global climate change alliance: informing the …...global climate change alliance: informing the...
TRANSCRIPT
Global Climate Change Alliance:
Informing the International Climate Debate
From forests to sustainable land management: creating synergies between adaptation and mitigation
Peter Wehrheim,Head of Unit, Climate Finance and Deforestation,
DG CLIMA
Content:
• State of Play: Testing REDD+ at scale
2015-2020
• What about adaptation in REDD+?
• Looking forward: incentivizing sustainable
land management post 2020
Forests, forest people … and forest carbon face risks
By 2050 (i.e. +/- one forest generation), Earth might well be 2°°°°Cwarmer, yet it will need to produce 60%-100% more calories for
human consumption, with less fossil fuels, fewer energy-intensive
chemicals and more frequent climate extremes, especially in the
tropics. Forward looking land management is needed.
Large scale forest dieback could be expected as soon as 2025 due
to anthropogenic climate change, triggering more emissions
(negative carbon feedback) and harmful repercussions for water,
energy, food, biodiversity, soils, commodity markets and
livelihoods.
Fire prevention, climate smart landscapes, and adaptative
management of forest cover (promoting diversity in tree species
and stand structure) are key to contain climate change rate and
magnitude in viable ranges.
The REDD+ concept
REDD+: developed countries provide financial support to developing
ones for demonstrated reduced emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, as measured against a pre-defined “reference level”.
Issues under negotiation include the following:
• the establishment of forest (emission) reference levels;
• modalities for national forest monitoring systems;
• modalities for REDD+ monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV);
Barriers to more speedy implementation:
• Delays in the finalisation of the REDD+ “methodological package”
• Uncertainty of data on e.g. forest cover, forest carbon stocks
• Poor institutional framework e.g. with regard to forest
governance, land use planning and management, land tenure
security
ODA
REDD+, within and outside the UNFCCC process
Bali AP
Post 2020Climate regime:
Role of the land sector?ADP
KP: LULUCF
LCA: REDD+
ReviewProtocolwith legal
force
Phase 1
Readiness
Phase 2
Capacity Building
& Demonstration
Phase 3
Full Implementation
2007 2011 2015 2020
CDMA/R
WB's
BioCF
WB's
FCPFReadiness
UNREDD
WB's FCPF CarbonFund
FIPEU
REDD
GCF
Markets?
Yet REDD+ is primarilya mitigation mechanism in the making
National REDD+ level
• Strategy
• MRV
• Reference Lvl
• Safeguards/NCB
• Fund(s)?
• Registry/Buffers?
COP Guidance
International Climate Finance
• Public/Private• Market/Non Market?• Mitigation/ Joint M&A?
TechnicalAssessment
+International Consultation and Analysis
Bilateral or multilateral
deliveryinstitutions,
including GEF and GCF
Global
Info
Hub
Results BasedPayments
i.e. €/tCO2
InfoInfo
Questions remain on REDD+
fate, from "sellers" and "buyers":
From possible REDD+
contributors
From possible REDD+
recipients
Are REDD+ Emission Reductions (ER)
real (uncertainty on data), lasting
(risk of reversals) ? Aren't forest
emissions not merely displaced (risk
of leakage)?
Does REDD+ money trigger
lasting/transformational changes, is
it effective and efficient compared
to other mitigation options?
How much REDD+ money will be
available? How long and for how
much carbon?
How will decisions be made:
how/when will "results" be
assessed and paid for?
Will LDCs and "forest guardians"
(i.e. high forest / low deforestation
countries) benefit as well?
REDD+ presents both new risks and new opportunities for adaptation in forests and crops
RISKS OPPORTUNITIESCIFOR study shows conditions
imposed by early REDD+ projects had
major, possibly negative "implications
for livelihood activities, which may
ultimately affect food security and
income in the village", thus increasing
the risk of project abandonment,
reversal of previously credited
emission reductions and
maladaptation.
• Mixed cropping, new and improved crop
varieties, agro-ecology and agroforestry.
• New income-generating activities
ranging from forest monitoring to better
collection and marketing of forest fruits,
to beekeeping, fish farming and
mushroom growing.
• Better information, planning, training,
financing and participative governance
in land activities.
• Private sector involvment (greener
supply chains, improved resilience, etc)
REDD+ recognizes the role and importance of Adaptation as one of the
"Non Carbon Benefits (NCB)"
Since Cancun (2010) Since Durban (2011)"National REDD+ strategies should address the
drivers of deforestation, land tenure, forest
governance, gender considerations, social and
environmental safeguards and the effective
participation of relevant stakeholders, including
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities"
"The COP recognizes REDD+
activities can promote poverty
alleviation, biodiversity benefits,
ecosystem resilience and the
linkages between adaptation and
mitigation"
… but does not include any mechanism to assess and incentivize them (yet?).
