability, risk perception, conflict resolution, and
resilience; and (3) recognition of human agency and capacity to influence the future (IPCC, 2012). The
last point is significant, as humans can manage risk and decrease vulnerability through mitigation and
adaptation and choices of development goals and strategies.
CRP also includes two overarching attributes: (1) actions to reduce climate change and its impacts,
including both CCA and CCM, and (2) actions to ensure that effective risk management institutions,
strategies, and identify choices are implemented and sustained as an integrated part of development
processes (Edenhofer et al., 2012). Because CCA and CCM can not only contribute to sustainable
development but can also hinder it, and vice versa. For example, the intensification of agricultural
production systems reduces soil organic matter, which reduces water holding capacity and therefore
increases vulnerability to drought. On the other hand, there is competition for land for afforestation or
energy crops that could compete with food production.
Therefore comprehensive, effective, and innovative responses that can harness synergies and reduce
trade-offs between CCA and CCM are needed to advance sustainable development (IPCC, 2022).
Because of that, integrating the two kinds of climate change responses in the broader context of
sustainable development has been suggested as an aspirational goal (Wilbanks et al., 2007; Bizikova
et al., 2010), especially when policy attention and financial commitments to climate change responses
must consider the pursuit of both CCA and CCM.
Several kinds of research suggest that CCA and CCM are likely to be more effective when designed
and implemented in other interventions within the broader context of sustainability and resilience
(Wilbanks and Kates, 2010; ADB and ADBI, 2012). Wilson and McDaniels (2007) suggest three reasons
for integrating across CCA, CCM, and sustainable development: (1) many of the value dimensions that
are important to decision making are common to all three decision contexts; (2) the impact of any
of the three decision contexts may have significant consequences for the others; and (3) the choice
among alternatives in one context can be a means for achieving the underlying values necessary in the
others.

Wilbanks and Sathaye (2007) also argue that CCA and CCM pathways might be alternatives in reducing
costs, complementary to and reinforcing each other (e.g., improvements in building energy efficiency),
or competitive and mutually contradictory (e.g., coastal protection vs. reductions in sea level rise).
Nevertheless, to be remembered, trade-offs are also possible, for example, if ecosystem management
for CCM purposes reduces the livelihood opportunities and the adaptive capacity of local people
(Locatelli et al., 2011). However, the scale of these examples is often local, and the longer-term success
of these pathways will depend on the broader context of CCM and the facilitation of CCA options (Metz
et al., 2002).
Because studies on the issue of synergy are growing, the JMA and CRP as a potential for synergy are
starting to become international concerns. The Paris Agreement and the SDGs in 2015 began to require
that climate action and climate finance provide GHG emission reductions and CCA and resilience in a
harmonious and synergistic approach. Article 5 of the Paris Agreement encourages policy approaches
such as JMA to integrate sustainable management of forests. Furthermore, article 2.1C related to
financial flows strongly encourages the CRP concept that seeks to synergize CCA and CCM to enhance
climate action implementation and emphasize the importance of CCA. Meanwhile, Sustainable
Development Goal 13 (SDG 13) about climate action also considers CCA and CCM action to run together
to meet the target.
Following this, the need for CCA and CCM synergy, especially in finance, is increasingly being realized
by developing countries and civil society groups, especially in COP22 of UNFCCC in Marrakesh. They
expressed concern about the scarcity of CCA finance, to which cross-cutting projects can contribute
to solving this problem and deserve close attention (GCF, 2016). Therefore, GCF suggests five potential
cross-cutting investment priorities. These priorities are entry points for investment that can impact
multiple results areas, targeting both CCA and CCM in an integrated and holistic manner shown in
Table 5.

Table 5 GCF Investment Priority Results Area Clusters
Investment Priorities
Climate Change Climate-compati- Sustainable Scaling up finan- Enhancing resi- Transforming

Action Areas ble cities low-emissions ce for forest and lience in small energy genera-
climate-resilient climate change island developing tion and access
agriculture states (SIDS)
CCA
Increased Health, food, and

resilience of water security
* * *
Livelihoods
of people and
communities * * * *
Infrastructure
and built en-
vironment * * * *
Ecosystems
and ecosystems
services * * *
CCM
Reduced Energy genera-

emissions tion and access
from * * *
Transport
* *
Buildings, cities,
industries, and
appliances * *
Forest and land
use
* * *
Source: Modified from GCF, 2015

As shown in the table above, these five potential investment priorities contribute to each result area.
For example, efforts to invest in climate-compatible cities may deliver impacts related to four different
results areas. They can reduce transportation emissions, buildings, cities, industries, and appliances.
They may also support CCA, particularly by helping to strengthen the resilience of the livelihoods of
urban people and communities and urban infrastructure (while also reducing associated emissions).
The five investment priorities cluster the eight results areas to achieve cross-cutting benefits in
an efficient and impactful way. They largely contribute to CCA and CCM, creating entry points for
investment that support the balance across CCA and CCM (GCF, 2015).
Then GCF’s survey conducted from 28 November to 10 December 2016 shows how vital cross-cutting
projects are. However, there is uncertainty over the CCA-CCM balance due to the lack of transparent
and measurable rules for what is considered cross-sectoral projects (GCF, 2016). While most of the
Fund’s stakeholders believe that their cross-cutting projects strike a good balance between CCA and
CCM, they also realize that labeling a project as cross-cutting can give them a competitive advantage.
Thus some projects were re-labeled to attract more funds, and cross-cutting projects became more
prominent.
However, this raises concerns about how cross-cutting projects indicate the Fund‘s CCA-CCM balance.
Due to the lack of reliable measures to confirm the extent to which cross-sectoral projects contribute
to this part of the Fund‘s mission, creating a danger of stakeholders are proposing cross-cutting
projects to appeal to the Board rather than strengthening resilience (GCF, 2016). Therefore, this study
concludes that there is a need to clarify the proper balance between CCA and CCM in its funding. The
GCF should provide more explicit guidance regarding what projects can be cross-cutting.
Asian Development Bank (ADB) supports synergy between CCA and CCM in line with GCF, with a
proactive strategic approach to achieve the SDGs with climate actions (CCA and CCM) and Disaster
Risk Management-DRM (ADB, 2017). ADB will ensure the coherence of their policies, strategies, and
sector and thematic plans to develop member country climate and development objectives. Given the
substantial and long-term efforts to address climate change, many DMCs have expressed the need for
support in their strategic planning, policy-making, and investment at the national, subnational, and
sector levels.
ADB will also ensure that applicable ADB policies and strategies are reflective and supportive of
DMC needs related to CCA and CCM, in line with their overarching development objectives and
acknowledging the evolving priorities, capacities, and vulnerabilities of the DMCs (Developing Member
Country). ADB sector and thematic operational plans will support climate change CCA, CCM, and DRM,
as will the departmental, divisional, and sector and thematic group work plans. However, while there
is more support from the funding side to synergize CCA and CCM, a study from the Nordic Council of
Ministers in 2017 shows some problems in its implementation.
First, actions across NDCs do not seem to be designed with a specific aim to promote synergies or
bridge trade-offs as expected through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Instead, the actions described
have one of the two targets in mind, and the latter becomes a side-effect (or co-benefit) to each other
(Nordic Council of Ministers, 2017). The Paris Agreement also presents a mixed picture of its link to
driving synergies between CCA and CCM. Although it often mentions CCA and CCM side by side, the
Paris Agreement and its decision suggest that it can open sup synergy opportunities and does not

prevent them, but at the same time, it does not promote them either. This conclusion is based on an
overview of the Paris Agreement articles regarding synergy in Table 6.
Table 6 Overview of Types of CCA and CCM Synergies Found in the Paris Agreement and Decision Texts
by Type
Element Article of Paris Agreement The decision of UNFCCC Synergy Type

COP21
Purpose Article 2, para 1c - Stipulates that CCA and low emission development
should be ensured
NDCs and Article 4 Ch. III, para 22-40 ∫(M,A) as synergy is mentioned in decision para 39,
CCM and also, A→M as CCM co-benefits from CCA is men-
tioned in Paris Agreement 4(7)
CCA Article 7 Ch. III, para 41-46 M→A, but in the terms that increased M may reduce
need for CCA
Finance Article 9, but no explicit Ch. III, para 52-64 A couple of examples of ∫(M,A) in policy design and
mentioning of CCA and CCM implementation
synergies
Technology Article 10 Ch. III, para 65-70, but No classified, as it talks of a balance in support bet-
transfer no mentioning of CCA ween CCA and CCM
and CCM synergies
Capacity Article 11, but no explicit Ch. III, para 71-83, but No synergy
building mentioning of CCA and CCM no mentioning of CCA
synergies and CCM synergies
Global Article 12 Para 99-101 No synergy

Stocktake
(GST)
System of Article 13, but no explicit Para 84-98 Action to be reported in elsewise CCM-focused re-
Transpa- mentioning of CCA and CCM ports:It does not qualify as synergy
rency synergies
Pre2020 - Para 108 M→A, as CCM co-benefits for CCA, is recognized

action
Source: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2017

The table shows that the Paris Agreement article has not explicitly promoted the urgency of the
synergy issue between CCA and CCM. Making the synergy issues has not materialized into specific
eligibility or funding criteria for promotion, nor has it been integrated into the funds‘ application
schemes, programmatic framework, monitoring and reporting requirements, or performance
frameworks. Therefore, there was a weak link and even a disconnect between CCA and CCM, although
integration between CCA and CCM may have occurred in practices (Leonard et al., 2016).
Therefore, synergy aspects should be better mainstreamed into the funds, which is not already
inherent in today‘s funding criteria. Suggests that available finance and the international policy
framework developed through the Paris Agreement must be inductive to realize the potential
synergies. From there, if ICF is made available to promote synergies and if the international policy
framework support or even better requires synergistic thinking, it is more likely that national policies
would integrate synergistic thinking (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2017).
This finding illustrates the international conditions in understanding the synergy issue between CCA
and CCM. Because in 2019, on Global Conference on Strengthening Synergies Between the Paris
Agreement on Climate Change and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by the United
Nations stated that submitted (I)NDC (Intended National Determined Contributions) for the Paris
Agreement indicates the initial ambition of individual countries’ efforts to reduce GHG emissions and,
in many cases, to adapt to climate change and build resilience. However, looking back at the study
findings by the Nordic Council of Ministers, these statements also do not explicitly state the synergy
between CCA and CCM or detail the potential interrelationship mechanisms between CCA and CCM.
With the understanding and urgency still not focused on the potential of the synergy between CCA
and CCM, UNFCCC Adaptation Committee in 2020 reissue its scientific support by providing an
overview of the linkages (including synergies and trade-offs) between CCA and CCM in the overall
sustainable development context to understand how links have been addressed in different sectors
and under the UNFCCC. Adaptation Committee points out that CCA and CCM are linked to biodiversity,
desertification, food, and agriculture under other international agendas. With great potential
to implement mutually beneficial activities that take advantage of synergies between the legal
instruments under the UNFCCC and those under CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), UNCCD
(United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).
While in the same year, GCF also opened funding opportunities through integration between CCA and
CCM in their Updated Strategic Plan for the Green Climate Fund: 2020-2023. These programs will
seek to promote projects and programs with potential for innovation, replication, scale, and financial
sustainability (reflecting the components of a paradigm shift), as well as projects which deliver
integrated CCA, CCM, and development benefits
However, with more substantial scientific and funding support, not all actions in practice have the
desired result (Adaptation Committee, 2020). There is still an urgent need to develop effective means
and improve current policy instruments and mechanisms. A framework also needs to be developed to
integrate the linkages between CCA and CCM measures, considering the positive and negative effects
on key sectors and synergies with sustainable development and other legal instruments in the UN
process.
Latest, Working Group II‘s contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report IPCC provides results of
synergies feasibility assessment between CCA and CCM in several sectors. It also underlines the

urgency of CRP action compared to previously assessed in AR5 with comprehensive, effective, and
innovative responses that can leverage synergies and reduce trade-offs between CCA and CCM to
advance sustainable development. Lastly, it underlines the implementation of CCA and CCM and
considers trade-offs to realize multiple benefits and synergies for human well-being, ecosystem, and
planetary health.
In conclusion, while the current research landscape remains scattered and limited, examples
demonstrating the promising potential to accommodate synergies have been identified in several
practices. Further, with increasing international attention to the comprehensive impact of climate
change and other sectors that may be affected, the synergy issue increasingly developed into various
contexts, one of which is sustainable development. However, as reflected in the Nordic Council of
Ministers (2017) findings, international policies or agreements do not prevent synergies but do not
promote them. Making synergy issues has not necessarily been realized in NDC implementation or not
materialize into specific eligibility. For this reason, it is still necessary to mainstream the synergy issue
again and develop more detailed policy instruments/mechanisms/ frameworks to implement synergy
between CCA and CCM.
4.2 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and

