climate change some building blocks for icp’s · ldcf/gef $3m northwestern lowlands of eritrea...

Climate Change

Some building blocks for ICP’sBruno Verbist & Bart Muys

KLIMOSwww.kuleuven.be/klimos

DGD, Brussels, 10 February 2011

1. Global ChangeWhat are the expected climate changes in the project area? What is the degree of uncertainty? What can policymakers do?

2. Knowing the resilience of the systemResilience: the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and retain the same structure and function (after Walker et al. 2004).What is the expected impact of climate change on the standing biomass, species composition and productivity of natural and man-made systems in the area?

3. Increase the adaptability of the system Adaptability: the capacity of actors in a system to improve resilience.

4. Mitigating the disturbance5. Policy implications

Table of contents

Fossil Fuel Emissions: Actual vs. IPCC Scenarios

Raupach et al. 2007, PNAS, updated; Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature-geoscience; International Monetary Fund 2009

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Fos

sil F

uel E

mis

sion

(G

tC y

-1)

5

6

7

8

9

10

A1B

A1FI

A1T

A2

B1

B2

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

International Energy Agency

Le Quéré et al., 2009, Nature Geoscience; Data: CDIAC, FAO, WoodholeResearch center 2009

Van der Werf et al, 2009

Definitions

• Mitigation: trying to avoid climate change

• Adaptation: enhancing the resilience of the natural

environment, the built environment and human institutions to climate change

IPCC, 2007

Climate change predictionsGlobal circulation models

1. Uncertainty: Dynamic downscaling of global results

Vulnerability

Changes (%) in winter precipitation totals for sites across Morocco, projected bydifferent downscaling methods (UCT, SDSM) and GCM forcing (ECHAM4, CSIRO, HadAM3, HadCM3) under A2 emissions by the 2080s. Source: Wilby and DMN (2007)

1. Policy instruments available to Governments

• Effectiveness of policies depends on nationalcircumstances, their design, interaction, stringency and implementation.– Integrating climate policies in broader development

policies– Regulations and standards– Taxes and charges – Tradable permits– Financial incentives– Voluntary agreements– Information instruments– Research and development

1. Steps towards an adaptation strategy

PEER, 2009

Challenges for policy makers• Climate change policy vs. existing policy

• Embed in existing policy – mitigation/adaptation is nota parallel track

• Are current policies “climate proof”?• Collaboration on mitigation and adaptation beyond

boundaries of departments (or ministries)?

• Goals• Evaluation can only happen, if there are goals …• … however uncertainty & long term planning process

• Flexibility in strategy• “adaptive approach” <-> “reactive approach”

1. Global Changewhat are the expected climate changes in the project area and what is the degree of uncertainty?




Table of contents

2. Climate matching of crops

• Climate matching The search for ‘predictor’ locations of which the past or present climate is similar to the expected climate of a ‘target’ location. Climate-related behaviour observed at the predictor locations, like vegetation establishment, growth and yield, can then be used to predict behaviour at the target location under the expected climate (Broadmeadow et al. 2005).

• Climate envelope matching :• First, data on the historical, effective and potential ranges of vegetation species are compiled, followed by a multivariate statistical analysis. • Secondly the present-day climatic niches for the considered species are located on maps of the predicted future climate indicating where each species could potentially occur by the end of the century (e.g. McKenney et al. 2007).

2. Climate matching(example from Broadmeadow et al., 2005)

Region for which present climate will be valid for region in 2050/2080(Matching based on monthly rainfall, temperature and diurnal temperature range at 50 km resolution)

2. Climate envelope analysisWhat will happen to agricultural system if local climate changes as expected?

•E.g., Challinor et al., 2007. Assessing the vulnerability of food crop systems in Africa

Simulated maize yields(baseline) and changes to 2055 for Africa and LatinAmerica

Prediction based on ClimateEnvelope matchingJones, P. G. and P. K. Thornton(2003). "The potential impacts of climate change on maize productionin Africa and Latin America in 2055." Global Environmental Change 13(1): 51-59.

