MCA4climate: A practical framework for planning pro-development climate policies

Adaptation Theme Report: Terrestrial Ecosystem Resilience

Contribution to the MCA4climate initiative

Ariane de Bremond1 and Nathan L. Engle2

1The University of Maryland 2Battelle/Joint Global Change Research Institute

June 2011 Available online at: www.mca4climate.info

2

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Anthony Janetos for his support and guidance throughout the completion of this report and also Elizabeth Malone for her helpful comments and suggestions, both with the Joint Global Change Research Institute. We would also like to acknowledge the helpful comments received on an early draft of this report from peer reviewers, William Cheung (University of East Anglia, UK) and Bob Scholes (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa). Finally, the authors contributed equally to the production of this report.

Practical Note

For an overview of the MCA4climate initiative and a step-by-step guidance on how the theme-specific information reported below may be practically applied in countries wishing to develop pro-development climate policy planning, please see the main MCA4climate report and other associated documents available on www.mca4climate.info. For further information, please contact the UNEP team, Serban Scrieciu, Sophy Bristow, Daniel Puig or Mark Radka at unep.tie@unep.org.

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements and Practical Note ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2

1. Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

2. Terrestrial ecosystem resilience --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

3. Climate adaptation policy options in the area of terrestrial ecosystems ---------------------------------- 6

4. Criteria, indicators, and assessment methods for climate adaptation policy evaluation in the area

of terrestrial ecosystems resilience ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

4.1 Inputs: Efforts required for implementing a climate policy option ----------------------------------------- 15

4.2 Outputs: Possible impacts of a climate policy option ----------------------------------------------------------- 16

4.3 Methods of Assessment ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

5. Accounting for the critical issues for climate policy economic analysis put forward under the

MCA4climate initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

6. Interactions with other themes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27

References: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

1. Introduction Terrestrial ecosystems are vital to the maintenance of human well-being – from the regulation of the composition of the atmosphere that determines Earth’s climate (Postal and Richter, 2003), to the provision of food, fiber, timber, water and fuel, to the supporting services of soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling, and to the countless aesthetic and cultural benefits. Humans derive a multitude of benefits, or ‘ecosystem goods and services’, from terrestrial ecosystems (MEA, 2005). Increasingly, governments and the development community are making efforts to formulate climate policy responses that secure multiple development and conservation objectives— including that of supporting terrestrial ecosystem resilience (as defined below). Approaches that adequately consider the interactions of climate, ecosystem, and human development processes can help support policy formulation that improves human capacity to adapt to and mitigate climate change while improving conservation and sustainable management of terrestrial ecosystems and the resources they provide. This theme report aims to provide structured guidance towards increasing terrestrial ecosystem

4

resilience by informing the formation and implementation of robust and pro-development climate policies, accounting for not only main ecological properties but also effects on social-economic and institutional factors. An ecosystem approach: Ecosystems are dynamic complexes of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit (as described in Article 2 of the Convention on Biodiversity). Terrestrial ecosystems are those ecosystems on landmasses and islands whose character and distribution, including its forests, grasslands, and deserts, are determined largely by the geographical, seasonal, interannual, and even multi-decadal patterns of temperature and precipitation (UNSEG, 2007). The flow of energy and materials through organisms and the physical environment provides a way to understand the diversity of form and functioning of Earth’s physical and biological processes (Chapin et al., In press). A focus on integrated ecological systems rather than individual organisms or physical components allows for understanding of ecosystem processes at a variety of spatial and temporal scales and through the interconnections of people and nature in coupled socio-ecological systems (i.e. concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) related to global patterns of biotic exchanges of CO2 and fossil fuel burning). Human-transformation of terrestrial ecosystems: Human activities are increasingly responsible for the transformation of the land surface, species composition, and biogeochemical cycles at scales that have altered terrestrial ecosystems throughout the planet (Chapin et al., in press). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identifies the transformation of land use (largely for cropland conversion)1 as the most important direct driver of change in ecosystem services in the past 50 years (MEA, 2005). Anthropogenic biomes, globally significant ecological patterns within the terrestrial biosphere caused by sustained human interactions with ecosystems, now occupy as much as 75 percent of the Earth’s ice-free land surface, including villages and cities (7 percent), croplands (20 percent), rangelands (30 percent), and forests (20 percent) (Ellis and Ramankutty, 2008). These land-use changes and the resulting loss of natural habitat are implicated in the drastic homogenization and loss of biodiversity (MEA, 2005), as well as the loss of global terrestrial biomass carbon stocks (Parry et al., 2007). Climate, terrestrial ecosystems, and human well-being: Climate and terrestrial ecosystem processes are multiple and interactive. Terrestrial ecosystems play a vital role in the global carbon cycle, removing three gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year, and are thus critical to climate regulation (MEA, 2005). However, emissions from deforestation and degradation remain a significant (18-20 percent) source of annual greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere (Parry et al., 2007). While the transformation of terrestrial ecosystems affects climate regulation services, accelerating changes in the global climate are also expected to have widespread negative effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Human-induced climate change is expected to alter patterns of temperature and precipitation at a much more rapid rate than has been experienced by these systems in the past (UNSEG, 2007). Such changes are critical, as temperature and water availability govern the rates of many biological and chemical reactions and control critical ecosystem processes (i.e. production and decomposition of organic matter, weathering, and soil development) (Chapin, et al., In press). Global distribution of vegetation is expected

1 Although land use and agricultural processes often play a significant role in terrestrial ecosystems processes, the

MCA4climate methodology addresses the three in separate reports. Thus, the terrestrial ecosystems theme maintains a focus on those ecological systems that, plotted along the spectrum of land use, are less intensively managed by humans for the purposes of agriculture and food production.

5

to shift poleward and altitudinally with shifts in species’ climatic zones and patterns of migration, creating implications for species distribution and abundance, while warmer (equatorial) ecosystems are expected to experience increased vulnerability to pests, fire, and competition. Such shifts in terrestrial ecosystem processes carry implications for human-well-being the world over, but communities and regions where livelihoods are closely tied to natural resources are especially vulnerable (UNSEG, 2007). Biodiversity loss, reduced access to clean water, and altered forest and crop productivity and yields will require significant transformations in our resource management systems, but effective stewardship of these life-supporting ecosystems is critical to the successful navigation of the socio-ecological transitions that lie ahead.