CCM in Indonesia
In light of the better implementation of climate change converge at the national level, the Government
of Indonesia has made various efforts. One of them is through institutional arrangements through
Presidential Regulation No. 16/2015, which stipulates that the leading institution for coordinating
climate change governance and implementing the Climate Change Convention at the national level is
assigned to the Directorate General of Climate Change (DGCC) of the MoEF as the NFP (National Focal
Point) of the UNFCCC. Then, the Directorate of Adaptation and Directorate of Mitigation was formed
under the DGCC through MoEF Regulation No. P.18/MENLHK/II/2015 as a follow-up to support the
implementation of CCA and CCM actions in Indonesia. This institutional arrangement, on one side, has
been appreciated because it has merged power on implementation at the local level. However, on the
other side, it has made weaker power on cross-sectoral coordination matters as main task component
of the NFP.
Another strategic policy is encouraging and bolstering the Indonesian parliament to ratify the Paris
Agreement through Law 16/2016 in order for Indonesia to be able to contribute to the global effort on
greenhouse gas emission reduction. Following the first NDC submission in 2015, the Government of
Indonesia (GoI) has already submitted Roadmap NDC for CCM in 2019 and CCA in 2020. In 2021, the GoI
also submitted the updated NDC to enhance CCA ambitions and clarity on CCM that refers to Katowice
Package. Submitted with the Updated NDC, Indonesia’s LTS-LCCR 2050 document was also delivered.
It presents the carbon-rich nation’s sustainable vision beyond the Paris climate targets and strikes a
balance between future emission reduction and economic development.
This commitment is reflected in the establishment of Low Carbon Development Indonesia (LCDI). LCDI
is a new development platform by MoNDP that aims to maintain economic and social growth through

low GHG development activities and natural resource exploitation. There are three development topics
in the LCDI: climate-resilient development, low-carbon development, and circular economy. The first
two topics very well reflect CCA and CCM. While climate-resilient development focuses on the marine
and coastal, water, agriculture, and health sector, low-carbon development focuses on forestry and
peatlands, agriculture, coastal and marine, energy, transportation, and waste management.
On 29 October 2021, Indonesia enacted Presidential Regulation No. 98/2021 on the Carbon Economic
Value (NEK). The Regulation developed based on Indonesia’s ratification of the Paris Agreement (via
Law No. 16 of 2016), under which Indonesia expressed its hope to manage the impact of climate change
better and stated its commitment to reducing GHG emissions and achieving NDC. The Regulation
prescribes CCA and CCM actions as the two main methods to tackle climate change and achieve
the NDC. According to the regulation, implementation of CCA is carried out in food, water, energy,
health, ecosystems, and others such as blue carbon. In comparison, CCM is the field of energy, waste,
industrial processes, product use, agriculture, forestry, and other sectors such as blue carbon.
The field/sectoral focus shows that NEK regulation and the LCDI contain overlapping sectors. Due
to both regulations paying attention and consideration to CCA and CCM, it can be said that synergies
opportunities are possible. Unfortunately, while existing policies and regulations have sufficiently
facilitated CCA and CCM actions, it has not been explicitly encouraging synergies. The same case also
occurs in the SDGs through Presidential Regulation No. 59/2017, primarily Goal 13 (climate action),
which encourages strengthening CCA and CCM actions. However, the existing targets have not yet led
to encouraging synergistic actions. Therefore existing regulations and policies appear to depict CCA
and CCM efforts as separate pathways. In the end, this impact on policy development in several cases
examined in this study.
Based on a literature review of several formal documents and discussions related to the PROKLIM,
Social Forestry, and energy (electricity), it seems the idea of synergy between CCA and CCM has not
materialized as a relevant potential contribution to the implementation of climate change actions
including NDC by stakeholders in Indonesia. However, in practice in the field, the activities or activities
carried out can potentially take the form of synergies. This can be seen based on the findings in
Table 7.

Table 7 Different Forms of Interrelationship Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia
Cases CCA and CCM Interrelationship
PROKLIM (Climate Village Program) Mention the Joint Adaptation and Mitigation (JAM) mecha-
Regulation of the Director-General of Climate Change nism, which by design, it is not yet a synergy between CCA
Control P.4/PPI/API/PPI.6/3/2021 Regarding Guidelines for and CCM. However, several programs and activities can
the Implementation of the Climate Village Program indirectly synergy CCA and CCM, such as waste manage-
ment, reuse, planting mangroves in the coastal area, etc.
Social Forestry The legal documents do not mention the importan-

• MoEF Regulation No. 9/2021 on Social Forestry Ma- ce of the synergy concept between CCA and CCM
nagement to strengthen the program. However, the synergy
• MoEF Regulation No. P.83/MENLHK/SETJEN/ between CCA and CCM can be indirectly implemented
KUM.1/10/2016 on Social Forestry
through forest management activities because land
rights entitlements allow the community to manage
their environment to adapt to climate change while
contributing to CCM through afforestation.
Energy/Electricity PLN considers assessing risk reduction and adap-

• Program Implementation Document: Perusahaan tation measures that can be implemented in the
Listrik Negara (State Electricity Corporation) Sustai- future to improve the resilience and efficiency of the
nable and Reliable Energy Access Program— Wes- grid, which will indirectly contribute to reducing GHG
tern and Central Java (ADB, 2021a) emissions. However, these considerations are not yet
• Technical Assistance Report: Republic of Indonesia: incorporated into the current system.
Capacity Development in Emerging Technologies,
Financed by the Republic of Korea e-Asia and
Knowledge Partnership Fund (ADB, 2021b)
• Loan Agreement: Sustainable and Reliable Energy
Access Program – Western and Central Java. Pro-
gram Safeguard Systems Assessment (ADB, 2021c)
Based on the table, the terms of synergy between CCA and CCM have not been explicitly stated in
the policies of each case study. PROKLIM has echoed the Joint Adaptation and Mitigation (JAM)
mechanism mentioned in the Regulation of the Director-General of Climate Change Control P.4/PPI/
API/PPI.6/3/2021 and updated NDC Indonesia documents in 2021. However, based on interviews and
further regulations studies, even though the JAM mechanism can open up synergy opportunities.
It has not been designed explicitly regarding the synergy between CCA and CCM. Because the JAM
mechanism means that PROKLIM can carry out CCA and CCM actions simultaneously, there is not
necessarily a link or interrelationship between them. Such as a program to elevate buildings to
anticipate flooding (CCA) with the program for energy-saving lamps (CCM).

Further, the terms of synergy between CCA and CCM are also not explicitly stated in the regulations
and guidelines that underlie the program. However, the concept of synergy between CCA and CCM
can indirectly be implemented in program implementation and activities. It can be seen from several
examples of PROKLIM programs in several regions that the synergy between CCA and CCM can occur
indirectly from the activities carried out by PROKLIM, as we can see in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Examples of Waste Management and Utilization Which can be Synergistic Between
CCA and CCM
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES

Waste Management and Utilization of Liquid Waste
Septic tank equipped with methane catcher, WWTP, Biogas
Biogas Slurry/solid fertilizer
Impact/Loss Results/Profits Collaboration
1. O utbreaks of environmental disease 1. Managing liquid waste into biogas —MoEF —Bussiness
due to liquid waste 2. S anitation and enviromental improvement —MoEMR —NGOs
2. Unhealthy environmental conditions 3. O ther results of the liquid waste —MoPWH —Universities
management process
Source: Wijaya, 2022
Besides waste management and utilization of liquid waste, several activities have the potential
for synergy between CCA and CCM, such as practices are planting around water springs, limiting
water use, etc. (see Appendix I). However, based on data collection from three examples of
PROKLIM cases, only a few programs or activities are synergistic.
Such practices can also demonstrate in the Social Forestry case, especially in areas that have
begun integrating the Social Forestry program with PROKLIM, as exemplified by Nagari Sirukam,
Solok Regency, West Sumatra (Komitmen Iklim, 2021a), and Lampo Village, Donggala, Central
Sulawesi (Komitmen Iklim, 2021b). Nevertheless, the Social Forestry program should have
considerable potential to contribute to climate action and synergy in concept and practice.
Indirectly the synergy between CCA and CCM can occur in local communities’ forest management
activities as land rights entitlements allow the community to manage their environment to adapt
to climate change while contributing to CCM through afforestation.

However, even Indonesia’s NDC recognizes that Social Forestry is one of the efforts to reduce carbon
and strengthen the ecosystem and landscape resilience. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in legal
documents regarding Social Forestry, which have not linked the program to the issue of climate
change and NDC. Creating synergy issues has also not been mainstreamed, although there is excellent
potential in practice.
Meanwhile, in the energy sector, according to several documents from the Asian Development Bank
(ADB), PT PLN, through the Sustainable and Reliable Energy Access Program (SREAP)—Western and
Central Java has started considering conducting a risk assessment of climate change impacts and
measuring CCA. Climate change impacts are starting to be felt on network installations that threaten
electricity distribution, with the worst possible case causing a blackout. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop sustainable energy access through climate change risk assessment to increase the resilience
of the electricity grid infrastructure and increase energy efficiency from supply to distribution to
consumers as energy demand increases.
Let us look more closely at the ADB document related to the SREAP. CCA actions more dominate the
SREP through risk and sustainability, and even CCM actions have not been considered once in the
document. It is estimated that SREAP is a continuation of the SIEP (Sustainable and Inclusive Energy
Program) carried out previously. It is also considered that SIEP is more of a CCM action that focuses
on renewable energy and energy efficiency, so SREAP seems to fill a gap for CCA actions that have not
previously appeared. However, energy efficiency can be an entry point for CCM actions through the
energy sector, as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Energy Efficiency as CCM entry into CCA
ADB CCM
SREAP Renewable Energy
Less Carbon Fuel

Risk and Sustainability Switching
CCA Clean Technology for

Energy Sector
Energy Efficiency

From the figure above, energy efficiency is one of the CCM efforts in the energy sector and the use
of new renewable energy (NRE), clean technology, and the replacement of low-carbon fuels (Fragkos
et al., 2021). Therefore, because energy efficiency can undoubtedly contribute to reducing GHG
emissions, even though it is not explicitly stated, the actions in the SREAP have included CCM actions.
The synergy between CCA and CCM already exists, although not directly.
This energy (electricity) case also teaches how to tackle problems when loan assistance from funding
agencies is needed for CCA action. The actions taken can also contribute to CCM (in this case, through
increasing efficiency and resilience). Therefore, because there is no mention of CCM actions in the
ADB document, it is necessary to claim that this SREAP, which initially only mentioned CCA, can also
impact CCM actions. For this reason, as an NFP, MoEF can claim the PLN program to achieve the NDC
target.
It can be concluded from several cases in Indonesia that relevant stakeholders in Indonesia are not yet
realized the idea or the concept of synergy between CCA and CCM. Including seeing its opportunity or
potential to stimulate NDC implementation through its advantages in the context of sustainability and
ICF opportunities. Even though there was already great effort through national policies to support CCA
and CCM action, existing regulations and policies appear to depict CCA and CCM efforts as separate
pathways. It can be seen from several practices from PROKLIM, Social Forestry, and SREAP programs
which have contributed to both CCA and CCM. Nevertheless, related policy or legal documents have
not written, designed, or mainstreamed the concept of synergy between CCA and CCM specifically and
explicitly. Therefore, even though the synergy has taken place in the practice, it is not by design and
may simply be understood as a CCA opportunity (as a co-benefits) in a CCM project or vice versa.

