Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
There is growing recognition of the potential for jointly achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation through land management. Landscape approaches to enhancing multi-functionality have been identified as a promising pathway to synergies between mitigation and adaptation besides helping achieve other livelihood needs through ecosystem services and functions provision. This presentation explores what is known and gaps in understanding of synergies and trade-offs. It also explores the necessary enabling conditions that help promote synergies in order to realize the benefits of the approach. We build on an ex-post analysis of the Ngitili systems in Tanzania and selected examples from agroforestry practices to inform the discussion.
Citation preview
Synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation: A landscape
perspective
Lalisa A. DugumaWorld Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) &
ASB Partnership for Tropical Forest Margins
GLF Discussion Forum16-17 November 2013
Warsaw Poland
Outline
Adaptation and mitigation in the current climate change dialogues and actions
Limitations of the current approaches The synergy concept Mitigation and adaptation linkages at landscape
level Case study Assessing the progress towards synergy: the
enabling conditions Some reflections on the way forward
Evolution of the approaches to address climate change measures
Time and scope
ADA
MITI
MITIMITI
MITI
ADA
ADA
MITI
MITI ADA
ADAMITI
MITI ADA
ADA MITI
ADAMITI
[SYS]
Separate measures Complementarity Synergy
Time and scope
ADA
MITI
MITIMITI
MITI
ADA
ADA
MITI
MITI ADA
ADAMITI
MITI ADA
ADA MITI
ADAMITI
[SYS]
Separate measures Complementarity Synergy
Know
ledg
e ab
out C
limat
e ch
ange
Time
Mitigation era
Complementarity era
Synergy
2013
Adaptation and mitigation so far seen as:
a) Separate policy streams - Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA),
REDD+- National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)
b) Separate roles of different institutions- Adaptation: e.g. Ministry of Environment - Mitigation: e.g. Ministries in charge of Forestry, Energy,
…
c) Separate financing schemes- Adaptation: e.g. Adaptation fund, …..- Mitigation: e.g. REDD+ funds, etc…
1. How effective and efficient are the approaches so far taken looking at the dynamics of elements and processes in tropical and subtropical landscapes?
2. Are such approaches the only option?
Limitations of the approaches used so far
1) Inadequate (Klein et al. 2007)
2) Concerns of inefficiency [↑ cost of climate policy] (Kane and Yohe 2000)
1) Activity duplication e.g. in Tanzania there is an overlap of 60% between in activities in REDD+ strategies and NAPA activities.
3) ↑ Competition for resources b/n M & A (Tol 2005)
4) Mask the apparent potentials of practices that provide both M and A benefits
The Synergy ConceptSynergy is the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects”. [Oxford dictionary]
Three main goals of pursuing synergy1. Increases effectiveness2. Minimizes costs (enhances efficiency)3. Reduces risks to ensure continuity and
become resilient to shocks
For synergy to happen….
Resource complementarity– The increase in one resource increases
the return to the other resource (Harrison et al 2001).
Resource relatedness: common resources and activities. For example, between mitigation and adaptation:
LandLand resources management activities Skills and know-hows of NRM Similar goal – reducing the impacts of
climate change
Why synergy is important in the land use sector
At operational scales (e.g. landscapes), synergy -
1. Increases linkages between climate change and sustainable development objectives.
2. Helps to understand and value the interconnections between practices and processes at landscape level
3. Helps to bring together actors and stakeholders active at landscape level.
At a global level, synergy may
4. Enhance the engagement of developing countries in mitigation efforts
5. Enhance the engagement of developed countries in adaptation efforts in the south.
6. Enable making climate policy cost effective.
Mitigation and adaptation linkages at landscape level
Land resourcesmanagement
Soil and waterconservation [A +M]
Improvedlivelihood [A]
Improved agriculturalproductivity [A]
Avoidance of soilcarbon stock loss [M]
Enhances carbonsinks [M]
Afforestation andreforestation [M]
Agroforestry[M + A]
Biodiversityconservation [A]
Enhanced ecosystemservices provision [A+M]
Improved adaptivecapacity of the society
[A]
Reduced deforestation andforest degradation [M]
Less GHGemission [M]
Sustainable forestmanagement [M + A]
In tropical landscapes, if we fail in ADAPTATION, we may not achieve MITIGATION and the vice versa.
A case study from Shinyanga landscapes, Tanzania
Understanding the context and the history of the landscape (Step 1)
General Features• 600-800 mm RF• Semiarid• Agropastoral
communities• ‘The desert of
Tanzania’
The drivers of change• Woodland clearance
due to Tse Tse fly• Expansion of cotton
farms• Climate change• Villagization
The threats• Drought• Ecosystem degradation• Wood, food and feed
scarcity• Perishing social and
economic capital
The measures taken• Ecosystem restoration
by• Using local practices
complementing it with• New practices e.g.
agroforestry
Identifying the practices (step 2) and understanding the processes and impact
pathways (step 3)
Practice 1:Ngitili [M+A]
Practice 4:Agroforestry [A+M]
Improved honeyproduction
Practice 6: Fodderbanks [M+A]
Practice 7: Livestockrearing [A-M]
Abundant livestock feedand thus enhanced
productivity
Income from grazing contractsand carbon money from pilot
REDD+ projects
Edible wild fruits, edibleinsects, herbal traditional
medicines
Household consumablesand livestock products
increased [A]
Less dependence on Practice 2 (Cottonfarming) and Practice 3 (maize and
sorghum farming) [A-M]
Better vegetation cover in thearea due to reduced forest
clearance [M+A]
Sufficient wood forenergy and construction
Enhanced water availabilityboth for household use and
livestock [A]
Better habitat forwildlife [A]
Reduced land degradationthrough control of wind and
water erosion [A+M]
Improved ecosystemservices provision
[A+M]
Enhanced carbonstorage [M]
Realizing the values (Step 4): Social, environmental, livelihood benefits …
Carbon sequestration1986 - 611 ha (27428 t C)2005 - 377756 ha (16,957,467 t C)
Biodiversity conservation
Bird species reemerged : 22-
65Mammal species
reemerged : 10
Plant species in restored
Ngitili:152
Economic values (Monela et al. 2005)Per capita economic value : 168 USD /yearRural per capita expenditure : 102 USD /year
Other ES benefitsHydrological functions: Dam construction and water management (“Water markets”)Soil management: Erosion controlSOM build-upSocial and Intrinsic
values- Social cohesion - ‘Social security’
Key enabling conditions
1. Supportive national policies and strategies including political will and support to link landscape level interventions with national level processes
2. Long-term commitment for technical and financial support for the programmes (e.g. NORAD for the HASHI programme in Shinyanga)
3. Blending of local knowledge and practices with complementary technologies e.g. Ngitili and agroforestry woodlots and fertilizer tree systems
Some key reflections
• Our preliminary assessment reveals that synergy enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of climate actions.
• Policy and financing mechanisms need a paradigm shift to address synergy as an important component of climate policy. Such interventions should be happening at all scales.
• To assess how synergy performs there is a need to develop the appropriate metrics that can help the implementation schemes and guide policy and decision making processes.
• More work needs to be done in exploring practices that demonstrate synergy to provide a robust evidence for policy makers.
Thank You!
Acknowledgement of contributors:- Peter A Minang- Meine van Noordwijk
