Literature analysing the synergies and trade-offs between competing demands for land suggest that solutions are highly contextualised in terms of their environmental, socioeconomic and governance-related characteristics, making it difficult to devise generic solutions . Aspects of spatial and temporal scale can further enhance the complexity, for instance where transboundary effects across jurisdictions or upstream-downstream characteristics need to be considered, or where climate change trajectories might alter relevant biogeophysical dynamics . Nonetheless, there is broad agreement that taking the needs and perspectives of multiple stakeholders into account in a transparent process during negotiations improves the chances of achieving outcomes that maximise synergies while limiting trade-offs . Yet differences in agency and power between stakeholders or anticipated changes in access to or control of resources can undermine negotiation results even if there is a common understanding of the overarching benefits of more integrated environmental agreements and the need for greater coordination and cooperation to avoid longer-term losses to all . There is also the risk that strong local participatory processes can become disconnected from broader national plans, and thus fail to support the achievement of national targets. Thus, connection between levels is needed to ensure that ambition for transformative change is not derailed at the local level .
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report