Chapter five
Potential Enabling Conditions

for Synergy Between CCA and
CCM in Indonesia

5. Potential Enabling Conditions for
Synergy Between CCA and CCM in
Indonesia
The previous analysis shows that stakeholders in Indonesia have not realized the concept or the idea
of synergy between CCA and CCM. Creating synergy has not been written, designed, or mainstreamed
in the regulations or policies, a similar condition faced at the international level. While conceptually
and practically, several programs in this study (PROKLIM, Social Forestry, and Energy/electricity) have
great opportunities to realize the issue of synergy. In the absence of policies that underlie the synergy
between CCA and CCM in Indonesia, the other components of enabling conditions have not realized
the synergy’s implementation. The following is the result of analyzing the potential enabling conditions
for synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia, which explains why the synergy issue has not been
implemented optimally, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Potential Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia
Cases
Factors
Climate Village Program (PRO- Social Forestry Energy/Electricity
KLIM)
Effective institutions and PROKLIM is managed by the MoEF’s The Social Forestry Program is PT PLN is currently carrying out
governance (stakeholders Director of Adaptation, while its managed by the MoEF’s Directorate activities related to climate change
& political leadership) activities contain CCM elements. General of SFEP, and it needs to be in electricity generation, distri-
There is already a coordination coordinated with the MoEF’s Direc- bution, and transmission. These
mechanism between the Director torate General of CCC for activities activities are carried out by the
of Adaptation and the Director of related to climate change. At the Climate Change Management of PT
Mitigation in GHG emissions reduc- same time, there have been efforts PLN. However, it still does not link
tion report from PROKLIM activities to link climate change issues with CCA and CCM to each other
through SPECTRUM. However, it still Social Forestry through NDC and
needs further coordination between PROKLIM. Unfortunately, formal
the Directorates, strengthening the policies have not realized this
coordination through application integration effort in real terms.
synergy in theirs.
Standard/ Relevant Guide- Regulation of MoE’s Directorate MoEF Regulation No. 9/2021 on There are no relevant standards or
lines General of energy No. P.4/PPI/API/ Social Forestry Management and guidelines regarding the synergy
PPI.0/3/2021 and MoEF Regulation MoEF Regulation P.83/MENLHK/ between CCA and CCM at PT PLN.
No. 84/2016 stated that the Pro- SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2016 on Social However, Handayani (in her Ph.D.
klim Action embodies the center Forestry. However, the two regu- dissertation in 2019) shows that
on CCA and CCM actions that the lations have not linked the Social CCA in the energy power sector can
community has carried out at the Forestry program to the issue lead low carbon climate-adapted
local level. Therefore, implicitly of climate change, both in the power system through optimization
the issue of synergy already context of CCA and CCM of electricity supply of low-carbon
exists but is not binding electricity pathway in terms of CCM
through energy efficiency

Cases
Factors
Climate Village Program (PRO- Social Forestry Energy/Electricity
KLIM)
Financial Resources Funding sources can be obtained PLN has a loan agreement with ADB Have potential funding sources
through Bang Pesona, Dana Desa through SIEP for CCM and SREAP from Village Funds, CSR, and Grants,
(village fund), Donor, and a bit for CCA. However, the two of them to local community self-help. Howe-
portion from CSR. However, it is have not paid attention to the ver, it is not yet specific to support
more focused on the environment synergy between CCA and CCM the issue of CCA and CCM synergy.
and social issues rather than on Even though, in line with the
the synergy of CCA and CCM, even improvement of PROKLIM regula-
though Social Forestry activities tion, massive programs on PROKLIM
have the potential for international implementation at the national level
climate finance opportunities. At have the potential for international
the same time, current policy docu- climate finance opportunity
ments do not include the potential
international funding resources to
support this program.
Policy/ PROKLIM implementation policy The Social Forestry program has No policy explicitly raises the issue
Planning/ has not indirectly supported the not been linked to the context of of CCA and CCM synergy, although
Regulatory Instruments issue of CCA and CCM synergy climate change to support the conceptually, program implementa-
(at any level) even though there is already issue of CCA and CCM synergy, tion can be synergistic
potential for implementation. even though there is potential for
implementation
The first case, PROKLIM, is a program under the auspices of MoEF‘s Director of Climate Change
Adaptation. However, based on the implementation in the field, PROKLIM also has programs or
activities classified as CCM. It is also written on MoEF Regulation 84/2016 that states the PROKLIM
embodies the center on CCA and CCM actions the community has carried out at the local level. The
guidelines for implementing PROKLIM have also classified the programs or activities as CCA and CCM
actions.
Because of that, PROKLIM programs or activities, both CCA and CCM, should be reported as achieving
NDC targets, especially now that the SPECTRUM application has been developed as a measurement
tool for calculating GHG emissions reduction from activities carried out by the community through
PROKLIM. Later this system will be connected to the National Registry System (SRN) for reporting CCM
actions, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Reduction Emission Reporting Process Through SPECTRUM
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROKLIM IN 2022
01 02 03 04
general data form technical data form verification data form
The person in charge of the action
registration form
Adaptation Adaptation
saved as a draft
Mitigation Mitigation
e-mail address validation
fills in PROKLIM data through SRN
sent
joint adaptation & mitigation joint adaptation & mitigation
other related activities. other related activities.
general data approval technical data action and resource

registrant check validation validation
registration number account number registry number verified
Note:
Methodology Calculation Emission reduction 1. Users can login with
Platform calculation process username and password
SRN
2. SPECTRUM got a score
the PROKLIM assessment
3A 3. This score is given
1. Filling out detailed data on mitigation activities proposer who has filled
Action Responsible
2. Send a photo mitigation data with
3. Point/polygon activity location
Note: At the verification
SPECTRUM score will be
4A based on the level of data
Verifier Verification of filling in detail data of mitigation activities,
photos, and location details
Source: MoEF, 2022
As shown by the figure above, through SPECTRUM, communities can report their activities related
to CCM actions to calculate the reduction in carbon emissions that can be generated. Communities
only need to report the details of the activity carried out then the SPECTRUM system will calculate
the contribution of carbon emissions from these activities. These results will be displayed on the SRN
website and will be reported for the NDC targets. However, although CCA and CCM are facilitated in
PROKLIM, synergy efforts have not received further attention.
The synergy issue is only implicitly mentioned in the contents of the regulatory basis and guidelines
from PROKLIM. Because while there is an opportunity for one PROKLIM location to carry out CCA and
CCM actions simultaneously (JAM mechanism) which opens up synergy opportunities, the regulations
are not very detailed and binding and also not necessarily in the form of synergy. Therefore, although
the coordination mechanism between the Director of Adaptation and the Director of Mitigation has
already been in the GHG emissions reduction report from PROKLIM activities, it still needs further
coordination between the Directorates and strengthening the coordination through implementing
existing synergies opportunities.
The non-specificity of the synergy issue between CCA and CCM also results in financial resources.
Although PROKLIM has a very diverse potential for funding sources from CSR and grants to local
community self-help, the funding scheme has not explicitly supported the synergy issue (for a more
detailed review of several PROKLIM case studies, see Appendix II.). Even though, in line with the
improvement of PROKLIM regulation, massive programs on PROKLIM implementation at the national

level have potential international climate finance opportunities. One of them is MoEF‘s Directorate
General of Climate Change Control mandate for utilizing the AF to support the expansion of the
PROKLIM action to pursue the target of reaching 20,000 locations by 2024 (MoEF, 2022). In general, the
PROKLIM implementation policy has not indirectly supported the issue of CCA and CCM synergy, even
though PROKLIM has excellent potential for its implementation considering the main purpose.
Similar cases are also found in the case of Social Forestry but are more complex. While PROKLIM
is still under the authority of MoEF‘s Directorate General of Climate Change Control, the Social
Forestry program is under a different Directorate, MoEF‘s Directorate General of Social Forestry and
Environmental Partnership (SFEP). Looking at the regulatory basis through MoEF Regulation P.83/
MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2016 and the guidelines through MoEF Regulation No. 9/2021, the Social
Forestry program has not even been linked to the context of climate change. Whereas in terms of
programs and activities, forest management can undoubtedly contribute to climate action, both
CCA and CCM. However, it seems there has been an effort from each directorate general to link the
Social Forestry program with the issue of climate change through integration with PROKLIM, which is
illustrated through the webinar shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9 Webinar Related to the Potential for Integration of PROKLIM with Social Forestry Programs
Source: MoEF, 2022

Unfortunately, formal policies have not realized this integration effort in real terms. In fact, according
to the PROKLIM roadmap in 2017, the need for synergy between PROKLIM and Social Forestry has been
mentioned to achieve the PROKLIM facilitation target contained in the Strategic Plan (RENSTRA) of
the MoEF for 2015-2019. This synergy can be implemented by considering that the main target of the
activity is the community, with the main objectives of the program/activity to improve the welfare of
the community and to increase the sustainability of forest resources that contribute to the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental quality.
Therefore, MoEF’s Directorate General of CCC as NFP-UNFCCC, in collaboration with the Directorate
General of SFEP, needs immediate actions on policy setting and regulation development on these
particular issues to provide a legal basis for the inclusion program into the NDC achievement target. It
is also necessary to address the inefficiency of resources and funding issues, considering that Social
Forestry activities with potential contributions from both CCA and CCM are not being recorded or
reported, especially for the NDC target.
While in the financial context, Social Forestry also has problems similar to PROKLIM. Social Forestry
activities generally get funding from APBN through Bang Pesona and Dana Desa (village fund), Donor,
and a bit portion from CSR. However, it is more focused on the environment and social issues rather
than on the synergy of CCA and CCM, even though Social Forestry activities have the potential for
international climate finance opportunities. At the same time, current policy documents do not include
the potential international funding resources to support this program.
For the case of energy/electricity, PT PLN is currently carrying out activities related to climate change
in electricity generation, distribution, and transmission. These activities are carried out by the Climate
Change Management of PT PLN. Based on the previous analysis, although the synergy issue was not
explicitly mentioned, the synergy may occur indirectly in practice. This condition occurs because
relevant standards or guidelines on synergy issues exist. However, Handayani (in her Ph.D. dissertation
in 2019) shows that CCA in the energy power sector can lead low carbon climate-adapted power system
through optimization of electricity supply of low-carbon electricity pathway in terms of CCM through
energy efficiency. Although the study only provides one point of view, based on the interview results
with the author, she also does not deny the potential for the other interrelationships that can occur,
including the potential for synergies between CCA and CCM.
In terms of financial resources, there are two types of ADB programs that are the case in the energy
sector. The first is that ADB conducts policy-based lending as part of the SIEP, which produces
formal regulations on renewable energy and energy efficiency, generally in ministerial regulations
and, on occasion, in presidential regulations. The ADB implements the SIEP as a primary lender with
the GoI through the MoNDP. The implementation period of the SIEP is June 2013–September 2015 for
subprogram 1 (finalized), October 2015–September 2017 for subprogram 2 (finalized), and October 2017–
September 2019 for subprogram 3 (finalized). SIEP is more of a funding source for energy sector CCM
actions.
Then, PT PLN also implements the SREAP to enhance access to sustainable and reliable energy
for Western and Central Java populations and finance a slice of the broader program in Electricity
Power Supply Business Plan 2021–2030. Unlike SIEP, SREAP is more intended as a CCA action in the
energy/electricity sector. Although through these two programs, PLN has begun to show efforts to

incorporate CCA and CCM factors into its business plans. However, the two programs have not linked
CCA with CCM. Even though, based on the previous analysis results, energy efficiency can open up
opportunities for CCM actions to be included in CCA. Create synergy between the two.
Therefore, based on these results, each program has the potential to apply the synergy concept
between synergy between CCA and CCM to stimulate NDC implementation. Because each program
already has each enabling condition needed to realize synergy implementation. Nevertheless,
unfortunately, the existing instruments have not addressed the synergy issue.
This situation occurs because of the lack of support for national climate policies in mainstreaming
the synergy issue between CCA and CCM. Although since ratifying the Paris Agreement through Law
16/2016, the GoI has made various efforts to support climate action, both CCA and CCM to achieve
NDC targets. The existing policies have not explicitly mandated and paid special attention to synergy
implementation. Even the latest regulation through the NEK regulation prescribes a process similar
between CCA and CCM. It does not promote the synergies that may occur. So even though there are
already policy and regulatory instruments that support CCA and CCM actions, the synergy issue is still
not a concern.
The absence of specific policies that mainstream or design the synergy issue is why existing programs
have not been able to fully implement the synergy between CCA and CCM, despite the opportunities
and potential. Ultimately, it causes some programs or activities that should have potential synergies
and contribute to NDC targets for both CCA and CCM to be not recorded or reported. This leads to
inefficient resources, including funding, which hinders NDC implementation.