2. Expected impact of climate change

2. Expected impact of climate change Prediction avg. T+2°C in Uganda



3. Increase the adaptability of the systemAdaptability: the capacity of actors in a system to improve resilience.


Table of contents

3. The adaptive cycle

Temporal changes in a system proceed through phases of growth (r), conservation (k), release (W), and reorganization (a). The adaptive cycle is aneffective model for systems, the levels in a panarchy, and the dynamics of individual systems (Garmestani et al., 2009; Holling, 1986).

3. Social-ecological systems can berepresented as 3D-stability landscapes

Stability landscape with two basins of attraction showing the current position of the system and three aspects of resilience, L = latitude, R = resistance, Pr = precariousness Walker et al. 2004).

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover Resistance: the difficulty of changing the systemPrecariousness: the distance of the present state to the threshold of regime shift

Bart Muys - adaptation - KLIMOS

3. Example: northern Ethiopian highland

Cutting, grazing and drought pressure

Eco

syst

emst

ate

Afromontane forest

deforestation

Acacia shrubland

bush encroachment

Degraded grazing land

forest restoration

Bar

t Muy

s-

adap

tatio

n-

KLI

MO

S

3.Adaptability throughagroforestry: more trees,

better livelihoods

KLIMOS in SciDev.net:

mitigation and adaptation potentialof agroforestry

3. Global status of trees on farms

Trabucco et al. 2009,ICRAF World AgroforestryConference, Nairobi

Trees on farms are a tremendously important source of ecosystem services but partially lack where dense communities badly need them

3.Agroforestry for adaptation

Akinnifesi et al. 2010,submitted

TreatmentUnfertilized Maize 1.1 (36.5) 1.1 (61.7) 1.4 (65.6)Fertilized Maize 3.1 (27.9) 4.3 (32.2) 2.3 (36.9)Gliricidia without fertilizer

3.9 (27.1) 3.1 (38.4) 2.6 (21.7)

Gliricidia + 50% fertilizer

4.9 (24.8) NA 3.2 (11.7)

Table 1. Average yield values (t ha-1 yr-1)* and coefficients of variation (c.v. %) in parentheses for different nutrient management treatments at 3 sites in SSA.

*Means were based on n = 13 years for Malawi, 12 years for Zambia, and 12 years for Nigeria NA = not available

Yield stability analysis shows strong fertilizing AND stabilizing effects of agroforestry trees

BONUS BONUS

INSURANCE

3. Example: Implementing NAPA priority interventions to build resilience in the agriculture and water sectors to the adverse impacts

of climate change in Sudan (source GEF)LDCF/GEF amount: $2 million

CC Vulnerabilities:• Decreasing annual rainfall, increasing rainfall

variability and temperatures � agro-climatic zones shift southwards � small scale rain fed farmers unable to sustain current production levels

↓

Adaptation Actions:• Pilot measures implemented locally, including:

– Improved water harvesting, storage, and small scale irrigation techniques

– Introduction of new heat and drought tolerant plant varieties

– Planting of wind barriers and trees along irrigation canals

– Rehabilitation of vegetation cover and rangelands

• Improved Early Warning System, and capacity building at local and national levels

Outcomes:• Increased food security and sustainable

agricultural development

3. Example: Integrating Climate Change Risks into Community Based Livestock Management in the

Northwestern Lowlands of Eritrea (source GEF)LDCF/GEF $3M

CC Vulnerabilities:• Increased frequency of seasonal and multi-year

droughts � reduced productivity of pastoralist systems � decreasing food security for an already marginalized group.

↓

Adaptation Actions:• Pilot demonstrations of improved water and forage

management systems which incorporate the effects of CC

• Improved dissemination of short to medium term climate forecasts to pastoral communities

• Promotion of alternative and/or supplemental livelihoods for pastoral communities

• Capacity building for agricultural extension service to better understand water and forage management in the context of CC

↓

Outcomes:• Food security and sustainable development for

pastoral communities• Reduced competition for water resources between

agriculturalists and pastoralists in the face of increasing water stresses.





