Positioning Zimbabwe in the climate change mitigation-adaptation discourse: exploring benefits, barriers and risks

Within the climate change community, mitigation has gained increased global attention as an option to stabilise greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, developing countries raise concerns that mitigation takes away resources from adaptation. Decoupling proponents argue that developed countries should focus on mitigation because they hold the greatest responsibility for climate change, while developing countries, though minimally responsible for emissions, should prioritise adaptation due to their high vulnerability. Using the Zimbabwe’s experience, we pursue these debates through the lens of climate-resilient development (CRD) to understand the implications of coupling mitigation-adaptation approaches by examining how mitigation and adaptation efforts align with national development goals. We also extracted emission and development data from global electronic databases (mainly from Climate Watch and World Bank) to track and profile Zimbabwe’s CRD situation relative to other countries. Our results show co-benefits of mitigation-adaptation pursuit that overlap with sustainable development goals (SDGs), through unlocking climate funds, creating green jobs, increased awareness about climate-proofing sensitive development sectors, technical assistance, technology and skills transfer, and improving standards of living. However, challenges still exist in the form of limited funds for comprehensive CRD. There are also risks relating to loss of industries and jobs that are dependent on coal value chain especially if the envisaged benefits of transiting to renewables fail to match the economic losses. While it is imperative to incorporate both mitigation and adaptation strategies, countries like Zimbabwe should carefully consider the trade-offs, seize the opportunities, and reduce the risks if they are to achieve sustainable development objectives.