Chapter six
Advantages of Synergy
Between CCA and
CCM in ICF

6. Advantages of Synergy Between
CCA and CCM in ICF
While several scientific studies support the implementation of CCA and CCM synergies, which
conceptually can lead to resilience and sustainability, practically, these synergies can also open up
funding opportunities. As Fu, Zheng, and Wang (2014) stated, the synergy between CCA and CCM
can lower costs and help balance the dual CCA and CCM goals under limited resources. For example,
it is conceivable that a country can apply for a loan or prepare a budget for climate change action.
The funding can be used simultaneously through a synergy scheme in its activities and the resulting
impact. These advantages can genuinely be helpful, especially to developing countries with limited
resources but, at the same time, have to deal with the impacts of climate change. However, looking at
the conditions internationally, especially in Indonesia, it has not fully realized the synergy between CCA
and CCM and its opportunities. Make there is unharvested potential for strengthening synergies at all
levels of the fund‘s program and describing what was found in a study by the Nordic Council of Ministers
(2017), which is still ongoing today.
However, ICF already provides opportunities for the synergy funding scheme, although not explicitly.
One of the cases is the GCF by the UNFCCC. GCF is mandated to ensure that its investments drive
a paradigm shift toward low emissions and climate resilience, as explained in Paragraphs 2 and
Paragraphs 3 of the GCF Governing Instrument (2011). The following describes how it will achieve these
goals by supporting developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (CCM) and adapt to
climate change impacts (CCA).
Therefore, GCF has goals and result areas to seek impact within eight CCA and CCM results in areas
chosen because of their potential to deliver a substantial impact on CCM (Energy access and power
generation; Low emission transport; Buildings, cities, industries, and appliances; Forestry and
land use) and CCA (Most vulnerable people and communities; Health and well-being, food and water
security; Infrastructure and built environment; Ecosystems and ecosystem services). The GCF is also
committed to achieving a balance between its funding for CCA and CCM initiatives and focuses further
on five cross-cutting investment priorities as entry points for investment that can have an impact
in multiple results areas, targeting both CCA and CCM in an integrated and holistic manner, and with
substantial co-benefits (GCF, 2015), among them:
1) Climate-compatible cities;
2) Sustainable low-emission, climate-resilient agriculture;
3) Scaled-up Finance for forests and climate change;
4) Enhanced resilience in SIDS; and
5) Transformed energy generation and access.
This cross-cutting project by GCF shows that the synergy issue between CCA and CCM seems to
require an entry point to become a liaison between CCA and CCM. The intended entry points can be in
the form of sectors that can cover CCA and CCM actions. For example, are climate-compatible cities
case. Cities consume more than 75 % of the world’s natural resources and use 60-80% of their energy,

while they are responsible for 75 % of global emissions (GCF, 2015). Therefore, reducing emissions from
cities can significantly contribute to global CCM efforts.
Meanwhile, cities are also likely to be highly vulnerable to climate change (e.g., rising sea levels,
storm surges, heat stress, extreme precipitation, inland, coastal flooding, landslides, drought, water
scarcity, and air pollution), making CCA also a priority. Therefore investing in lower emission and more
climate-resilient cities offers immense cross-cutting potential for CCM and increased resilience (CCA).
However, there is no explicit reference to promoting synergies between CCA and CCM or that such
synergies should be promoted to support (I)NDCs/NDCs.
It can be seen from the Concept Note format used for programs/project proposals, or a Funding
Proposal for a whole project may tick off whether proposals are relevant for CCA or CCM or cross-
cutting as a third option. In it, applicants are asked to report on which of the GCF‘s eight Result
Areas the project will deliver on and can thus mark all that apply, both CCA and CCM (see appendix
III). Applicants should also state expected climate CCA or CCM impact potential and performance
against investment criteria and the fund‘s performance measurement framework for CCA and/or CCM.
Sustainable development potential is defined solely as economic, social, and environmental co-
benefits. Nevertheless, there is no clear incentive or reporting requirement on the synergy between
CCA and CCM. Thus, this is left at the applicant‘s discretion case-by-case basis.
However, in the Performance Measurement Frameworks (PFM), CCM projects/programs that generate
CCA results should report on CCA indicators (and vice versa for CCA projects/programs with CCM
results). An illustrative example is mentioned a project that primarily intends to improve land and
forest areas contributing to emission reductions (results 9.0 in the mitigation PMF) and, by doing so,
also contributes to increasing the resilience of the ecosystem (result 4.0 in the adaptation PMF) would
report on the relevant indicators for both CCA and CCM.
Specifically, in the Indonesian context, the NDA (National Designated Authority) and stakeholders have
agreed to use the same criteria to decide which priority projects will later be proposed to the GCF
by project proponents, with some adjustments made to investment criteria considering the specific
situation of Indonesia. Adjusted criteria only to prioritize projects by NDA. AE is still required to meet
the GCF criteria in the Concept Note/Funding Proposal following the GCF standards. There are seven
agreed criteria: Potential Impact, Potential Paradigm Shift, Potential for Sustainable Development,
Needs of Recipients, Country Ownership, Efficiency & Effectiveness, and Project/Program
Sustainability, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Indonesia‘s Criteria for Prioritizing Proposed Climate Action to the GCF
Criteria Value
1. Impact potential .... TonCO2-eq

For CCM ....household or population as the beneficiaries
For CCA of the project or program
2. Paradigm Shift Scale 1 to 10

a) Innovation (at least one indicator should be met)
b) Potential for scaling-up and replication
c) Potential for knowledge and learning
d) C ontribution to the creation of an enabling environment
e) Contribution to the regulatory framework and policies
f) O verall contribution to climate-resilient development pathways
3. Sustainable Development Potential Yes or No

a) Economic co-benefits (at least one indicator should be met)
b) Social co-benefits
c) Environmental co-benefits
d) Gender-responsive development impact
4. Needs of Recipients Yes or No

a) T he vulnerability of the country and beneficiary groups (at least one indicator should be met)
for climate adaptation actions
b) T he economic and social development level of the country
and the affected population
5. Country Ownership Yes or No

a) C oherence and alignment with the country’s national climate (at least one indicator should be met)
strategy and priorities as well as other existing policies
b) S takeholder engagement process and feedback received from
civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders
6. Efficiency and Effectiveness .... US$ per TonCO2-eq

For CCM .... US$ per person beneficiary
For CCA
7. Project/Program Sustainability Yes or No
Source: FPA, 2021

Based on the criteria above, it can be seen that the synergy scheme between CCA and CCM is possible
through the GCF, as seen in the criteria for potential impact and efficiency and effectiveness. In
addition, synergy is possible through its linkage with sustainable development as stated in criterion
three, where the project must at least be able to provide co-benefits in terms of economic, social,
environmental, and gender-responsive development.
Thus, the GCF has designed a funding scheme that supports the implementation of synergies between
CCA and CCM. However, shortcomings still exist, such as a lack of specificity. So regarding the issue
of synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia, this condition raises the question of whether, when
the project proponent submits a proposal to the GCF through an Accredited Entity (AE) or National
Designated Authority (NDA) in Indonesia, there is or not special promotion or support when considering
the concept of synergy. The GCF expects AEs to self-identify and self-categorize their concept note or
funding proposal within the CCA or CCM result areas or, for a cross-cutting project, across both CCA
and CCM result areas (GCF, 2021).
Because in practice, it seems the idea of synergizing CCA and CCM through GCF is not known by many.
According to the project pipeline in June 2020, there was a small number of project ideas (projects
developed by the project proponent and consulted to the NDA that considered their project impact
for both CCA and CCM, with only three from 34 projects. Where of the three projects, all of them have
initial CCM designs, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10 List of Project Ideas That Consider CCA and CCM Impact
Project/ Pro- CCM or Component AE Project Owner Project Size Estimated CCA or CCM
gram Title CCA (USD) Impact
CCA CCM
(number of (tCO2-eq
direct bene- emissions
ficiaries) reduction
per year)
Access to Energy CCM The project aims to provide: To be PT. 44,000,000 24,000 8,833
in Papua - solar 1. Capacity building to regulators to enable entered Listrik/
and battery mi- private investment and co-op scheme Electric
crogrid in remote 2. Micro-grid installation capacity building Vine Industry
off-grid villages on O&M for co-op members/villagers with
ENGIE and
ADARO
Reducing Emis- CCM The project aims to provide: KEMITRAAN Yayasan 16,850,726 13,119 6,716
sions Through 1. Increased number of small and Rumah
Strategic medium biogas installations as a low- Energy, LTKL,
Agulture Zone emission energy generator and Gorontalo
in Gorontalo: 2. S trengthened institutions and Government
Transforming regulatory systems for low-emission
Food Crops, planning and development
Coconut and 3. E stablished appropriate business
Livestock practices ensuring land management
Industries sustainability
Jambi City CCM The project aims to provide: To be Government TBD 750,000 466,440
Landfill’s Me- 1. Information dissemination and edu- entered of
thane Capture cation in reducing and sorting waste Jambi City
and Greenhouse 2. Methane capture by collecting the
Gases Mitigation landfill gas and building a WtE power
Project plant
3. P lastic waste management throug-
hout Jambi City
4. Waste management at source
5. Greening Talang Gulo Landfill
6. D evelopment of monitoring and
evaluation tools
Source: FPA, 2020b

It can be seen from the table above that projects with potential synergies were not initially designed as
synergy between CCA and CCM. Generally, a project is designed for one purpose (CCA or CCM), which
is then put into operation and estimated to impact both. Therefore synergy can only be seen as a CCM
activity that has additional benefits for CCA (co-benefits) and vice versa.
Meanwhile, the Adaptation Fund (AF) does not explicitly design mechanisms for synergies between
CCA and CCM. Unlike the GCF, which has cross-cutting investment priorities and criteria components
for both CCA and CCM that can encourage the implementation of synergies. The criteria for AF are still
general and tend only to support CCA activities. However, synergies have worked in several project
implementations in practice, although not by design.
One of the cases was in the AF project in Pekalongan City, Central Java. This project uses the
Safekeeping-Surviving-Sustaining (3S) approach toward building coastal city resilience. One of the
project components is to enhance protection along the coastal line by planting mangroves along 6
kilometers of shoreline (Adaptation Fund, 2021). The project report acknowledges increased coastal
community resilience as an expected result. However, the mangrove ecosystem also acts as a carbon
capture which can reduce GHG emissions. Therefore this activity can be synergistic because it
benefits both CCA and CCM.
A similar case was also found in the Community Adaptation for Forest-Food Based Management
in Saddang, South Sulawesi. One of the project components is to strengthen Social Forestry to
encourage forest food Upstream of Saddang Watershed with CCA efforts will be carried out through
rehabilitating the agroforestry model pattern (Adaptation Fund, 2020). However, the project report
acknowledges that this rehabilitation activity is also an effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
KEMITRAAN, an AE for AF and GCF in Indonesia, acknowledges that synergy has already existed and
occurred. However, even though there is potential and several project cases prove that synergies
are possible. The synergy has not occurred by design, even by KEMITRAAN itself. The lack of
understanding of the potential synergies between CCA and CCM from project proponents and AE or
NDA and related government stakeholders is the main problem why current funding opportunities for
synergy between CCA and CCM are failing to be utilized. Resource and time constraints to access these
funds also became obstacles to implementing the synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia.
Besides that, the monitoring and reporting efforts of the funding institutions are focused on the
project‘s primary objectives, rather than co-benefits related to CCA and CCM, nor the potential
synergies that can be analyzed and learned from. The lack of “synergetic climate funding” can also
be explained by the differing nature of CCA and CCM measures. Aspiring for both CCA and CCM
benefits simultaneously is seen as leading to increasing complexity of initiatives and possibly higher
transaction costs. Because as it is known, while the requirement for demonstrating the additionality
of CCM funding is relatively straightforward (quantitative metrics through reduction of greenhouse gas
emission), there is no such metric for measuring CCA as most adaptation measures are similar. Based
on previous reports, there are still no available metrics in Indonesia that have been developed together
among stakeholders with agreed scientifically (Suroso et al., 2021).

Therefore, while it is necessary to encourage through policies/regulations, including capacity-building
programs for AEs and NDAs, well-defined adaptation metrics are still very much needed, especially
for assessing the progress of CCA implementation. The funding could also be made conditional to
achieving such synergies, and this may require modifications and innovations to funding approaches,
e.g., as up-front funding requirements for synergetic projects may be a barrier (McCarthy, Lipper,
Branco, 2011)
However, ICF through GCF and AF already has a great potential for Indonesia context to be utilized for
implementing synergy between CCA and CCM, especially for the cost-effectiveness of climate change
actions and the NDC implementation. Because as one of the countries vulnerable to climate change
risk, Indonesia is making all efforts to tackle climate change impact through both CCA and CCM. For
this reason, the issue of balancing funding for CCA and CCM is very much needed amid the dominance
of CCM. Therefore, relevant stakeholders should understand the synergies‘ advantages and then
maximize funding opportunities through the implementation of synergies.