Influence of climate policies on terrestrial ecosystems: As illustrated above, terrestrial ecosystems are inextricably linked with climate processes, and thus play a critical role in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. However, there is yet another manner in which terrestrial ecosystems interact with climate – through the policies and decisions that humans make in order to manage the problem of climate change. While mitigating and adaptive roles will be highlighted throughout this theme report, the overarching objective of the subsequent sections is to help decision makers contemplate the influences of potential climate policies on terrestrial ecosystem resilience that would include not only main ecological properties but also effects on social-economic and institutional factors.

2. Terrestrial ecosystem resilience Resilience is a useful concept for thinking about the dynamics of social-ecological systems in the context of climate change. Although there are numerous interpretations and definitions of this concept across a variety of research disciplines, terrestrial ecosystems resilience is most appropriately defined as the capacity to maintain similar structure, functioning, and feedbacks despite shocks and perturbations (Chapin et al., In press). An element of transformation, or the ability to reorganize and transition to a more desirable state when the system is untenable, is also an important feature of terrestrial ecosystems resilience (Folke, 2006). In general, improving terrestrial ecosystems resilience in the face of climate change is about persisting through continuous development and transforming into new and more desirable configurations when necessary (Folke, 2006). Some of the most important principles for resilience of a terrestrial ecosystem include species redundancy (for improved likelihood of regeneration and reorganization after a disturbance), response diversity (variability in responses to stresses of species within a given functional group), biodiversity (including species richness and the existence of various functional groups, such as predators, nutrient transporters, and pollinators), connectivity (maintaining diversity and redundancy across scales), and permeability (limiting habitat fragmentation) (Folke, 2006). There are also several species-level determinants of terrestrial ecosystems resilience, such as plasticity (ability of an organism to modify its behavior or physiology) and evolutionary potential (based on generation time, genetic diversity, and population size) (Running and Mills, 2009; Glick et al., 2011). Resilience is a dynamic concept, implying that systems are constantly changing, adapting, and re-organizing, and resilience is often lost in a given terrestrial ecosystem through a regime shift (when the system is transformed to a less desirable state) (Holling, 1973). The likelihood of experiencing a regime shift is increased when functional groups of species or trophic levels are removed, functional and response diversity (e.g., elements of biodiversity) are decreased, waste and pollutants are introduced, or

6

disturbance regimes are altered in terms of magnitude, frequency, or duration (Folke et al., 2004). Thus, humans are critical in determining and maintaining resilience within terrestrial ecosystems (Walker et al., 2004); humans can either cause regime shifts and erode resilience, or can build adaptive capacity and maintain or even increase resilience through mechanisms such as adaptive management and adaptive governance (Lee, 1993; Holling, 1978; Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2004). Flexible management that allows learning and experimentation can help ensure maintenance of critical resilience principles, such as diversity, which can serve as insurance in the face of climate change (e.g., diversity increases the likelihood that if one element of the ecosystem is compromised, the other elements are able to take its place and continue to maintain ecosystem functioning, goods, and services) (Peterson, 1998). Terrestrial ecosystems resilience is perhaps best understood through the illustration of an example. Forests systems have adapted and evolved over millions of years to experience a dynamic process of growth, succession, and disturbance over cycles that span hundreds or thousands of years. These systems exhibit resilience in that they are able to maintain similar structure and functioning in the face of various perturbations and shocks. Recent forest management practices in many regions throughout the world however, such as fire suppression, have created altered disturbance regimes (i.e., more fuel for when the inevitable fire strikes a particular area). The increased intensity and magnitude of the next fire, perhaps exacerbated by decreased forest health from non-native species introductions, might result in the forest structure and functioning being radically different after the fire event (e.g., transformed to a grassland) due to the inability for some of the organisms to survive the altered disturbance regime. This example illustrates the resilience of a system, as well as the important influence that humans play in managing resilience through individual and collective decisions, particularly management and policies.

3. Climate adaptation policy options in the area of terrestrial ecosystems There are a host of adaptation options for developing sound climate-change policies. Many of these options are well-established, classical natural resource management approaches for protecting terrestrial ecosystems and their goods and services (i.e., simply implementing what is already understood to protect terrestrial ecosystems will likely be beneficial for adapting to climate change). However, there are several factors that decision makers need to consider that make some adaptation policies unique. First, adaptation policies must be considered across temporal and spatial scales in a manner that other terrestrial ecosystems policies often overlook. To increase resilience across time, the management of terrestrial ecosystems should consider both the ‘fast-moving’ variables (e.g., extreme events) and ‘slow-moving’ variables (e.g., hydrology, sediment concentration, and long-lived organisms) in a system (Walker et al., 2006). Successful adaptation measures will likely consider both short-term coping mechanisms to address the ‘fast-moving’ variables, as well as the longer-term systemic measures that address the ‘slow-moving’ variables. Also, potential tradeoffs and synergies exist between local and national interests and scales that should be considered in order to increase resilience across space through adaptation policies (Adger et al., 2005). While adaptation decisions are often conceived of as local choices affecting communities and individuals, there are important adaptation decisions being made at national and regional scales. Taken together, due consideration of the interaction between