There is a large overlap between risk
reduction strategies and adaptation
1. Lower uncertainty on the actual volume and causes of emission reductions (���� good forest/drivers information, addressing national drivers, institutional capacity, accountability, securing land rights, preventing conflicts)
2. Lower risk of risk of reversal (���� resilience and sustainability, i.e. improving livelihoods, governance, ES services and biodiversity)
3. Lower risk of leakage (���� food/energy security, international drivers, broad participation)
Conclusions• Urgent need to scale up performance based payments and
to test policy approaches for REDD+ in order to generate
lessons for 2020-2030-2050
• Sustainable land management provides opportunities for
mitigation, adaptation, livelihood and biodiversity benefits. It
can and should benefit more from REDD+ results based
payments
• Factoring risks into REDD+ incentives would modify the
allocation of REDD+ Results Based Payments, improve
REDD+ credibility and create larger financing opportunities
for mitigation and adaptation in the land-use sectors
QuestionsCountry experience on promoting synergies between
adaptation, mitigation in the fields of forestry and sustainable
land management: What are the challenges? How is the country
addressing them? What have been the results to date? Could
REDD+ help or hinder efforts?
Recommendations to (EU) climate change negotiators and the
international development community to make climate change
actions more effective: E.g. Could REDD+, and agriculture help
bridging the divide between the global mitigation and adaptation
agendas?
Contact: [email protected]; or
"Country
System"
Country
Law 1
Country
Law 2
Country
Institution
Country
Instrument
REDD+, NCB,
Risks
& Safeguards
Adaptation
in forests
Adaptation in
agriculture
Assessing risks, building trust, learning from FLEGT: the legality matrix
Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering could tweak REDD+ Results Based Payments towards
sustainability
Emission Reductions
CarbonBuffer(s)
ResultsBased
Payments
Reductions
CancelEmission
Reductions
RA
RA
REDD+ recognizes the role and importance of Adaptation as one of the
"Non Carbon Benefits (NCB)"
Since Cancun (2010) Since Durban (2011)"National REDD+ strategies should address the
drivers of deforestation, land tenure, forest
governance, gender considerations, social and
environmental safeguards and the effective
participation of relevant stakeholders, including
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities"
"The COP recognizes REDD+
activities can promote poverty
alleviation, biodiversity benefits,
ecosystem resilience and the
linkages between adaptation and
mitigation"
… but does not include any mechanism to assess and incentivize them (yet?).
There is a large overlap between risk
reduction strategies and adaptation
1. Lower uncertainty on the actual volume and causes of emission reductions (���� good forest/drivers information, addressing national drivers, institutional capacity, accountability, securing land rights, preventing conflicts)
2. Lower risk of risk of reversal (���� resilience and sustainability, i.e. improving livelihoods, governance, ES services and biodiversity)
3. Lower risk of leakage (���� food/energy security, international drivers, broad participation)
"Country
System"
Country
Law 1
Country
Law 2
Country
Institution
Country
Instrument
REDD+, NCB,
Risks
& Safeguards
Adaptation
in forests
Adaptation in
agriculture
Assessing risks, building trust, learning from FLEGT: the legality matrix
Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering could tweak REDD+ RBP towards sustainability
Emission Reductions
CarbonBuffer(s)
ResultsBased
PaymentsCancel
ER
RA
RA
Conclusions• Urgent need to scale up action, participation and
performance based payments and to test policy approaches
for REDD+ in order to generate lessons for 2020-2030-2050
• Sustainable land management provides opportunities for
mitigation, adaptation, livelihood and biodiversity benefits. It
can and should benefit more from REDD+ results based
payments (RBP)
• Factoring risks in REDD+ incentives would modify the
allocation of REDD+ RBP to countries and stakeholders,
while improving REDD+ credibility and creating larger
financing opportunities for mitigation and adaptation in the
land-use sectors
QuestionsCountry experience on promoting synergies between
adaptation, mitigation and rural development: What are the
challenges? How is the country addressing them? What have
been the results to date? Could REDD+ help or hinder efforts?
Recommendations to (EU) climate change negotiators and
the international development community to make climate
change actions more effective: E.g. Could REDD+, and
agriculture help bridging the divide between the global
mitigation and adaptation agendas?
Contact: [email protected]