Post on 25-May-2015
description
transcript
Adaptation-mitigation synergies in forest and agricultural landscapes
Side event on “Linking Adaptation and Mitigation to Address Multiple Risks: New Research Findings and Field Examples”. Warsaw, Poland, 14 November 2013.
Bruno Locatelli (CIRAD-CIFOR), Giacomo Fedele (CIFOR)With contributions by Florie Chazarin, Emilia Pramova (CIFOR), Charlotte Pavageau (CIFOR & ETH Switzerland), Rico Kongsager (U Copenhagen Denmark), Monica di Gregorio (U Leeds, UK), Virginie Fayolle, Alastair Baglee (Acclimatise, UK)
Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and
mitigation
Growing interest in exploring how these two strategies can be pursued simultaneously • win–win options?
However, concerns about:• feasibility of implementing these strategies jointly• possible drawbacks of a ‘forced marriage‘
How can landscape management contribute to both adaptation and mitigation?
(Dang et al. 2003; Klein et al. 2005; Kok and de Coninck 2007; Swart and Raes 2007; Tol 2005; Locatelli et al. 2011)
Landscape management highly relevant to both adaptation and mitigation
MITIGATION
Greenhouse gas concentrations
Climate change
Impacts
Responses
ADAPTATION
Forests and agriculture in landscapesEmissions / Removals
Landscape-based mitigation (e.g. REDD+)
Vulnerability Products and services for people livelihoods and protection
Adaptation for landscapes
(e.g. fire management)
Landscape-based adaptation(e.g. protecting watersheds for
downstream vulnerable populations)
Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in landscape management
1. What do we know?2. What is being done at the local level?3. What is being done at the global level?
1. Science
2. Local projects
3. Global funding
Systematic literature review,
139 papers
Fund analysis,22 interviews of major fund
representatives
Analysis of local initiatives,
235 projects
1. What do we know?
Science
Systematic literature review, 139 papers
Increased carbon in vegetation or soils, reduced emissions
Examples of topics in the reviewed papers
Agroforestry, silvopastoril systems, soil management
Agriculturalresilience
AdaptationMitigation
1. Science
Synergies between ecosystem services (carbon vs. “adaptation services”).
But also trade-offs, e.g.:
more carbon in plantations less water downstream
forest protected under REDD+ restricted access for livelihoods
vulnerability
Coastalprotection
Role of mangroves andcoastal ecosystems
Products as safety nets,livelihood diversification
Impacts ofREDD+ projects
Watershed protection,water balance and regulation
Impacts of forest plantations
Gap in
know
ledge
1. Science
<5 papers
6-14 papers
>15 papers
2. What is being done at the local level?
Local projects
Analysis of local initiatives,
235 projects
The 235 adaptation and mitigation project analyzed
Number of projects
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
Mitigation Adaptation0
20
40
60
Africa (n=111)
Mitigation Adaptation0
20
40
60Latin America (n=72)
Mitigation Adaptation0
20
40
60Asia (n=52)
Mixed
Agriculture
Forestry
AsiaAfricaLatin America
2. Projects
Project consideration of the other goal
8915 37 1 22
Mitigation projects (n=123):Contribution to adaptation?
Adaptation projects (n=112):Contribution to mitigation?
Explicit
Explicit with
evidence
Explicit with
evidence No No
71
Synergies
Possible synergies
2. Projects
Explicit
More mitigation projects consider adaptation than the contrary
Example project
Adaptation project in Colombia:• resilient agricultural practices • livelihood diversification• ecosystem restoration with flood-resistant trees
for reducing flooding downstream
• expected outcomes likely to result in increased carbon storage in soils and trees (e.g. soil restoration, agroforestry and reforestation).
“Reducing Risk and Vulnerability in Region of La Depresion Momposina, Colombia”
2. Projects
Agricultural adaptation
People’s adaptation
Ecosystem adaptation
Mitigation
People’s adaptation
Large potential for synergies
Potential contribution• A projects M
- E.g., more carbon in forests, soils,…
• M projects A- E.g., livelihood/income diversification,
institution strengthening, capacity building,... Larger potential for integrating A and M in:
2. Projects
78%
100%
mixed forest-agriculture projects (landscape level)
mitigation projects certified by CCB Gold Standards
adaptation projects under the Adaptation Fund.
3. What is being done at the global level?
Global funding
Fund analysis,22 interviews of major fund
representatives
Global funders perceive more the benefits of integrating adaptation into mitigation projects than the contrary
“it will be difficult, if not impossible, to undertake REDD+ projects successfully
without incorporating adaptation” (one fund manager)
3.Funding
Clear benefits of integrating A into M projects?
Clear benefits of integrating M into A projects?