7

adaptation policies across space and time will help increase the likelihood that adaptation decisions are not maladaptive, that is, exacerbating/failing to alleviate existing vulnerabilities, or on an unsustainable pathway (Adger et al., 2005; Orlove, 2005; Barnett and O’Neill, 2010). For example, an adaptation policy that restores an ecosystem to its ‘natural’ state, such as through dam removal, may improve ecosystem resilience at the expense of humans whose livelihoods and security are dependent upon the current configuration of the ecosystem, such as through flood protection and energy production. The issue of maladaptation is also important to consider with respect to another unique aspect of adaptation policies: their intersection with mitigation goals. Adaptation policies can interact with mitigation measures (Kane and Shogren, 2000; Goklany, 2007), and efforts should be made to pursue climate-change decisions that maximize mitigation-adaptation synergies at play in terrestrial ecosystems policies, or at the very least, develop policies that minimize the tradeoffs. For example, an adaptation policy that encourages reforestation, afforestation, or avoided deforestation can improve resilience by increasing biodiversity and habitat permeability, while also increasing mitigation benefits through additional capture and storage of carbon in the enhanced plant and soil matter. On the other hand, an adaptation policy that protects critical habitat for endangered species might prevent the development and commercialization of available renewable energy resources within the protected area (e.g., wind, geothermal, solar). Another similar example might be a mitigation policy that prioritizes biofuels or biomass, which might come at the expense of terrestrial ecosystems resilience, such as through loss of biodiversity and critical habitat or potential disruption to food systems. Another unique aspect of adaptation policies for increasing resilience is a heightened emphasis on ‘soft’ policy options. While many policy decisions are geared toward improving technologies and/or building infrastructure to increase robustness to environmental stresses, some of the most important adaptation policies are those that address the governance, institutions, and human behavioral/interaction aspects of terrestrial ecosystems (Lebel et al., 2006; Folke et al., 2005; Engle, 2011). Thus, some of the most successful adaptations will likely be those that emphasize adaptive management and governance, research into social sciences, and developing incentives and disincentives for altering behavior, amongst others. Finally, perhaps the element of terrestrial ecosystems adaptation policies that has the most obvious link with climate change is the emphasis on climate information and knowledge. Using forecasts, model outputs, scenarios, and narratives, and monitoring climate processes are all critical adaptation tools that must be considered in terrestrial ecosystems policies. Table 1 outlines various adaptation policy instruments and options for terrestrial ecosystems. This list should not be considered exhaustive, rather a glimpse at the potential policies that decision makers might consider.

8

Table 1: Climate adaptation policy options for terrestrial ecosystem resilience

Policy Option Advantages Disadvantages

Eco

no

mic

or

Mar

ket-

bas

ed

Costing ecosystem goods and services (EGS) to create new markets for EGS (e.g., provision of incentives through government programs for ESG, voluntary or regulation-driven private payments, tradeable permit markets)

Works well when subject of valuation is a simple good that is privately owned and traded on the market or when cultural consensus on the value of ESG is strong and science is clear (e.g., timber stock, number of livestock

Can fail to adequately price multiple dimensions of human well-being, plural forms of value articulation, and the complex nature of ecosystems

Remains difficult to determine where ecosystem thresholds occur or whether a specific policy may involve extensive ecological impacts

Eco-tourism (market-based conservation schemes)

Can create new local markets for goods and services that replace more extractive uses of natural resources

Support of local incomes can reduce pressure on natural resources in particular locations and local markets

Community conservation and management programs can receive needed capital and support

Accountability and regulation are difficult, and generally few formal mechanisms exist to assess social and environmental impacts of projects and programs

Can result in an exclusionary or command-and-control model of conservation; fair distribution of benefits is not guaranteed

Market competition from larger industry operators can displace local communities and negatively impact natural resources

Can require significant investments in infrastructure to support additional tourism, leading to further stress on sensitive areas

Permits (tradable or not) for species extraction/use and mineral/abiotic extraction/use (e.g., tradable harvest and ambient permits) that place an economic value on water, air, mineral/abiotic and other terrestrial ecosystems

Establishes a set quantity of allowed resource or pollutant

Unlike quotas and standards, permits for emissions or use rights are totally transferable and marketable

Valuation can act as a powerful form of feedback that helps rethink relationships with the environment, and acknowledges the costs of conservation

Valuation can be an important aid in achieving more efficient use of natural resources, can highlight more efficient means of delivering targets, and identify more efficient means of delivering ecosystem services even if it does not result in specific measures that capture value,

Valuation can allow policymakers to address trade-offs in a rational manner that does not prioritize private wealth and physical capital above public wealth and natural capital

Can have potentially high transaction costs

Understanding the appropriate total amount of resource to be used can be difficult (precise efficiency level can be indeterminable)

Regulations and penalties must be enforced if tool is to be used (requires effective regulation)

Results in rationing of common pool resources and privatization of resulting access and use rights—can result in uneven/inequitable distribution of benefits

Quantification can be difficult; there is a gap between market valuation and economic value of EGS provided by water, air, and other common pool resources

As it is the services and not the goods per se (e.g., water and air) that are being valued, aggregate values of services may not equal total values, and the ability to value is constrained by the complexity of systems (e.g., the “production function” of water ecosystems is so complex, and little understood in many instances, that reliable estimates of all services are not possible) (FAO, 2004)

9

Taxes and Tax incentives for maintaining ecosystem structure and function (e.g., conservation easements for land preservation, conservation taxes on commercial development)

Can be used to close the gap between socially optimal level of using ecosystem services and the level of use based on more narrow private benefits

Requires clearly defined property rights

Requires government enforcement

Re

gula

tory

(in

clu

de

s fo

rmal

-co

mm

and

an

d c

on

tro

l an

d in

form

al v

olu

nta

ry m

eth

od

s)

Legal protection of endangered species and habitats, sanctions and/or altering current laws to improve ecosystem habitat (e.g., change water rights to protect in stream flows and guarantee water availability, prioritize protection of key habitats that buffer terrestrial ecosystems, such as wetlands and estuaries)

Can be a common regulatory means to achieve environmental objectives

Can be clear and easy to enforce in cases where ecosystem damage can be easily identified (e.g., pollutants and land contamination)

Requires effective monitoring and penalties for non-compliance to be successful; enforcement capacity can be weak or non-existent (e.g., fragile nations and communities)

Sustainable ecosystem products (e.g., eco labeling, green marketing)

Can encourage and support shifts to more sustainable production practices (e.g., reduction of chemical use in textile and food production)

Labels can help to inform consumer choice and shift consumption patterns towards more sustainably produced goods and services

Can result in financial savings to producers in the long term

Standards for eco-labeling can be uneven, have poorly expressed environmental standards, and lack appropriate certification mechanisms

In the absence of additional protection policies and regulations (e.g., greater limits on dolphin by-catch), labels are not enough to guarantee species recovery

Import tariffs and subsidies that protect critical species and habitat in other countries and export subsidies removed that otherwise lead to species and habitat loss within the given country

Have been used to close the gap between socially optimal level of using ecosystem services and level of user based more narrow private benefits