Chapter seven
Findings and
Way Forward

7. Findings and Way Forward
7.1 Findings
While the research landscape remains scattered and limited, examples demonstrating the promising
potential for accommodating synergies have been identified in several practices. However, the
synergy issue has not been fully realized to leverage funding sources for CCA and CCM activities at the
international and national levels (in Indonesia). Therefore, while many countries, including Indonesia,
have acknowledged the potential and existence of synergy (some are packaged into various other
forms/terms), there is no strong message in emphasizing the importance of synergy.
Based on a study by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2017, the Paris Agreement presents a mixed
picture of its link to driving synergies between CCA and CCM, creating a weak link. Although it often
mentions CCA and CCM side by side, it even possibly opens up opportunities for synergy and does not
prevent it, but at the same time, it does not promote them either. Making the synergy issues has not
materialized into specific eligibility or funding criteria for promotion, nor has it been integrated into
the funds‘ application schemes, programmatic framework, monitoring and reporting requirements, or
performance frameworks. Making some of the existing synergy practices is mostly not by design. This
finding still describes the current issues of implementing synergy between CCA and CCM in Indonesia.
Since ratifying the Paris Agreement through Law 16/2016, the GoI has made various efforts to support
climate action, both CCA and CCM, to achieve NDC targets. However, the existing national climate
policies have not paid special attention and explicitly mandated synergies between CCA and CCM.
Later derivative policies have been enacted, i.e., NEK regulation and the LCDI, showing potential
synergy opportunities. Unfortunately, it has not been explicitly encouraging synergies either. The same
case also occurs in Goal 13 of SDGs (climate action), which encourages the strengthening of CCA and
CCM actions but has not yet paid attention to implementing synergies. Therefore, existing national
regulations and policies seem to depict CCA and CCM efforts as separate pathways. In the end, even
though national policy and regulatory instruments already support CCA and CCM actions, the synergy
issue is still not a concern.
Due to the lack of mainstreaming of the issue of synergy between CCA and CCM by national climate
policies, based on a study case on Climate Village Program (PROKLIM), Social Forestry, and energy
(electricity), relevant stakeholders in Indonesia are not yet aware of the terms or concept of synergy
between CCA and CCM, including its potential. It can be seen from these study cases where that
concept and practice have the potential for synergy and even have existed. Nevertheless, such a
policy has not been written, designed, or mainstreamed the concept of synergy between CCA and CCM
expressly and explicitly.
Therefore, the components of enabling conditions also have not realized the synergy‘s implementation.
While each program has the potential to implement a synergy between CCA and CCM, however, the
existing instruments have not addressed synergies issues at all. The absence of specific policies that
mainstream or design the synergy issue is why existing programs have not been able to fully implement

the synergy between CCA and CCM, despite the opportunities and potential. In the end, some programs
or activities that should have potential synergies are not recorded or reported and lead to inefficient
resources, including funding, thus potentially hampering the implementation of NDCs.
The case of Social Forestry illustrates the phenomena, even though Social Forestry has an opportunity
to implement synergy and contribute to the achievement of NDC. Given that the main objective of
this program is to manage forest areas, activities primarily intended to improve land and forest areas
contribute to emission reductions and, by doing so, also contribute to increasing the resilience of the
ecosystem. This activity has begun to be practiced in the field, especially in areas that have begun
integrating it with PROKLIM. However, existing policies, guidelines, and funding sources do not
specifically encourage and design the synergy implementation and even link it to the issue of climate
change.
Likewise, the case of energy/electricity through the SREAP program provides lessons on how
synergies can occur, where it was not originally designed that way. Because of its main objective,
SREAP was initially designed as an effort of CCA but then also opened opportunities for CCM action
(through energy efficiency). For this reason, as an NFP, MoEF can claim that the PLN program
contributes to achieving the NDC target. This case also illustrates if there have been efforts from the
GoI to address climate change issues, including synergy issues. However, this issue was never included
in the approved regulations or policies. So when the program or activities run, even though synergy
between CCA and CCM exists in practice, it is not recorded or reported.
Even PRKOLIM, which has the most significant opportunity to implement synergies because, by design,
it encourages CCA and CCM actions, has not explicitly encouraged synergies. Although the regulation
has mentioned the JAM mechanism, which opens up opportunities for synergies, this mechanism has
not explicitly directed the synergy action. Therefore, even though many activities have the potential to
be synergistic, the number is still tiny, and synergy may be understood as a CCA opportunity (as a co-
benefits) in a CCM project or vice versa.
The absence of mainstreaming synergy issues in Indonesia through policies or regulations that
specifically design the implementation of synergies is unfortunate, considering the benefits that can
be obtained. Because while several scientific studies support the synergy between CCA and CCM
implementation to achieve resilience and sustainability, the synergy can be massive potential for a
funding opportunity. This is particularly true for approved projects under AF or GCF because these
proposals have been designed under approved standardized criteria of formally authorized finance
institutions under UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement.
Synergy can also encourage climate finance to be more effective and efficient by jointly utilizing these
funds for CCA and CCM. All of these advantages can stimulate the implementation of Indonesia‘s
NDC. Because synergies can minimize trade-offs between the two, CCA can make CCM actions more
resilient, thus promoting more sustainability in both climate actions and promoting balance funding
for CCA and CCM, considering that the implementation of CCA in Indonesia is experiencing obstacles in
terms of funding.
However, although funding agencies like GCF already give funding opportunities simultaneously for
both CCA and CCM, there is no explicit reference to promoting synergies between CCA and CCM or that

such synergies should be promoted in support of NDCs. There is also no clear incentive or reporting
requirement on the synergy between CCA and CCM. Even AF does not provide specific criteria for
CCM, although some projects show potential synergies. This condition is also not supported by AE and
related NDAs in Indonesia in promoting the issue of synergy between CCA and CCM, while in practice,
they admit that the synergies have already existed.
The lack of understanding of the potential synergies between CCA and CCM from project proponents,
AE or NDA, and related government stakeholders is why even though the implementation of synergies
already exists, it is still minimal. On the other hand, the monitoring and reporting efforts of the funding
institutions are focused on the project‘s primary objectives rather than co-benefits related to CCA and
CCM or the potential synergy. The differing nature of CCA and CCM measures also hinders support for
synergies, especially since Indonesia lacks well-defined adaptation metrics. Increase the complexity
of initiatives and possibly higher transaction costs.
Whereas, as one of the countries vulnerable to climate change risk, Indonesia is making all efforts
to tackle climate change impact through both CCA and CCM. For this reason, the issue of balancing
funding for CCA and CCM is very much needed amid the dominance of CCM. Therefore, relevant
stakeholders should understand the synergies‘ advantages and then maximize funding opportunities
through the implementation of synergies. In the end, it is necessary to innovate in policies, regulations,
funding, and climate governance to support the implementation of synergies between CCA and CCM in
Indonesia and harness its advantages to stimulate NDC implementation.
7.2 Way Forward
Although scientifically, the synergy between CCA and CCM has great potential, especially towards
resilience and sustainability. Based on the case in Indonesia, it turns out that this potential has
not been utilized through regulations or policies that, by design, require synergies. The absence
of such regulations or policies is alleged since stakeholders in programs or activities do not fully
understand the synergy between CCA and CCM. Therefore programs or activities through PROKLIM,
Social Forestry, or the energy/electricity sector that have potential and even have occurred that
can ’e categorized as synergy are not recorded or reported. This deficiency in climate governance is
alleged to have led to Indonesia‘s ineffectiveness and efficiency in climate change implementation and
financing.
However, because the existing programs do not specifically design synergies, these synergistic actions
are not reported to contribute to meeting NDC targets for CCA and CCM, even though synergies exist
and occur in the field. This may be the cause of the unbalanced funding allocation for climate action in
Indonesia (where CCM is more dominant than CCA) and may be caused by several synergistic actions
(providing benefits for both CCA and CCM) that are only partially reported as CCA or CCM. Whereas it
is also known that Indonesia tends to be more concerned about CCA because Indonesia is one of the
countries affected by climate change, there are limited funding sources for CCA. Therefore it needs
effectiveness in utilizing the existing climate funding allocations.

For that, the concept of synergy between CCA and CCM needs to be formulated explicitly and
materialized in regulations or policies at the national level to stimulate the implementation of NDC and
the effectiveness of the climate funding (encourage a more balanced allocation of funding between
CCA and CCM). It is also necessary if further research can provide answers to how many/large the
potential benefits or advantages of the synergy between CCA and CCM on the efficiency of using ICF
funds to stimulate the implementation of NDC both CCA and CCM. Because in the Indonesian context,
this information is still lacking to strengthen support for synergy.
In addition, encouraging the promotion and urgency of implementing the synergy between CCA and
CCM requires mainstreaming, primarily through international agendas or agreements. One of them is a
concern through the Global Stocktake (GST) issue. Indeed, based on the study, GST has not mentioned
the synergy issue. However, since GST facilitates global collective progress assessments in three
thematic areas, including CCA and CCM (while others are a means of implementation and support),
it is undeniable that synergies have the potential to be explored through GST. Therefore, the synergy
between CCA and CCM in GST needs to be formulated and materialized, considering GST outputs
will consist of key political messages and recommendations, best practices, new opportunities, and
lessons learned for all thematic areas. So that the problem of the lack of best practice that supports
the potential and advantages of synergies between CCA and CCM, especially in balancing CCA and CCM
funding in ICF, can be resolved. Therefore, regarding responding to the UNFCCC agenda on the first
GST in 2023, Indonesia needs to prepare a comprehensive framework of its position on GST adaptation
that considers the synergy between CCA and CCM—continuing the urgency of the synergy issue at the
international level.
Mainstreaming is also required at the national level. As found from the analysis, although national
climate policies have facilitated CCA and CCM actions, existing policies have not explicitly
promoted the synergy issue. Therefore a needed very shortly to make all related stakeholders
work in collaboration with each other, not working in a silo, to provide a way that stimulates the
implementation of NDC effectively and efficiently. Therefore, to bring forward CCA and the synergy
issues in Indonesia, all related and authorized ministries and institutions to work together and prepare
plans and policy strategies under the presidential instruction. Otherwise, the “silo” working style will
remain the forever “theme.”
In line with efforts to mainstream the synergy issues between CCA and CCM at the national level
or even at the international level, besides regulatory and policy support, it also requires capacity
building from stakeholders in Indonesia. Besides finance, capacity building is also vital as a means of
implementation for the NDC. Capacity building is needed to formulate policies, integrate CCA and CCM
into sectoral planning processes, access finance, and provide the necessary information to clarify
transparency and understand NDCs (UNFCCC, 2021). Therefore, the importance of capacity building
continues to be emphasized to support institutional strengthening in parties‘ new and updated NDCs.
For these reasons, in the case of Indonesia, capacity building is needed for relevant ministries and
institutions, local governments, NGOs, AEs, NDAs, and community groups related to understanding
the synergy between CCA and CCM and utilizing the current enabling conditions to realize synergy
and harness its advantages. Because in the field, the community seems not to realize the potential
of synergy thus, their activities or programs cannot take advantage of the funding schemes offered
by the GCF. This condition is also not supported by stakeholders from above, such as the national

or regional government, which does not record or report activities or programs that have potential
synergies—even NDA or AE that does not socialize synergy opportunities through ICF to project
proponents. Therefore top-down and bottom-up approaches are needed to mainstream the issue to
realize synergy between CCA and CCM implementation and utilize its advantages in sustainability and
ICF opportunities to stimulate NDC implementation.

