Assisted migration is one of the strategies used to mitigate effects of expected climate change, and as Kenneth Towe points out, such actions may not be easily reversable. In the American Southwest, the US Government introduced a number of grasses, many from South Africa, to mitigate against erosion, and many of these species have become highly invasive and detrimental to natural ecosystems.

Reframing adaptation under the light of societal resilience and sustainable development is indeed a good idea. One should postulate thou that mitigation, as came to be consensuated in climate policy and politics, seems to be more clearly debatable in relation to UNFCCC Article 2, and, after the mid 1990s, in terms of market-oriented emissions reductions. Some would very much like to see additional consensus directed more specifically to issues of development and adaptation.

Roland Krobel makes some good points. I do think there are some mitigation strategies we should be following--building resiliency and reducing stressors are two of the most important. Unfortunately human history is replete with examples of failed attempts at "ecological engineering." In tinkering with natural systems, we often lose sight of just how complicated they are.

I worked with some adaptation projects and showcases in the least developed countries (LDC). Mitigation is a must for most developed nations, and the adaptation used to be an option for them. But adaptation seem become a must for both developed and LDC nations now. To put the adaptation in the UNFCCC regime is important, where experience sharing, resource distribution is crucially needed for LDC. Many local communities try to adapt the the changing climate by using local and traditional wisdom, however, there is limitation to the level where they can achieve. International funding has become an important source to strengthen further their resilience. Under the UNFCCC platform, it will be easier to make the funding availability come true. Still we can see lots of overlapping among the MDG, UNFCCC, CBD,ISDR etc. on the issue of climate adaptation, and there a need for streaming accross the international aggreement to make resource utilization more effective.

We need to remember that adaptation is a process of dealing with changing environment, not the ultimate solution. Adaptation need evolving with time. But, for the sinking nations, no financial resources means no survival as we can't evolve as fast as the rising water.

We must deal the science and politics separately and address the problem amicably with focused approach to solve the problem.

The adaptation is a must and our societies should be resilient by any means either internal or external practices.

Mitigation should also be integrate with the adaptation issues dealing with lifestyle.

Actually both are different.

Adaptation is a alteration of management practices in agriculture in response to some positve gain in economic yield.

Mitigation is just cut down the GHGs emission to desiredlevel.

Interesting question. It seems that you are reflecting on whether a discursive shift is needed to facilitate international agreements (that is, reframing adaptation as a subset of sustainable development, as the latter has better political traction amongst wealthier countries)? If so, this is an interesting question. I am not sure if I have a clear answer, except to point out that one of the ways that some people are trying to resolve the same kind of problem is by advancing the language of 'win-win' in climate interventions (that is, interventions that are able to yield mitigation and adaptation, as well as other ancillary benefits). These have been quite powerful from a political standpoint because the notion that we can achieve multiple outcomes at once is very attractive. I wonder, though, whether there may be reasons for caution. In my experience, trade-offs (rather than synergies) are the norm in resource governance--  there are typically winners and losers, and it is hard to find solutions that don't appear to have only positive impacts. A colleague and I published a paper on this topic very recently in Climatic Change (attached below), looking at possible trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation under REDD. Hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Micah

Article Missing the forest for the trees? Navigating the trade-offs ...

Thanks, Kenneth, for your question (have you been able to access the paper, by the way? If not, and you are still interested, please email me and I can send you a pdf-- [email protected]). These sort of Malthusian conundrums continue to plague questions of sustainability and adaptation, of course. I am not sure that I have much to add to this, except to point out that structural power dynamics mediate the causes and consequences of population growth in ways that often mask the issue (suggesting that the uneven distribution of resources and thus relative scarcity rather than over-population and absolute scarcity as such, might be the key problem). I am sure, however, that you have spent some time thinking about this and so these qualifiers probably do not add value. In the systems where my research primarily focuses-- Laos and Afghanistan-- there is yet relatively low population density and not much indication that population growth is the main issue at the local level (perhaps with the exception of in-migration in Afghanistan, where Afghan nationals began to return to traditional areas when there was the hope of peace, though this trend is probably reversing now). In those systems, my sense is that the inequitable distribution of wealth and the rapacious exploitation of resources by powerful actors are the key threats to sustainability and resilience. Anyway, I am afraid this does not help much. I would be interested in your insights as well.

Best regards,

Micah