Distributional issues can be prevalent

Quotas for species, minerals, and water extraction

Can be used to control use of ecosystem services by individuals, households, or other users

Proper execution requires establishment of total amount of ESG that can be taken and then going through the cumbersome process of setting up a quota or license for each resource user

Success requires effective monitoring and penalties for non-compliance

Water, soil, and other abiotic quality standards and controls (e.g., pesticide application limits and point-source water pollution permits)

Explicit controls prescribe certain types of land use and formal guidelines for use

Can encounter enforcement challenges

10

Zoning requirements (e.g., limiting flood plain development, building in sensitive areas)

Can be effective at directing various types of ecosystem uses to clearly demarcated geographical areas, or harmful development away from particular sensitive areas

Requires state capacity to effectively carry out appropriate zoning actions

Equity issues can be prevalent; oftentimes the marginalized are forced to ecologically sensitive lands, the subsequent protection of which can lead to displacement and relocation

Pu

blic

Inve

stm

en

t P

rogr

ams

Integrated water management and adaptive management institutions and programs

Support collaborative management among users

Support needed socio-ecological system transitions when change is inevitable

Provide opportunities for learning about complex social-ecological systems, leading to improved future management

Adaptive management approaches are at an incipient stage of development and may not be politically/ economically/ politically feasible to implement

Livelihood diversification programs that reduce pressure on land, land-based resources, and biodiversity

Multiple benefit actions support human development and poverty reduction

May imply challenging cultural transitions for people (e.g., transitioning from agriculture-based livelihoods to other forms of making a living in areas designated exclusively for protection)

State and local land reserves, including communal management of protected areas, with particular emphasis on areas that will be priorities in a future climate regime (see row directly below)

Devolution of management to local users can result in multiple benefits for people and ecosystems

Can support empowerment and autonomy

Can reduce states’ management costs

Can serve as a basis for supporting sustainable use of ecosystem services and practices

Land tenure and land-use rights can be costly to administer and politically challenging to confer

Uncertainty about ecological shifts as a result of changing climate regime can be difficult to anticipate and scale to the level of user groups and land use units

Transition programs (i.e., facilitated migration or assisted colonization) that help species anticipate climate shifts (e.g., planting trees to accommodated expected shifts poleward and upward in elevation)

Can support maintenance of ecosystem structure and function and preserve biodiversity

Establishing landscape connectivity can be challenging culturally, politically, and institutionally

Can be costly

Removal of government investment policies that can have a negative impact on ecosystems (e.g., roads, dams, and other civic infrastructure, agricultural policies including subsides and unsustainable irrigation, economic development policies that promote urbanization and strain water supplies and other resources)

Addresses unsustainable use of and negative impacts on ecosystems at the level of the socio-economic system, with the potential to have highly transformative effects over time

Requires significant political will and leadership

Entrenched institutional structures and interest groups can stymie efforts to transform institutional practices

11

Targeted invasive species elimination and/or harvesting to restore current and future habitat for native ecosystems

Economic benefits may be derived from species removal

Maintaining overly rigid structural and functional elements in threatened ecosystems may put it at risk for state change

Research on ESG, including compilation of ‘good management’ practices (e.g., multi-criteria and other sophisticated valuation techniques beyond simple cost-benefit analysis)

Will further needed incorporation of values of ecosystems and biodiversity into economic decision-making and reduce activities and investment activities that degrade by effectively reflecting true costs

Can risk delayed action in the name of further research

Social science investments to understand human drivers and determinants of terrestrial ecosystem resilience and behavior change

May improve adaptive capacity and knowledge of the system

Further knowledge of drivers may not contribute significantly to required shifts in humans-environment interactions

Info

rmat

ion

-bas

ed

Monitoring levels of ecosystems goods and services within a system (e.g., pollution reduction, water-air quality)

Better information may result in improved response capacity (social and ecological) to conditions of ecosystem stress

Can be costly

Monitoring all systems all the time will not be possible

Seasonal, annual, and decadal climate forecasts

Provides critical insight into the future, improving decision making

Improved future insight might be lead to greater stress on ecosystems (e.g., over-use due to knowledge of favorable climate conditions)

Can have significant barriers that limit their use and application (e.g., accessibility, uncertainty, credibility, cost, difficult to understand, and accuracy)

Consulting model outputs and scenarios to construct narratives of possible future climate conditions (and the respective impacts and adaptation decisions) with stakeholders involved with management of terrestrial ecosystems

Establishes ‘buy-in’ early in knowledge creation and decision-making processes and increases likelihood of outcomes and actions

Allows decision makers to contemplate uncertainties associated with climate change

Can be costly and time-intensive

Can be difficult to represent the entire range of interests

Improved monitoring of weather (e.g., distributed monitoring through hand-held devices)

Results in increases in data for evaluating climate processes and for monitoring effectiveness of adaptation decisions

Can lead to empowerment through citizen-science

Can be costly

Faces barriers, such as protocols for housing and managing increases in data, and institutional constraints exist between countries/regions for standardizing and sharing data.

Improved education and media reporting for understanding climate risk and importance of ecosystems

Can increase public understanding of importance of climate risk and value of ecosystem services

May foster support for appropriate policy measures

Can risk delayed action in the name of more knowledge and understanding

12

Inte

rnat

ion

al C

oo

pe

rati

on

Pro

gram

s

Debt for nature deals

Supports debt-alleviation for highly indebted poor countries

Can have co-benefits of reducing pressure on resources through extractive efforts (e.g., timber) undertaken to provide needed foreign exchange

Can be perceived to undermine sovereignty

Mainstreaming EGS into international policies

Supports valuation of undervalued non-market EGS in local contexts, putting them on more equal footing with cash crops and other extractive uses of ecosystems

Can be incorporated into trade, climate, and development cooperation policies

Current international development, climate, and trade policies do little to consider/integrate ESG into decision-making and policy choices (e.g., Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and national Millennium Development Goal strategies give little attention to ESG as a means to reduce poverty)

Widespread distribution of alternative technologies and practices (e.g., cook stoves that improve air quality and forest health)

Can deliver multiple benefits that support poverty alleviation, health, and human well-being