Chapter eight
References

8. References
Adaptation Fund (2020) Community Adaptation for Forest-Food Based Management in Saddang Watershed Ecosystem. Project Inception
Report.
Adaptation Fund (2021) Safekeeping-Surviving-Sustaining towards Resilience: 3S Approach to Build Coastal City Resilience to Climate Change
Impacts and Natural Disasters in Pekalongan City Central Java Province. Project Inception Report.
ADB and ADBI, (2012) Low-Carbon Green Growth in Asia: Policies and Practices. Joint study of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the
Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), ADB, Manila, Philippines, 246 pp
ADB (2017) Climate Change Operational Framework 2017–2030: Enhanced Actions for Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Resilient
Development, ADB, Manila, Philippines
ADB (2021a) Program Implementation Document: Perusahaan Listrik Negara (State Electricity Corporation) Sustainable and Reliable Energy
Access Program— Western and Central Java (Guaranteed by the Republic of Indonesia).
ADB (2021b) Technical Assistance Report: Republic of Indonesia: Capacity Development in Emerging Technologies, Financed by the Republic
of Korea e-Asia and Knowledge Partnership Fund
ADB (2021c) Loan Agreement: Sustainable and Reliable Energy Access Program – Western and Central Java. Program Safeguard Systems
Assessment
Adger, W.N. (2001) Scale of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International
Development 13: 921-931
AfDB, ADB, DFID, DGIS, EC, BMZ, OECD, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank (2002) Poverty and Climate Change. Reducing the vulnerability of the poor. A
contribution to the eighth conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Aguilera E., Lassaletta L., Gattinger A., Benjamín S. Gimeno, (2013) Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in
Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 168, 2013, Pages 25-36, ISSN 0167-
8809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003.
Ayers, J., Huq, S., (2009) The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case study of Bangladesh. Environ. Manag. 43 (5) 753–764, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9223-2.
Balaban, O., and de Oliveira, J. A. (2013) Understanding the links between urban regeneration and climate-friendly urban development:
Lessons from two case studies in Japan. Local Environment 19(8), 868–890.
Berry PM, Brown S, Chen M, Kontogianni A, Rowlands O, Simpson G, Skourtos M (2014) Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and
mitigation measures. Clim Chang 128:381–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1214-0
Bizikova, L., S. Burch, S. Cohen, and J. Robinson, (2010) Linking sustainable development with climate change adaptation and mitigation. In:
Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security [O’Brien, K.,A. St. Clair, and B. Kristoffersen (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 157-179.
Bryan BA, King D, Wang E (2010) Potential of woody biomass production for motivating widespread natural resource management under
climate change. Land Use Policy 27:713–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.012
Buchner, B., Falconer, A., Herve ́ -Mignucci, M., Trabacchi, C., (2012) The Landscape of Climate Finance 2012. Climate Policy Initiatives. https://
climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2012/
Burch, S. (2010) Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British
Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 20(2), 287–297.
Burton, I. (2000) Adaptation to climate change and variability in the context of sustainable development. In: Gomez-Etcheverri, L. (ed.)
“Climate Change and Development”, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 153-173Bustamante M, Robledo-Abad C, Harper
R, Mbow C, Ravindrana N, Sperling F, Haber H, De Siqueira Pinto A and Smith, P. (2014) Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for
greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Global Change Biology 20(10):3270–90
Burton, I., Huq. S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O., Shipper, E.L. (2002) From impacts assessment to adaptation
priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2: 145-159
Burton, I., Huq. S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O., Shipper, E.L. (2002) From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of
adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2: 145-159
Chastin, S., Jennings, N., Toney, J., Anadon, D. L., Smith, P. (2021) Co-benefits of climate change mitigation
Dang, H.H., Michaelowa, A., Tuan, D.D., (2003) Synergy of mitigation and adaptation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the
case of Vietnam. Clim. Policy 3 (Suppl. 1) S81–S96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.clipol.2003.10.006.
Denton, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, T. Masui, K.L. O’Brien, and K. Warner, (2014). Climate-resilient
pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova,
B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131.

De Boer, J., J.A.Wardekker, and J.P. van der Sluijs (2010) Frame-based guide to situated decision-making on climate change. Global
Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 20(3), 502-510.
de la Torre A, Fajnzylber P, Nash JD (2009) Low carbon, high growth: Latin American responses to climate change-an overview(English).
World Bank Latin American and Caribbean studies. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/713951468045039226/Low-carbon-high-growth-Latin-American-responses-to-climate-change-an-overview
Di Gregorio M, Fatorelli L, Pramova E, May P, Locatelli B, Brockhaus M (2016) Integrating mitigation and adaptation in climate and land use
policies in Brazil: a policy document analysis, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Working Paper No. 257, 1–54
Duguma LA, Minang PA, Van Noordwijk M (2014a) Climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector: from complementarity to
synergy. Environ Manag 54:420–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0331-x
Duguma LA, Wambugu SW, Minang PA, van Noordwijk M (2014b) A systematic analysis of enabling conditions for synergy between climate
change mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries. Environ Sci Pol 42:138–148, ISSN 1462-9011. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.003
Dymén, C., and Langlais, R. (2013). Adapting to climate change in Swedish planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
33(1),108–119.
Edenhofer, O., J.Wallacher, H. Lotze-Campen, M. Reder, B. Knopf, and J. Müller, (2012) Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability: Linking
Climate and Development Policy. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 401 pp.
EPIC (2012), Climate Smart Agriculture: Capturing the synergies among mitigation, adaptation and food security in Malawi, Vietnam and
Zambia, Project Brief, available online at: http://www.fao.org/climatechange/epic/en/
Falloon, P. and R. Betts, (2010) Climate impacts on European agriculture and water management in the context of adaptation and mitigation –
the importance of an integrated approach. Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5667-5687.
Felgenhauer, T., and M. Webster (2013) Multiple Adaptation Types with Mitigation: A Framework for Policy Analysis. Global Environmental
Change 23 (6): 1556–1565. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.018.
Fragkos P., dkk. (2021) Energy system transitions and low-carbon pathways in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU-28, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States. Energy, 216, 119385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119385.
Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., and Paterson, J. (2011) A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations: A letter.
Climatic Change 106 (2), 327–336.
FPIA (Fiscal Policy Agency) (2020a) Laporan Anggaran Mitigasi dan Adaptasi Perubahan Iklim Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Budget Report). Jakarta: FPA.
FPA (Fiscal Policy Agency) (2020b) Indonesia Country Programme for the Green Climate Fund. Jakarta: FPA.
FPA (Fiscal Policy Agency). (2021) Indonesia’s GCF Country Programme Document. Jakarta: FPA.
Fu, C., Y. Zheng, and W. Wang. (2014) Research Perspectives on Synergic Relationships in Addressing Climate Change Measures. Resources
Science 36 (7): 535–1542.
Goklany, I.M., (2005) A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilization or adaptation? Energ. Environ., 16, 667-680.
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.
Grafakos, S., Pacteau, C., Delgado, M., Landauer, M., Lucon, O., and Driscoll, P. (2018) Integrating mitigation and adaptation: Opportunities and
challenges. In Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S. Ali Ibrahim (eds.), Climate Change and Cities:
Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge University Press. New York. 101–138
Grafakos S, Trigg K, Landauer M, Chelleri L and Dhakal S (2019) Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation
and mitigation in cities Clim. Change 154 87–106
Green Climate Fund (2011) Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund.
Green Climate Fund (2015) Investment Opportunities for the Green Climate Fund. Elements Issues 02. Korea: Green Climate Fund.
Green Climate Fund (2016) GCF insight: Cross-cutting projects and the mitigation-adaptation balance.
Green Climate Fund (2020) Updated Strategic Plan for the Green Climate Fund: 2020-2023.
Green Climate Fund (2021) Independent Evaluation of the Adaptation Portfolio and Approach of the International Fund.
Hamin, E.M. and N. Gurran, (2009) Urban form and climate change: balancing adaptation and mitigation in the US and Australia. Habitat
International, 33, 238-245.
Handayani, Kamia. (2019). Electricity and Climate Change: Seeking for the triple nexus of electrification, climate change mitigation, and
climate change adaptation. 10.3990/1.9789036548908.
Heidrich O, Dawson R, Reckien D, Walsh C (2013) Assessment of the climate preparedness of 30 urban areas in the UK. Clim Chang 120:771–784
Huq, S. (2002) The Bonn-Marrakech agreements on funding Climate Policy 2: 243-246
Illman, J., M. Halonen, P. Rinne, S. Huq, S. Tveitdal (2013). Scoping study on financing adaptation-mitigation synergy activities. Nordic Council
of Ministers, Nordic working papers. (Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/NA2013–902).
IPCC, (2001a) 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.

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.
IPCC (2001c) Climate change 2001: Synthesis Report. WMO, UNEP
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. Leary,
D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press., Cambridge, 1032 pp.
IPCC (2014) Annex II: Glossary. Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow (eds.). In: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution
of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team,
R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. (Available from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/
AR5_SYR_FINAL_Glossary.pdf).
IPCC (2015) Adaptation and mitigation. (Available from http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_adaptation.php).
IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. (Available from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/)
Johnson, K., and Breil, M. (2012). Conceptualizing urban adaptation to climate change-findings from an applied adaptation assessment
framework. (Available form http://eucities-adapt.eu/cms/assets/Uploads/UserFiles/32/Johnson%20and%20Breil%202012_38.pdf)
Jones, R. N., P. Dettmann, G. Park, M. Rogers, and T. White (2007) The Relationship Between Adaptation and Mitigation in Managing Climate
Change Risks: A Regional Response from North Central Victoria, Australia.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (5):
685–712.
Jordan, F. (2009) Urban Responses to Climate Change. Regional Development Dialogue 30 (2): 60–75.
Juhola, S., P. Driscoll, J. Mendler de Suarez, and P. Suarez. (2013) Social Strategy Games in Communicating Trade-Offs between Mitigation and
Adaptation in Cities. Urban Climate 4: 102–116.
Kane, S., Shogren, J.F., (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim. Change 45 (1) 75–102, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1023/a:1005688900676.
Kassam A, Friedrich T, Derpsch R, Lahmar R, Mrabet R, Basch G, González-Sánchez EJ, Serraj R (2012) Conservation agriculture in the dry
Mediterranean climate. Field Crop Res 132:7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.02.023
Kates, R.W (2000) Cautionary tales: adaptation and the global poor. Climatic Change 45: 5-17
Klein Richard J.T., Schipper Lisa E., Dessai Suraje (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three
research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 40.
Klein, R.J.T., Schipper, E.L.F., Dessai, S., (2005) Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research
questions. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (6) 579–588, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.010.
Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T.E., Richels, R.G., Robinson, J.B., Toth, F.L., (2007) In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van
der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Inter-relationships Between Mitigation and Adaptation. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 745–777.
Komitmen Iklim (2021a) Sinergi Perhutanan Sosial dan Proklim di Tingkat Tapak: Nagari Sirukam. Avalaible at https://komitmeniklim.id/
sinergi-perhutanan-sosial-dan-proklim-di-tingkat-tapak-nagari-sirukam/. accessed on 29 July 2022
Komitmen Iklim (2021b) Sinergi Perhutanan Sosial dan Proklim di Tingkat Tapak: Desa Lampo. Avalaible at https://komitmeniklim.id/sinergi-
perhutanan-sosial-dan-proklim-di-tingkat-tapak-desa-lampo/. accessed on 29 July 2022
Landauer M, Juhola S, Söderholm M (2015) Interrelationships between adaptation and mitigation: a systematic literature review. Clim Chang
131:505–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1395-1
Landauer, M., Juhola, S., Klein, J., (2019) The role of scale in integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation in cities. J. Environ. Plan.
Manag. 62 (5), 741–765.
Larsen Sanne Vammen, Kørnøv Lone, Wejs Anja (2012), Mind the gap in SEA: An institutional perspective on why assessment of synergies
amongst climate change mitigation, adaptation and other policy areas are missing, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume
33, Issue 1,
Leonard S, Locatelli B, Murdiyarso D, Martius C, Quina M, Baral H, (2016) A match made in Paris: adaptation-mitigation synergies in the land
sector. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006106
Lesueur, A., Rosenzweig, C., Pacteau, C., Dépoues, V., Abbadie, L., Bordier, C., and Ali Ibrahim, S. (2015). Scientific brief on the implications of
local and regional jurisdictions for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. LPAA Focus on Cities & Regions Climate Action. http://
uccrn.org/files/2016/01/COP21-LPAA_UCCRN_I4CE.pdf
Locatelli, B., Evans, V., Wardell, A., Andrade, A. and Vignola, R. (2011) Forests and climate change in Latin America: linking adaptation and
mitigation. Forests 2: 431-450.
Locatelli B, Catterall CP, Imbach P, Kumar C, Lasco R, Marín-Spiotta E, Mercer B, Powers JS, Schwartz N, Uriarte M (2015) Tropical
reforestation and climate change: beyond carbon. Restor Ecol 23:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12209
Locatelli, B., Fedele, G., Fayolle, V., & Baglee, A. (2016). Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance. International
Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management.