Table of contents

4. Climate change mitigation : potential per sector in 2030 (IPCC, 2007, SY-AR4)

<20: < 20 US$/tCO2-eq<50: < 50 US$/tCO2-eq<100: < 100 US$/tCO2-eq

• Builds on species know-how gathered between 1976-1990: arboretum of KinzonoForestry Centre (Gerkens, 1986)

• http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=Projport&ProjID=43647• http://www.ibi-village.cd

4. Example CDM Reforestation in Ibi Bateke, RDCongo

4. Example CDM Project 2711• http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/RWTUV1245685309.5/view

• http://www.atmosfair.de/en/our-projects/projekte00/nigeria-efficient-fuel-wood-stoves/

4. From REDD to REALU

• REDD: Reducing Emissions of Deforestationand Degradation– Status: approved in Cancun Dec. 2010, some pilot

projects, fast start funding• Issues:

– MRV: Partial carbon accounting leading to leakage– Carbon benefits for whom, land tenure

• Hence REALU: Reducing Emissions of All land Uses– Status: Gaining interest, few pilot projects, full

landscape carbon accounting,less leakage, betterprospects for local communities

Includes agroforests, oil palm plantations;

High density of rural poor

Clearfelling/ re-plant is accepted as forest; no time-limit on

‘replant’; Mainly State Forest Land; low density of rural poor

Forest with trees

Forest

Non-Forestwithout trees

Non-Forest withtrees

Forest without trees

Non-forest

Forest definitionbased on % tree cover

0%

100%

X %

What is a forest?

ALL-REDDI: average= 90 t C/ha

ALL-REDDI: average = 60 t C/ha

Forest definitionbased on a legalor institutionalperspective

X is often between 10-30%

Non-forestwith trees

Forest without trees

Forest withtrees

Non-forestmosaic

4. Technology transfer for mitigation

• Objective: Avoid development using outdated technology• Issues:

– How do you define a technology?– Who owns the technology? Patents, ….– Who is the transfer agents, recipient?– How well does a new technology fit in?

• Possible role for development aid:– Support development of a regulatory framework: minimum

standards for goods and services: electronic appliances, buildings, cars, energy production, …

– Support development of NAPA’s (National Adaptation programs of Action) & NAMA’s (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions)

– Support capacity building & pilot projects for climate changeprograms & projects (e.g. REALU, REDD, CDM)





Table of contents

5. A multitude of policy instrumentsis available to Governments

• Effectiveness of policies depends on nationalcircumstances, their design, interaction, stringency and implementation.– Integrating climate policies in broader development

policies– Regulations and standards– Taxes and charges – Tradable permits– Financial incentives– Voluntary agreements– Information instruments– Research and development

5. Steps towards an adaptation strategy

PEER, 2009

5. Challenges for policy makers• Climate change policy vs. existing policy

• Embed in existing policy – mitigation/adaptation is nota parallel track

• “climate proofing” of existing policies• Collaboration on mitigation and adaptation should

cross boundaries of departments

• Goals• Evaluation can only happen, if there are goals …• … however uncertainty & long term planning process

• Flexibility in strategy• “adaptive approach” <-> “reactive approach”• NAPA’s and NAMA’s vs. ISP

5. Possible links for ICP’s

• Identify sectors under climate change threat• Which policies and interventions have both a climate

change and a development bonus?• Link with and stimulate development of NAPA’s (National

Adaptation programs of Action) & NAMA’s (NationallyAppropriate Mitigation Actions)

• Quite some of the current development interventionscould be paid for by the carbon market: Allow this optionfrom the start

• Enhancement of local capacity for mitigation & adaptation related interventions

• Avoid doing harm: aim for a carbon low developmentpath (climate proofing!) … See Toolkit session

Recommended websites:

CDM on http://cdm.unfccc.intGEF Adaptation-related papers:

www.thegef.orgGEF projects database: www.gefonline.orgUNFCCC: www.unfccc.int/adaptationwww.adb.orghttp://www.resalliance.org

research for

climate & development

www.kuleuven.be/[email protected]

[email protected]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

KLIMOS is sponsored by:

climate change some building blocks for icp’s · ldcf/gef $3m northwestern lowlands of eritrea...

Documents