Funders’ interest in synergies but limited action so far
Fund plans to better harness AM synergies? 37%
Fund more likely to accept projects contributing to other goal? 32%
Fund provides guidance on synergies to project developers? 11%
Project template integrates adaptation and mitigation? 0%
3.Funding
Uncertain Agree Strongly agree
The integration of adaptation and mitigation will gain
importance in the future
Perceived barriers to integrating adaptation and mitigation
Different rationales => Different priority locations and sectors Mitigation where most cost-effective and highest emissions Adaptation where most vulnerable (equity, fairness)
Different agendas and budgets Funding from different budgets or agencies, with either
adaptation and mitigation agendas
Complexity and transaction costs Risk of wanting to 'do everything' and losing focus
Lack of awareness and guidance E.g. adaptation metrics
3.Funding
Reasons for integrating adaptation and mitigation
2. Projects 3. Funding1. Science
Reasons rarely mentioned
46% of reviewed papers mention 13 reasons (but more opinions than evidence)
Focus on benefits at multiple levels + policy coherence
1. Science
Reasons for integrating adaptation and mitigation
2. Projects
3. Funding
Holistic approach, fairness
Dialogue and capacity building
Permanence , lower risk
Local relevance, legitimacy
National priorities, policy coherence
Carbon funding, certification
Cost efficiency
AintoM
MintoA
A M
Global benefits
Conclusions
Gaps in knowledge (e.g. social aspects)
Many projects can harness synergies. But no clear rationale for doing so
Limited action so far on synergies. But interest and potential to promote synergies in the future
2. Projects
3. Funding
1. ScienceStronger evidence needed, particularly at local level
Beyond analyzing project documents: Monitoring implementation
Need to also understand the role of national policies
Thank you!
bruno.locatelli@cirad.fr g.fedele@cgiar.org
Further reading Locatelli B., Imbach B., Wunder S., 2013. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem
services in Costa Rica. Environmental Conservationhttp://www.journals.cambridge.org/article_S0376892913000234
Pramova E., Locatelli B., Djoudi H., Somorin O., 2012. Forests and trees for social adaptation to climate variability and change. WIREs Climate Change 3:581–596.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.195/pdf
Pramova E., Locatelli B., Brockhaus M., Fohlmeister S., 2012. Ecosystem services in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Climate Policy 12(4): 393-409.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14693062.2011.647848
Guariguata M.R., Locatelli B., Haupt F., 2012. Adapting tropical production forests to global climate change: risk perceptions and actions. International Forestry Review 14(1), 27-38. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/AGuariguata1201.pdf
Locatelli B., Evans V., Wardell A., Andrade A., Vignola R., 2011. Forests and Climate Change in Latin America: Linking Adaptation and Mitigation. Forests 2(1): 431-450.http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/2/1/431/pdf
CIFOR 2013. Mitigation–Adaptation Synergies. CIFOR Briefhttp://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/factsheet/4263-factsheet.pdf
Locatelli B., 2011. Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in a nutshell. COBAM Brief, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 4p.http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/cobambrief/3619-cobambrief.pdf
Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Colfer, C.J.P., Murdiyarso, D. and Santoso, H. 2008. Facing an uncertain future: How forests and people can adapt to climate change. Forest Perspectives no. 5. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 97 p.http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BLocatelli0801.pdf
Pour en savoir plus
Pramova E., Locatelli B., Djoudi H., Somorin O., 2012. Le rôle des forêts et des arbres dans l’adaptation sociale à la variabilité et au changement climatiques. Brief. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor, Indonesiahttp://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/4023-infobrief.pdf
Locatelli B., 2011. Les synergies entre adaptation et atténuation en quelques mots. COBAM Brief, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 4p.http://goo.gl/lcvTZ
Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Colfer, C.J.P., Murdiyarso, D. and Santoso, H. 2009. Face à un avenir incertain : comment les forêts et les populations peuvent s'adapter au changement climatiquehttp://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BLocatelli0901F.pdf
Para saber más
Pramova E., Locatelli B., Djoudi H., Somorin O., 2012. Bosques y árboles para la adaptación social al cambio y la variabilidad del clima. Brief. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor, Indonesia.http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/4024-infobrief.pdf
Locatelli, B., Evans, V., Wardell, A., Andrade, A., Vignola, R., 2011. Bosques y cambio climático en América Latina: Vincular adaptación y mitigación, In: Gobernanza forestal y REDD+: Desafíos para las políticas y mercados en América Latina. Petkova E., Larson A., Pacheco P. (eds.). CIFOR, Bogor, pp. 79-95.http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BPetkova1101.pdf
Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Colfer, C.J.P., Murdiyarso, D. and Santoso, H. 2009. Ante un futuro incierto: Cómo se pueden adaptar los bosques y las comunidades al cambio climático.http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BLocatelli0901.pdf