Mata Luis J. and Budhooram June (2007), Complementarity between mitigation and adaptation: the water sector, Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 12 (2007):799-807.
McCarthy Nancy, Lipper Leslie, Branca Giacomo (2011), Climate-Smart Agriculture: Smallholder Adoption and Implications for Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), December 2011.
McEvoy D, Lindley S, Handley J (2006) Adaptation and mitigation in urban areas: synergies and conflicts. Proc ICE-Munic Eng 159:185–192
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.
Michaelowa, Axel, (2001). „Mitigation versus adaptation: The political economy of competition between climate policy strategies and the
consequences for developing countries,“ HWWA Discussion Papers 153, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA)
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2016) Regulation No. P.83/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2016 on Social Forestry
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2019) Roadmap Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Mitigasi Perubahan Iklim. Jakarta (ID):
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2020) Roadmap Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Adaptasi Perubahan Iklim. Jakarta (ID):
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2021a) Regulation of the Director-General of Climate Change Control P.4/PPI/API/PPI.6/3/2021
Minister of Environment and Forestry (2021b) Indonesia Third Biennial Update Report Under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Jakarta (ID): Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2021c) Regulation of the Director General of Climate Change Control P.4/PPI/API/PPI.6/3/2021
Regarding Guidelines for the Implementation of the Climate Village Program
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2021d) Regulation No. 9/2021 on Social Forestry Management
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2022) Dukungan Pendanaan Adaptation Fund (AF) Atas Upaya Pencapaian Ketahanan Iklim di Indonesia.
Presented on Socialization Event Adaptation Fund In Indonesia. 24 May 2022.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
Mitchell T. & Maxwell S. (2010) Defining climate compatible development. CDKN ODI Policy Brief November 2010.
Moser, S., (2012) Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents: an essay. Clim. Change 111 (2) 165–175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-012-0398-4.
Naess, L. O., G. Bang, S. Eriksen, and J. Vevatne. (2005) “Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change: Flood Responses at the Municipal Level in
Norway.” Global Environmental Change 15 (2): 125–138.
Nordic Council of Ministers. (2017). Mitigation & Adaptation Synergies in the NDCs. Denmark: Nordic Ecolabel
Palm CA, Smukler SM, Sullivan CC, Mutuo PK, Nyadzi GI, Walsh MG (2010) Identifying potential synergies and trade-offs for meeting food
security and climate change objectives in sub-Saharan Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci:19661–19666. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912248107
Pham TT, Moira M, Locatelli B, Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M and Mardiah S. (2014) Integration of adaptation and mitigation in climate change
and forest policies in Indonesia and Vietnam. Forests 5:2016–36
Pyke, C.R., B.G. Bierwagen, J. Furlow, J. Gamble, T. Johnson, S. Julius, and J. West, (2007) A decision inventory approach for improving
decision support for climate change impact assessment and adaption. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(7-8), 610-621
Ravindranath NH. 2007. Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 12:843–853
Republic of Indonesia (2021a) Updated Nationally Determined Contribution Republic of Indonesia. (Available from: https://www4.unfccc.int/
sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Indonesia%20First/Updated%20NDC%20Indonesia%202021%20-%20corrected%20version.
pdf)
Republic of Indonesia (2021b) Government Regulations No. 23/2021 on Forestry Management.
Rosenzweig Cynthia and Tubiello Francesco Nicola (2007), Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potential
synergies, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (2007):855-873.
Schwarze R, Meyer PB, Markandya A, Kedia S, Maleki D, Román de Lara MV, Sudo T, Surminski S (2018) Economics, finance, and the private
sector. In: Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Romero-Lankao P, Mehrotra S, Dhakal S, Ali Ibrahim S (eds) Climate change and cities: second
assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Cambridge University Press, New York In Press
Sharifi, A. (2021) Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. Science
of the total environment, 750, 141642.
Smith, J.B. (1997) Setting priorities for adapting to climate change. Global Environmental Change 3: 251-264.
Stoorvogel JJ, Antle JM, Crissman CC, Bowen W (2004) The trade-off analysis model: integrated bio-physical and economic modelling of
agricultural production systems. Agric Syst 80:43–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.06.002
Suroso, D. S. A., Hilman, D., Setiawan, B., Pradono, Fitriyanto, M. S., Puspitasari, N., and Hastari, M.A. (2021). Climate Change Adaptation in
Indonesia: Reviews on Adaptation Governance, Metrics and Financing. Strengthen national climate policy implementation: Comparative
empirical learning & creating linkage to climate finance (SNAPFI) National Study Report. DIW Berlin.
Swart, R.O.B., Raes, F., (2007) Making integration of mitigation and adaptation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies?
Clim. Policy 7 (4) 288–303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685657.

UNEP/IVM (1998) Handbook on methods for climate change impacts assessment and adaptation strategies. Amsterdam.
UNFCCC (2001) FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Decision 7/CP.7 Funding under the Convention
UNFCCC (2011) FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session.
UNFCCC (2021) FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/8, Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, Synthesis report by the secretariat
UNFCCC (2022) Information paper on linkages between adaptation and mitigation. Information paper by the Adaptation Committee.
United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
United Nations (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
United Nations (2019) Global Conference on Strengthening Synergies Between the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the 2030 Agenda
For Sustainable Development. United Nations, Copenhagen.
Udvardy, S., S. Winkelman (2014). Green resilience: Climate adaptation + mitigation synergies. Center for Clean Air (CCAP). April 2014.
(Available from http://ccap.org/assets/CCAP-Green-Resilience-Climate-Adaptation-Mitigation-Synergies_April-2014.pdf ).
van Noordwijk, M., Hoang, M.H., Neufeldt, H., O ̈ born, I., Yatich, T. (Eds.), (2011) How Trees and People Can Co-adapt to Climate Change:
Reducing Vulnerability Through Multifunctional Agroforestry Landscapes. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, p. 134 pp.
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.
Verchot Louis V., van Noordwijk Meine, Kandji Serigne, Tomich Tom, Ong Chin, Albrecht Alain, Mackensen Jens, Bantilan Cynthia, Anupama
K.V., Palm Cheryl (2007), Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change 12 (2007):901-918.
Verheyen, R. (2003) The legal framework of adaptation and adaptive capacity, in: Smith. J.B., Klein R.J.T. and
Huq S. (eds.): Enhancing the Capacity of Developing Countries to Adapt to Climate Change, Imperial College
Press, Londo
Verheyen, R. (2003) The legal framework of adaptation and adaptive capacity, in: Smith. J.B., Klein R.J.T. andHuq S. (eds.): Enhancing the
Capacity of Developing Countries to Adapt to Climate Change, Imperial CollegePress, London
Viguié V, Hallegatte S (2012) Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies. Nat Clim Chang 2:334–337
Walsh CL, Dawson RJ, Hall JW, Barr SL, Batty M, Bristow AL, Carney S, Dagoumas AS, Ford AC, Harpham C (2011) Assessment of climate
change mitigation and adaptation in cities. Proc ICE-Urban Design Plan 164: 75–84
Wijaya S.A., (2022) Kolaborasi Multi Pihak Dalam Pengembangan Prokilim. Presented in MoEF webinar “Pengembangan Proklim dalam Konteks
Perhutanan Sosial Melalui Upaya Kelola Sampah yang Komperhensif”. 16 Ferbruary 2022.
Wilbanks TJ, Kane SM, Leiby PN, Perlack RD, Settle C, Shogren JF, Smith JB. (2003a) Possible responses to global climate change: integrating
mitigation and adaptation.Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev, 45:28–38
Wilbanks, T.J., (2003b) Integrating climate change and sustainable development in a place-based context. Climate Policy, 3(Suppl. 1),
S147-S154.
Wilbanks, T. J., P. Leiby, R. Perlack, J. T. Ensminger, and S. B. Wright (2007) Toward an Integrated Analysis of Mitigation and Adaptation: Some
Preliminary Findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (5): 713–725. doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9095-4.
Wilbanks, T.J. and J. Sathaye, (2007) Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: a synthesis. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 957-962
Wilbanks,T.J. and R.W. Kates, (2010) Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding adaptation in responses to multiple threats and
stresses. Annals Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 719-728.
Wilson C. and McDaniels T. (2007). Linking Climate Change Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development with Structured Decision-
making Tools: The Gateway Program Example. Climate Policy 4, 353 – 370.
Zhao, Chunli & Yan, Yan & Wang, Chenxing & Tang, Mingfang & Wu, Gang & Ding, Ding & Song, Yang. (2018) Adaptation and mitigation for
combating climate change – from single to joint. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 4. 1-10. 10.1080/20964129.2018.1466632.
Zheng, Y., W. Wang, and J. Pan. 2013. “Low Carbon Resilient City: Concept, Approach and Policy Options.” Urban Studies 3: 10–14

Chapter nine
Appendix

9. Appendix
9.1 Appendix I.
Synergy Assessment on Climate Village Program (PROKLIM)
Synergy Type Sruni Village (Proklim Lestari) Lita Village (Proklim Lestari) Lempong Pucung Village (Proklim
Utama)
Type of activity M A Type of activity M A Type of activity M A
A: In the same Jugangan (landfill) Yes Yes Processing livestock Yes Yes Making natural pro- Yes Yes
work area, manure into fertilizer tective structures in
related types to supply fertilizer coastal areas through
of adaptation needs on agricultural planting mangrove
and mitigation land vegetation which has
activities are reached an area of up
carried out to 180 ha
Planting vegetation around the Yes Yes Bank waste manage- Yes Yes The use of organic Yes Yes
spring location ment, biogas, refores- fertilizers for rice
tation activities, and cultivation
agroforestry practices
Reusing water that has been used Yes Yes
for specific purposes
Restrictions on water use Yes Yes
Efficient management of human, Yes Yes
animal, and industrial waste
Making watertight septic tanks, Yes Yes
draining every three years
Septic tank equipped with methane Yes Yes
catcher installation
WWTP equipped with methane Yes Yes
catcher
Tree planting Yes Yes
Planting oro-oro land and cliffs Yes Yes
B: At the same Reservoir Making No Yes Diversification of food No Yes Elevating the building No Yes
time and place, crops by planting types structure through the
but the nature of such as corn, peanuts, stilt house
each activity is soybeans, green beans,
independent, not sweet potatoes, cassa-
va, and others
Rainwater Storage No Yes The yard of the house No Yes Construction of No Yes
is planted with medici- embankments to
nal plants and various overcome vulnerabi-
kinds of vegetables lity to the risk of tidal
flooding
Biopore No Yes Making lamps from or- Yes No Making seven units of No Yes
ganic materials as an tidal floodgates for
alternative for lighting discharge regulation
when the electricity
goes out

Infiltration wells No Yes Make various kinds of Yes No Application of the rice No Yes
waste recycling crafts cropping pattern by
rotating it with secon-
dary crops in one year
of planting
Waterfall Building No Yes Development of Yes No An integrated farming No Yes
artificial insemination system with Minapadi
of cattle since 2012 pattern and also
Silvofishery with an
area of 2 Ha
Rorak No Yes Production of bio- Yes No
ethanol from Nipah
fruit, extractor, and
evaporator for batik
coloring
Sewerage No Yes Utilization of solar Yes No
panels
Construction of spring protection No Yes Use of LED lights Yes No
structures
Making local regulations that No Yes Waste management Yes No
ensure the springs stay alive through composting
and 3R
Merti tuk No Yes
Flood embankment No Yes
Provision of flood retention areas No Yes
(water catchment areas)
Evacuation route preparation No Yes
Submission of information, using No Yes
traditional/modern communication
tools
Cooperation in making drainage, No Yes
dredging drainage channels
Elevating the building structure No Yes
Applying the design of the house No Yes
on stilts / floating house
Terrace construction (including No Yes
infiltration channels, drainage
channels, and terrace reinforce-
ment plants)
Application of cropping patterns No Yes
(rice-paddy-palawija, paddy-pa-
lawija-rice)
Application of intercultural No Yes
cropping patterns (intercropping/
turnover)
Integrated agriculture (combining No Yes
agriculture, animal husbandry, fis-
heries, forestry, & other sciences
related to agriculture in one area,
Minapadi technology)

Management of local potential No Yes
(protection, development, and
utilization of local plants and
animals that can support increased
food security, hybridization, or
crossbreeding)
Diversification of food crops No Yes
Selection of climate-resistant No Yes
commodities (e.g., water-saving
rice, high salinity resistant, floating
rice, etc.)
Utilization of yard land (cultivating No Yes
plants, livestock, and fish in the
yard)
Implementing a mosquito nest No Yes
eradication program
Improve the environment so that No Yes
there are no puddles
Putting fish in ponds/plant pots No Yes
Forming Jumantik (Flicker Monitor) No Yes
Implementation of an early warning No Yes
system to anticipate the occurren-
ce of diseases related to climate
change (diarrhea, malaria, DHF)
Implementing PHBS No Yes
Garbage collection and storage Yes No
Composting Yes No
3R’s activities Yes No
Goyang sapu activities, by placing Yes No
waste baskets in each aisle
Every house has an infiltration well Yes No
for household waste management
Use of firewood-saving stove Yes No
Utilization of methane/biogas Yes No
Glass Tile and Ventilation, Call for Yes No
Energy Saving
Use of organic fertilizer Yes No
Prohibition of burning straw in rice Yes No
fields
POC Manufacturing and Plant Yes No
Nutrient Bioactivator
Agroforestry practice Yes No
Land clearing without burning Yes No