Scaling up effectively can be a challenging

Initiatives are usually carried out by NGOs that can lack the reach of government programs

Adoption of new technology can be culturally challenging

International treaties and conventions (e.g., UN Commission on Sustainable Development, RAMSAR, CITES, UNCCD-Desertification, CBD)

Most environmental conventions are framework conventions where general obligations are established and new information may be amended to the treaty (e.g., RAMSAR)

Further protocols may also be developed (e.g., Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC and Cartagena Protocol to CBD)

Can have enforceability issues (i.e., these are not ‘hard laws’)

Can be difficult to make substantive changes once a treaty is signed

Bi- and multi-level agreements on cross-boundary resource management issues (e.g., river basin commissions and water-use agreements) and ‘soft laws’ (e.g., UN Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation, and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests)

Though usually not legally binding, can later be transformed into treaties

Enables states to take on obligations they otherwise might not

Are often non-binding; consequences for noncompliance are difficult to enforce

International Agreements outside the environmental sector that take ecosystem health into account (e.g., development, trade, human rights, anti-corruption)

Trade and Investment agreements (NAFTA, ASEAN Free Trade Area, CONOSUR) can support ESG by incorporating environmental measures as a part of their performance requirements

Requires that knowledge of environmental principles be incorporated into multiple arenas of decision-making, but institutional and financial barriers to this may be substantial

13

4. Criteria, indicators, and assessment methods for climate adaptation policy evaluation in the area of terrestrial ecosystems resilience

There are myriad options that decision makers can pursue in forming climate policies, such as those illustrated in Table 1, above. In this section, we provide guidance for measuring and assessing how such options and policies might ultimately affect terrestrial ecosystem resilience, comprehensively viewed via potential changes in social-ecological, economic and institutional systems. We do this by placing the MCA4climate policy evaluation framework or generic criteria tree, depicted in Figure 1, into the context of terrestrial ecosystems resilience.

Specifically, adaptation options of climate change policies and plans in the area of terrestrial ecosystem resilience would be ideally assessed against a set of 19 criteria (referred to as level-three criteria), which have been already developed at the generic climate policy level, cutting across all twelve climate change mitigation and adaptation themes considered under the MCA4climate initiative. These generic criteria are grouped, at the first level, under inputs (the costs or efforts required to implement a climate policy option) and outputs (the impacts of a particular policy option). The input side is linked to two dimensions (or level-two criteria): public financing needs and implementation barriers, which are in turn disaggregated in “technology expenditures” and “other monetary considerations” for the former, and “policy feasibility” and “timeline of policy implementation” for the latter (these are the four level-three criteria on the input side). The output side refers to five dimensions (level-two criteria): climate-related (i.e. increase in marine ecosystem resilience), environmental, economic, social, and political & institutional to describe likely positive or negative impacts of a policy option. These are in turn broken down into 15 level-three criteria: two climate-related, three on the environmental side, four on the economics, four on the social dimension, and two linked to the political and institutional dimension. For a more detailed discussion of the criteria tree at the generic level displayed in Figure 1 see the main MCA4climate report and the MCA4climate methodology document available on www.mca4climate.info.

It is important to note that it is difficult to provide the clearest guidance on this subject without understanding of what the specific climate change policy entails and without the involvement of the range of stakeholder interest affected by such a policy. Therefore, the reader should interpret the remainder of this section as (1) framed with respect to a generic climate change policy that has as one goal to ‘increase terrestrial ecosystems resilience’, and (2) a helpful illustration for how decision makers within a particular region/country might utilize the MCA4climate framework to make climate change policies and decisions more robust. As such, the tables below do not provide an ‘off-the-shelf’ tool for evaluating climate change policies, but rather a structure, framework, and ideas for indicators that should be negotiated within the given decision-making context.

14

Figure 1: The generic criteria tree: Structured set of criteria, part of the MCA4climate policy evaluation framework

15

4.1 Inputs: Efforts required for implementing a climate policy option The level-three generic input criteria, accompanied by their theme-specific (i.e. terrestrial ecosystem) descriptors and indicators are discussed below. These refer to public financing needs and implementation barriers. Public Financing Needs Criterion 1: Consider technology expenditures Descriptor: Investment in infrastructure, technology, research, and innovation in support of terrestrial ecosystem resilience

a. Indicator 1: Amount government allocates directly in the annual budget (i.e., actual amount in annual budget) .

b. Indicator 2: Amount government allocates indirectly in the annual budget (i.e., those funds that are not directly apportioned for increasing ecosystems resilience, but can have positive synergies with ecosystem resilience).

Criterion 2: Include other monetary considerations Descriptor: Investment in maintenance of formal and informal institutions, management, and monitoring and evaluation systems in support of terrestrial ecosystem resilience

a. Indicator 1: Amount government allocates directly in the annual budget (i.e., actual amount in annual budget).

b. Indicator 2: Amount government allocates indirectly in the annual budget (i.e., those funds that

are not directly apportioned for increasing ecosystems resilience, but can have positive synergies with ecosystem resilience).

Implementation Barriers Criterion 3: Account for policy feasibility Descriptor: Presence or changes in policy barriers and bridges to the implementation of terrestrial ecosystem policies – prioritizing those that permit flexibility in implementation

a. Indicator 1: Presence/absence of secure tenure regimes (i.e., relationships among people, individuals or groups, whether legal or customarily defined, that provide clear rules of use and/or protection of land , forests and other resources) that support sustainable management

16

of terrestrial ecosystem services. Does the resource regime protect what it is intended to protect (e.g., timber, fauna, flora, water, minerals)?

b. Indicator 2: Policies already exist that can be amended or built onto that serve objectives of increasing ecosystem resilience (e.g., presence/absence of natural resource laws, legislation, and regulation, etc.).

c. Indicator 3: Reserves/parks established with boundaries that can be altered, including eminent domain that can be used with discretion (e.g., characterization of the relationship between government/community within those boundaries; in cases of critical habitats eminent domain is used with discretion).

d. Indicator 4: Public servants who are knowledgeable in climate change impacts on terrestrial

ecosystems (e.g., number of recent post-graduates within the federal government who have a degree in earth, ecological, and/or social sciences).

