50 / 96
50
The analyses presented in this outlook have some
limitations and caveats. Firstly, because many
policies have been formulated they may not yet
have been implemented or yet have results or
impacts; therefore, it is difficult to assess policy
performance. Also, most adaptation policies fail
to include monitoring mechanisms, which makes
it difficult to assess their effectiveness. Monitoring
effectiveness is further complicated when multiple
policy instruments are used to address the same
issue, or when instruments yield unintended
effects. In other words, social and economic
policies not intended to reduce climate change
risks also affect the degree of adaptation (e.g.
programmes for poverty alleviation that decrease
population vulnerability). Furthermore, there are
policies with unexpected or unintended impacts
on adaptation. For instance, trade agreements
that promote water-intensive crops can increase
pressure on water resources and provisioning
ecosystems.
Instruments 1, 2, A1, A2 and C2 correspond to
different policies and sectors (A, B) that, whether
coordinated or not, affect the environment.
Adaptation policies rarely indicate which
instruments address which vulnerabilities, nor
whether they focus on mountains or other
ecosystems. Therefore, progress on adaptation and
on other issues results from different policies and
targets different sectors. This mix of policies makes
attribution and measuring effectiveness challenging.
There are at least two ways to frame the lack
of focus on adaptation in mountains. The first
Limitations to analysis
Policies and instruments targeting the environment.
Source: IEA Community Learning Platform – Graphic
4
Countries’ architecture for policy instruments