9.2 Appendix II.
Enabling Conditions Assessment on Climate Village Program (PROKLIM)
Factors Sruni (PROKLIM Lestari) Lita (PROKLIM Lestari) Lempong Pucung (PROKLIM Utama)
Planning/Regula- - District Regulation. Boyolali No. 13/2015 - Decree of the Working Group on Healthy Village Regulation Number 3 of 2019 con-
tory Instruments on Environmental Protection and Villages in Poleonro Village cerning Mangrove Ecosystem Manage-
(at any level) Management (mentioning adaptation - Decree of the Head of Poleonro Village on the ment in the Cilacap Segara Anakan Area.
& mitigation actions but not related to Formation of the Management of the Compost
synergy) Fertilizer Production Group in Wanuae Hamlet
- Sruni Village Regulation No. 7/2016 - Decree of the Head of Poleonro Village on the
concerning Environmental Preservation Prohibition of Throwing Garbage in the River
and Protection - Decree of the Head of Poleonro Village on the
Jumantik Supervisor and Coordinator
- Decree of the Head of Poleonro Village on
the Movement to plant ornamental plants and
vegetables in the yard of the house
Tree Planting and Reforestation Movement
- Decree of the Head of Poleonro Village on the
prohibition of cutting down trees around the
springs
Reducing the Use of Plastic Waste in Schools
and Offices
- Circular of the Regent of Bone regarding the
Implementation of the Climate Village Program
(Proklim) in Bone Regency in 2020
- Decree of the Regent of Bone on the forma-
tion of a committee to control the impact of
climate change
- Decree of the Regent of Bone on the Imple-
mentation of Healthy Living Communities
- Decree of the Regent of Bone on the executor
of the Bone Clean Garbage activity
- Decree of the Regent of Bone for 2017, 2018,
2019, and 2020 regarding the determination of
the location of Proklim
Effective instituti- - Management Team: KTH (Forest - Management Team: Proklim Lita’s Working - Management Team: Krida Wana Lestari
ons and gover- Farmers Group) Agni Mandiri; there is Group and Water User Farmers Association Mangrove Group was formed in 2014 with
nance (stake- a management structure and detailed (P3A) “Sipatokkong” the Decree of the Head of Ujungalang
holders & political tasks, and there are detailed rules on - Cooperation with Makassar Hasanuuddin Village Number SK. 140/05/Year 2014.
leadership) institutional mechanisms University, Makassar State Alauddin University, - Supported by several other institutions
- Cooperation at the National level: Watampone Muhammadiyah University, Bone such as Patra Bina Mandiri Group, Pandu
Karina Kas utilization of yard land and District Health Service, Bone District Food Alam Group, Blessing Fortune Group, and
Biogas, AOI organic farming Crop Resilience Service, Bone District Industry Mekar Canting Group.
- Cooperation at the Provincial level: Service, and PKK Mobilizing Team Bone District - Group work plan that has been syner-
Organic farming tutor gized with CSR programs and activities
- Cooperation with the private sector: from Pertamina RU IV Cilacap and Hotel
Pertamina, Angkasapura (Planting oro- Dafam Cilacap
oro and cliff land) - Support from the district government.
- Cooperation with universities: UNS, Kampung Laut in the form of physical
UMS, UNB facilities and infrastructure
- Support from the district government.
Cilacap and Prov. Central Java in the
form of program assistance and training
activities in the field of fisheries and
the environment and the development
of MSMEs

- Support from the central government
through the Ministry of Environment and
Forestry in the form of mangrove tracking
development in the context of developing
the Kolak Sekancil tourism object.
- Support from universities such as
Unsoed, Undip, UGM, and LIPI.
Standard/ Rele- - Regulation of the Director General of Climate Change Control MoEF No. P.4/PPI/API/PPI.0/3/2021 concerning Guidelines for the Imple-
vant Guidelines mentation of the Climate Village Program (but the word „synergy“) has not been mentioned
- MoEF Regulation No. 84/2016, it is stated that the Proklim Action is the embodiment of the center on adaptation & mitigation actions
that the community has carried out at the local level.
- Regulation of the Director General of Climate Change Control MoEF No. P.4/PPI/API/PPI.0/3/2021 concerning Guidelines for the Imple-
mentation of the Climate Village Program
Financial Re- (data not available) (data not available) (data not available)
sources
Knowledge Information dissemination by: Internal deployment of actions: - Invited as a resource person to provide
generation, com- 1. Internal (village): Through socialization Resource Person for Socialization of Environ- material related to training in mangrove
munication, and of Proklim, Livestock Biogas Develop- mental Conservation Activities nursery and management or related
capacity building ment, and Waste Bank Life, Trainer/instructor of plastic waste pro- Integrated management of coastal
2. External: Pro-climate socialization, cessing training activities, Trainer/Instructor of
areas.
Biogas WTP development to other Composting Fertilizer Making Training Activity,- Having several local experts in the field
groups, study visits, and comparative Motivator of Yard Utilization Activities, Resour-
of mangrove nursery and management,
studies ce person for health counseling activities. making bio-ethanol and hand sanitizer
from mangrove plants, making batik
Deploy action externally: crafts, processing food ingredients from
- Presentation of Village Development in mangroves and fish pond products
Indonesia at the 8th ASEAN Village Leaders - Community empowerment through
Exchange Programme International Meeting the Community Service Program and a
- Resource Person for Ecosystem-Based Clima- series of research activities related to
te Change Adaptation Assistance Activities mangrove vegetation and coastal area
- Resource persons for the Workshop on Optimi- management
zing Village Funds for Climate Change Control
- Resource Person for Pro-climate Develop-
ment Activities
- Webinar Resource Person for Climate Village
Readiness in Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic
Innovation and Biogas development, entrepreneurship - Manufacture of liquid fertilizer is derived from - elevating the building structure
investments in training, technology and harvesting a mixture of organic materials easily obtained through houses on stilts and making
environmentally titles, bundling studies, biopores and by the local community. embankments to overcome susceptibili-
sound techno- infiltration wells, rorak construction, - Making lamps from organic materials as an ty to the risk of tidal flooding
logies and demonstration plots for biodiesel and alternative for lighting when the power goes - making natural protective structures in
infrastructure terracing applications, regular board out coastal areas through planting mangrove
meetings, mentoring, and good practice - Make various kinds of waste recycling crafts vegetation which has reached an area of
learning to other groups - Since 2017, livestock manure has been used up to 180 ha.
as fertilizer to supply the integrity of fertilizer - Around the hamlet area, seven units
on agricultural land. In addition, the develop- of tidal floodgates were also made to
ment of artificial insemination of cattle has regulate water flow
been carried out since 2012. - the application of the rice cropping
- Diversification of food crops by planting types pattern by rotating the crops in one
such as corn, peanuts, soybeans, green beans, cropping year.
sweet potatoes, cassava, and others. Meanwhi- - an integrated farming system with a
le, the yard of the house is planted with TOGA Minapadi pattern and also Silvofishery
plants and various kinds of vegetables with an area of 2 hectares
- Management of waste bank, biogas, and - manufacture of bio-ethanol from Nipah
reforestation activities as well as agroforestry fruit, extractor and evaporator for batik
practices coloring, mangrove seeding and planting,
use of organic fertilizer for lowland rice
cultivation, use of solar panels, and use
of LED lights and waste management
through composting and 3R.

Sustainable liveli- - Reduce the impact on crop failure - Economic Impact; increased income in Mangrove forest management in Lem-
hoods, behavioral with the use of liquid and solid organic composting and producing organic cooking co- pong Pucung Hamlet has been carried
and lifestyle fertilizers from biogas, bioslurry can be conut oil. Meanwhile, the new income and the out in an integrated manner so that it
applied directly to the land even in dry beneficiary families are the results of making can become one of the tourist attracti-
conditions compost and vegetable pesticides and organic ons that is widely known by the public as
- Reducing the potential for greenhou- cooking coconut oil. Kolak Sekancil. Emission reduction (Ton
se gas generation and creating new - Social Impact; the acquisition of several CO2eq) total: 516.92
sources of income through Biogas WTP types of awards obtained from adaptation and - Forestry Sector: 13.2
and Portable WTP mitigation activities that PROKLIM Lita has - Agriculture Sector: 502.99
- The availability of clean water through carried out - Energy Sector: 0.73
the provision of PAH in every house - Environmental impact; diseases related to
increases the adequacy of water climate change have continued to decline
availability from 2016 until now. Cases of diarrhea and
- Through Biogas IPAL, Portable IPAL, dengue fever were recorded at 0 cases, and
and waste bank management, group drought and crop failure from year to year
members at least increase their income have continued to decline since 2016. Cases of
by more than 500 thousand per month. drought and crop failure were recorded only
once but did not cause a significant impact on
the event. The reduction in emissions (TonCO2)
in the agricultural sector was 137.69 TonCO2,
and in the energy sector was 23.02 TonCO2.

9.3 Appendix III.
Project/Programme Concept Note
A. Project/Programme Summary (max. 1 page)

A.1. Project or programme Project A.2. Public or private sector Public sector
Programme Private sector
A.3. Is the CN submitted in response Yes No A.4. Confidentiality Confidential
to an RFP?
If yes, specify the RFP: ______________ Not confidential
A.5. Indicate the result areas for the Mitigation: Reduced emissions from: Adaptation: Increased resilience of:
project/programme
Energy access and power generation Most vulnerable people and communities
Low emission transport Health and well-being, and food and water security
Buildings, cities and industries and appliances Infrastructure and built environment
Forestry and land use Ecosystem and ecosystem services
A.6. Estimated mitigation impact A.7. Estimated adaptation impact

(tCO2-eq over lifespan) (number of direct beneficiaries
and % of population)
A.8. Indicative total project cost Amount: USD ______________ A.9. Indicative GCF funding Amount: USD ______________
(GCF + co-finance) requested
A.10. Mark the type of financial Grant Reimbursable grant Guarantees Equity
instrument requested for the GCF
Subordinated loan Senior Loan Other: specify___________________
funding
A.11. Estimated duration of project/ a) disbursement period: A.12. Estimated project/ Pro- This refers to the total period over
programme: b) repayment period, if applicable: gramme lifespan which the investment is effective.
A.13. Is funding from the Project Yes No A.14. ESS category A or I-1
Preparation Facility requested?
Other support received B or I-2
If so, by who:
C or I-3
A.15. Is the CN aligned with your Yes No A.16. Has the CN been shared with Yes No
accreditation standard? the NDA?
A.17. AMA signed (if submitted by AE) Yes No A.18. Is the CN included in the Yes No
If no, specify the status of AMA Entity Work Programme?
negotiations and expected date of
signing:
A.19. Project/Programme rationale, Brief summary of the problem statement and climate rationale, objective and selected implementation approach,
objectives and approach of pro- including the executing entity(ies) and other implementing partners.
gramme/project (max 100 words)


Snapfi Report Indonesia-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Snapfi Report Indonesia-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Snapfi Report Indonesia-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National study September 2022

Climate Change Center, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

2 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Based on a decision of the German Bundestag

3 Report of National Study on Adaptation

1.2 General Research Framework 10

2.2 Enabling Conditions for Synergy Between CCA and CCM 20

2.3 Advantages and Constraints of Synergies Between CCA and CCM 22

2.4 Key Takeaways 24

4.2 Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM in Indonesia 39

7.2 Way Forward 63

9.3 Appendix III. Project/Programme Concept Note 79

4 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Figure 1 Position of Synergy Issue in the Context of Sustainability and ICF 11

Table 1 Main Differences Between CCA and CCM 14

ADB Asian Development Bank

5 Report of National Study on Adaptation

6 Report of National Study on Adaptation

7 Report of National Study on Adaptation

8 Report of National Study on Adaptation

9 Report of National Study on Adaptation

1.2 General Research Framework

10 Report of National Study on Adaptation

CCA Synergy CCM

Source: Authors’ analysis, 2022

11 Report of National Study on Adaptation

12 Report of National Study on Adaptation

13 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Climate Change Adaptation Climate Change Mitigation

Geographical scale of effect Local, regional Global

Effectiveness Increases in climate resilience Reduction in global temperature rise

Ancillary benefits Improve response to extreme events in Multiple

Actor benefits Almost entirely through reduction of Through ancillary benefits

Polluter pays Not necessarily Yes

Source: Adopted from Dang et al., 2003

14 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Source: Modified from Zhao et al., 2003

15 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Figure 3 Diagrammatic Representation of the Relationships Between Key Terminologies

Co-benefits Negative effect/

Source: Modified from Chastin et al., 2021

16 Report of National Study on Adaptation

17 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Type of inter- Action/measure Primary Interrelationship explained

Source: Modified from Grafakos et al., 2019

18 Report of National Study on Adaptation

19 Report of National Study on Adaptation

• Emphasis on integrated national laws, policies, and strategies.

20 Report of National Study on Adaptation

21 Report of National Study on Adaptation

22 Report of National Study on Adaptation

23 Report of National Study on Adaptation

2.4 Key Takeaways

24 Report of National Study on Adaptation

25 Report of National Study on Adaptation

26 Report of National Study on Adaptation

27 Report of National Study on Adaptation

Assessment of Progress of Synergy Issues Between CCA and CCM

Planning/Regulatory Effective Institutions and