Criterion 4: Consider timeline of policy implementation Descriptor: How quickly the policy can be implemented and the likely duration of that option, which will depend on political, institutional, technological processes

a. Indicator 1: Time to policy implementation (short: < 1 year; medium: 1 to 5 years; long: 5 to 20 years) (e.g., in evaluating similar past policy implementation and projecting a reasonable range for the relevant adaptation policy).

b. Indicator 2: Duration of policy (short: < 1 year; medium: 1 to 5 years; long: 5 to 20 years). 4.2 Outputs: Possible impacts of a climate policy option The level-three generic output criteria, accompanied by their descriptors and indicators for policy effectiveness, economic, social, environmental, and political and institutional impacts are described in this section. Climate-related Criterion 5: Reduce greenhouse gas & black carbon emissions Descriptor: Extent to which efforts to increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience contribute to effective mitigation of greenhouse gases

a. Indicator 1: Net biomass (e.g., afforestation, reforestation and avoiding deforestation) of forests helps sequester carbon from the atmosphere, maintains forest carbon sinks.

17

b. Indicator 2: Soil carbon sequestration maximized through appropriate land management practices (e.g., in evaluating and comparing Integrated Assessment Model outputs).

c. Indicator 3: Soil carbon sequestration maximized through careful monitoring and prevention of

forest loss, through conversion to other various land-cover typologies (e.g., in characterization of land conversion based on national/ regional land-use statistics)

Criterion 6: Increase resilience to climate change N/A: Increased resilience of terrestrial ecoystems is overall goal of theme report. Economic Impacts Criterion 7: Trigger Private Investments Descriptor: Policy triggers private investment in terrestrial ecosystem maintenance, preservation, and management

a. Indicator 1: Total private investment anticipated/required for establishing reserves and conservation infrastructure, protecting biodiversity, preserving land, facilitating afforestation, reforestation, and avoiding deforestation that are spurred by a given policy (e.g., macroeconomic or sectoral indicators/models show evidence of private sector investments in terrestrial ecosystem management).

b. Indicator 2: Investments in capacity for considering biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem

structure and function in lands managed by the private sector (e.g., percent of companies within a country/region that have designated staff with terrestrial ecosystem management expertise, increased investment in maintenance of cultural services including recreation and ecotourism.).

Criterion 8: Improve economic performance Descriptor: Ecosystem/economic co-benefits generated from the policy

a. Indicator 1: Increases in profits to industries (e.g., tourism, food, fiber, biochemical,

pharmaceuticals) that benefit directly or indirectly from sustainable management and maintenance and extraction of ecosystems goods and services such as fresh water, food, fiber, and genetic resources (e.g., improved revenues for companies resulting from sustainable use of sensitive ecosystems).

b. Indicator 2: Observed or expected increases in number of tourists in the region due to

improvements in productivity of natural resources/increases in ‘charismatic’ species (e.g., evidence of growth in tourism to a region as measured by number of visitors).

18

c. Indicator 3: Observed increases in water availability and quality yield benefits (e.g., drinking, domestic consumption, industry, irrigation, hydro energy power) and economic efficiencies (i.e., appropriate management of ecosystems upstream results in maintenance of or reduction in siltation rates of dams/reservoirs used for energy and domestic consumption and thus lower costs).

Criterion 9: Generate employment Descriptor: Increased employment in sectors related to sustainable management and extraction of terrestrial ecosystem goods and services

a. Indicator 1: Assessment percent change in jobs in sectors relevant to terrestrial ecosystem

management and extraction (e.g., national park employees, government scientists).

b. Indicator 2: Total number of jobs gained (+) or lost (-) through a ratio of short-term v. long-term jobs gained/lost; positive values would be more favorable than negative values (except where both long- and short-term values are negative), and favoring high positive values v. low positive values depends on whether short- or long-term employment is prioritized by decision makers.

Criterion 10: Contribute to fiscal sustainability Descriptor: The policy fosters fiscal sustainability by reducing expenditures and/or increasing savings that would result from loss/gain of terrestrial ecosystem resilience

a. Indicator 1: Expenditure indicators – Elimination of infrastructure, processes, or other factors that require government expenditure (e.g., a dam), which when eliminated might increase ecosystem resilience or if kept could pose challenges to ongoing ecosystem resilience.

b. Indicator 2: Income indicators – Increase in systems and processes that will generate revenue through user fees, taxes, and permits.

Social Impacts Criterion 11: Reduce poverty incidence Descriptor: Increase in productivity, amount, health/biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems has multiple positive impacts on livelihoods and poverty reduction such as increased incomes within resource-dependent communities (e.g., forest, nomadic, riverine/estuarine communities), and livelihood diversification

a. Indicator 1: Predicted or observed change in per capita income, and/or number of households below the poverty line.

19

b. Indicator 2: Qualitative surveys reflect increased capitals and capabilities2 at the household level.

c. Indicator 3: Data reflect increases in both range and distribution of informal and formal sector

employment within a region. Criterion 12: Reduce inequity Descriptor: Increasing equity and fairness within a population and or community

a. Indicator 1: Relative increase in informal and formal sector employment to low-income earners to gauge distributional impacts of the policy (e.g., number jobs expected to increase/decrease based on figures from comparative projects).

b. Indicator 2: Gini-coefficient applied to the particular region/locale. Criterion 13: Improve Health Descriptor: Successful maintenance of healthy terrestrial ecosystems results in ecosystem service provisioning of clean air, water, and food, and medicines with benefits for communities at multiple spatial scales

a. Indicator 1: Water quality is high, stable, and uniform throughout the watercourse to which communities have access (e.g., tests to measure biological indicators are reflective of high water quality).

b. Indicator 2: Food production from terrestrial ecosystems presents minimal contamination from pesticides and chemicals (e.g., national food control systems put in place, observed reductions in presence of pesticide residues in foods derived from terrestrial ecosystems).

c. Indicator 3: Continued discovery of new biochemical compounds/medicines derived from

terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., national accounting of medicinal and pharmaceutical products derived from forests).

Criterion 14: Preserve cultural heritage Descriptor: Sustaining healthy terrestrial ecosystems derives multiple non-material cultural benefits

2 ‘Capitals and capabilities’ refer to people’s access to five types of capital assets (social, natural, produced, human,

and cultural); the ways in which people combine and transform those assets in the building of livelihoods that as far as possible meet their material and their experiential needs; the ways in which they are able to expand their asset bases through engaging with other actors through relationships governed by the logics of the state, market and civil society; and the ways in which they are able to deploy and enhance their capabilities both to make living more meaningful, but also more importantly to change the dominant rules and relationships governing the ways in which resources are controlled, distributed and transformed into income streams (Bebbington, 1999).

20

a. Indicator 1: Maintenance of indigenous linguistic and knowledge systems (e.g., as evidenced through data collected by national ministries of culture, interior, and other agencies of national governments charged with supporting well-being of national indigenous populations).

b. Indicator 2: Maintenance of cultural practices (e.g., spiritual and religious values) carried out

within and through use, transformation of, and communion with terrestrial ecosystems.

c. Indicator 3: Maintenance of aesthetic values (e.g., as evidenced by presence/absence in quantity/quality of natural lands).

Environmental Impacts Criterion 15: Protect environmental resources (quality & stocks) Descriptor: Quality and stocks of environmental resources generated by terrestrial ecosystems are maintained.

a. Indicator 1: Predicted impact on keystone species, predicted impact on invasive species, and predicted impact on other environmental indicators that are important to a particular resource/system (e.g., pH, salinity, temperature/precipitation).

b. Indicator 2: Adaptive capacity of species and ecosystems (e.g., anticipated increase or decrease

of direct or indirect effects of the policy measured through plasticity of species physiology/behavior, dispersal abilities, evolutionary potential, redundancy, and response diversity of ecosystem functional groups).

c. Indicator 3: Projected impacts (magnitude and pace of change) on water quality and availability,

including hydrology (ground and surface water), evapotranspiration, and sediment/pollutant flows through a watershed or other natural systems (e.g., as evidenced through hydrological and climate models).

d. Indicator 4: Regulating services, such as disease, pest, and natural hazard regulation, as well as

pollination services are maintained or improved (e.g., evidence that natural control of pests is not degraded through pesticide use, improvement in pollinator abundance, presence of natural buffers such as healthy mangroves and wetlands, or indication that such controls are compromised).

e. Indicator 5: Maintenance of biogeochemical properties of the ecosystem, such as nutrient cycling, primary productivity, soil formation (e.g., evaluating whether shifts or changes are occurring or projected to occur).

21

Criterion 16: Protect biodiversity Descriptor: Biodiversity stocks are improved and/or species loss is reversed

a. Indicator 1: Predicted number of species removed from or improved status on endangered lists (e.g., number of species moved from endangered to vulnerable).

b. Indicator 2: Predicted amount of land preserved and/or additional land acquired by the policy,

focusing on biodiversity 'hot spots' within the country (e.g., as predicted in land-use/land-cover change and integrated assessment models).

c. Indicator 3: Permeability of landscape (e.g., as measured through barriers to

dispersal/migration, habitat fragmentation). Criterion 17: Support ecosystem services Descriptor: Supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services of terrestrial ecosystems are maintained or enhanced Prioritization of ecosystems goods and services is a cross-cutting theme throughout the report and is captured in the various criteria/indicators. For example, ‘supporting services’ of nutrient cycling, soil formation, and primary production are furthered by criterion 15, ‘provisioning services’ of food, fresh water, wood and fiber, and fuel appear in criteria 8 and 13, ‘regulating services’ such as air quality, climate, water, and pollination are included in criteria 5, 8 and 15, and ‘cultural services’ such as spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational services are captured by criteria 14, 7, and 8. Political & Institutional Impacts Criterion 18: Contribute to political stability Descriptor: Absence of violence related to natural resource exploitation and water and food security are maintained or enhanced Indicator 1: Financial flows of international trafficking and organized crime are interrupted (e.g. global

initiative such as International Corruption Hunter’s Alliance shows reduction of natural resource

trafficking activities), country is ranked favorably on corruption and political stability indices (e.g., less

perceived corruption according to Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perceptions Index’ (CPI)).

Indicator 2: Conflicts stemming from water and/or food availability are avoided or minimized (e.g., higher values on water poverty index (WPI) or food security risk index).

22

Criterion 19: Improve governance Descriptor: Adaptive governance and management of terrestrial ecosystems for increasing resilience Indicator 1: Tools for adaptive governance and management are evident and implemented, such as adjustable/flexible policies to keep pace with ‘slow’ and ‘fast moving’ variables/processes inherent in terrestrial ecosystems, iterative policy evaluation in appropriate multiple time frames that align with ecosystem and policy time-scale processes, formal and informal networks for social learning, data monitoring protocol infrastructure to be able to adjust decisions, and integration of various interests considered across multiple scales (spatial/temporal).

Indicator 2: Tools and processes for ‘good’ governance are evident and implemented, such as legitimacy, accountability, participation, representativeness, rule of law, control of corruption, and regulatory quality, (e.g. as measured through governance indicators, such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, which aggregates and individual governance indicators for 213 economies over the period 1996-2009.) 4.3 Methods of Assessment The indicators presented above illustrate the types of variables that could be evaluated to assess adaptation policy options in the context of terrestrial ecosystems resilience. These indicators represent a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures. In this section, we discuss five ‘methods of assessment’ categories for assigning value to the various indicators. Within each category, we also point to examples of studies, databases, models, and relevant initiatives to help guide decision makers in pursuing each method of assessment. Policy document/data reviews A handful of the indicators rely on national government or corporate data, often in the form of financial/budgetary information. Reviews of policy documents and budgetary spreadsheets should provide the data needed to assign values to the relevant indicators. A major advantage of this method is that these data are widely available, since most national governments publish such information. However, two potential drawbacks are that the published data might be less reliable and accurate in countries with higher corruption, and corporate data are generally more difficult to obtain for the private investment indicators. Also, deciding which fiscal projections to rely upon will ultimately be a subjective decision. In general, data for this method of assessment will be numerical, but some of the indicators will require a more qualitative assessment of policy documents. For instance, evaluations of one of the governance indicators, adaptive governance, could require reviewing legislation and decision-making procedures to identify the influence of a given adaptation policy option on flexibility/adaptability of management and institutions. Examples of this method of assessment and respective data include analysis of individual country documents obtained from national administrative websites (e.g., South Africa,

23

http://www.treasury.gov.za/), or national financial projections from World Bank data (e.g., World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog). Environmental monitoring and analysis Numerous indicators rely upon tracking and projecting changes in environmental, natural resource, and land/water/air management variables. There are a host of efforts underway that monitor such information, from international government organizations, to nongovernmental organizations, to individual country initiatives. The abundance of data, while generally an advantage, can lead to difficulties in comparability and representativeness. Furthermore, economic and budgetary stress around the world has led to significant cuts in environmental reporting (enforcement) and monitoring. Finally, the scales at which environmental phenomena are manifested (e.g., watersheds and river basins) are often mismatched with the scales at which their data are collected and analyzed (e.g., national, provincial, state levels); leading to incomplete or erroneous calculations. Data for this category will usually be quantitative and collected by satellites and remote sensing initiatives (e.g., Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/; Earth Observing System (EOS), http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/; Global Observation for Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC/GOLD), http://www.gofc-gold.uni-jena.de/redd/; Group on Earth Observations Forest Carbon Tracking Portal (GEO FCT), http://www.geo-fct.org/). Some of the data will be internationally standardized and vetted from international treaty and agreement reporting requirements (e.g., United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) greenhouse gas emission reporting, particularly land-use, land-use change, and forestry, http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php). And still other data sources could include independently compiled databases (e.g., World Bank environmental statistics, http://data.worldbank.org/topic/environment; World Resources Institute’s Global Forest Watch, http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/index.htm; International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN's) Red List, http://www.iucnredlist.org), or national agency statistics. Valuing ecosystems goods and services The practice of placing a value, often economic or monetary, on the numerous goods and services provided by terrestrial ecosystems has been increasing over the past decade, particularly since the completion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The most common method for incorporating the often overlooked importance of ecosystems goods and services into decision making is benefit/cost analysis or cost-effective analysis. Because many of the benefits of terrestrial ecosystems are ‘non-market’ goods and services, monetary measures are not always appropriate or desirable. Also, the ultimate output or valuation from benefit-cost analysis is greatly dependent upon the discount rate chosen by the analyst (see section 5, below). Thus, ‘value’ can and should also be assigned through non-monetary calculations; for instance in terms of tons of carbon sequestered, or number of tourist visitor days added. Valuing ecosystems goods and services through benefit-cost analyses or cost-effective analysis can be performed in a variety of ways, such as through contingent valuation, travel cost valuing, hedonic pricing, valuing life-years, and stated and revealed preferences. With respect to non-monetary

24

approaches, there are several noteworthy initiatives underway to identify the tradeoffs and synergies of different terrestrial ecosystems decisions (e.g., the Natural Capital Project and the InVEST tool, http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html; the World Bank’s Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+ training manual, http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/learning-product/estimating-opportunity-costs-redd; The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study hosted by UNEP, http://www.teebweb.org/). Models, projections, and scenarios The dynamic nature of terrestrial ecosystems is perhaps most effectively captured through ecosystems models, which are oftentimes combined with econometric models, models of socio-economic processes, and other modeled phenomena that interact with terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., Integrated Assessment Models). While model outputs are useful for producing projections or scenarios about future conditions, modeling tends to be data-, resource-, and time-intensive, and raises the potential for oversimplification and misrepresentation, particularly when the underlying assumptions are not transparent or well understood. One way to address these limitations is through participatory processes, such as stakeholder scenario planning and development, although these processes tend to be resource- and time-intensive as well. Since it is difficult to imagine an independent modeling effort to derive any of the individual indicators discussed above, it is most useful to use readily available tools or off-the shelf models for such analyses. For instance, hydrological models for the natural resources indicators (e.g., Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), http://swatmodel.tamu.edu/; Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP), http://www.weap21.org/) are often available and scalable to country levels. Also, although participatory and stakeholder processes are not appropriate to derive any single indicator, there are several adaptation-related efforts already underway in many countries that present opportunities for such participatory processes to be realized and linked with the MCA4climate approach (e.g., the National Programmes of Action (NAPA) process, http://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/items/2719.php; the World Bank’s Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) and Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR), http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/ppcr). Various qualitative analyses and data Several of the indicators are most appropriately derived from qualitative assessments. In addition to the policy document reviews mentioned above, other qualitative assessment methods include case study analysis, surveys and interviews, and expert elicitation. One benefit to qualitative methods is that they generally allow for more nuanced detail to be incorporated into an analysis. Another advantage is that qualitative data can be transformed into numerical or categorical formats to facilitate indicator comparisons. However, placing qualitative information into quantitative form also presents drawbacks; mainly the loss of the detailed information that qualitative data tend to provide in the first place. Examples of qualitative assessments and case studies abound, but are usually unique to a specific country or region.

25

5. Accounting for the critical issues for climate policy economic analysis put forward under the MCA4climate initiative

It would be a great challenge for decision makers to apply the terrestrial ecosystems indicators without adhering to a principled set of good-practice evaluation standards. This section outlines seven climate policy evaluation standards, particularly related to new climate economics thinking outlined in the supporting guidance document for the MCA4climate initiative: “New climate economics: Methodological choices and recommendations” by Frank Ackerman (available on www.mca4climate.info). It is important to note that many of these climate economics issues resemble the principles of resilience and factors that decision makers should consider with adaptation policy options that are discussed in sections 2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, we provide only a limited discussion of these issues here, elaborating particularly on the issues not already addressed above.

1. Future macro-level assumptions: When contemplating adaptation options for terrestrial ecosystems, decision makes should generally take two emissions scenarios into consideration: a high and a low emissions pathway. Currently, the two suggested scenarios are those used in the IPCC Assessment Report 4, A2 and B1, which are from the Special Report on Emission Scenario (SRES). When possible, one should attempt to use downscaled model projections specific to the studied region. If downscaled projections are not available, global model projections could be substituted. Also, the socio-economic pathway described in the scenario could be used to develop national level socio-economic assumptions. In addition, scenarios of natural resource utilization used by the Global Environmental Outlook 4 (GEO4) could be used in combination with emission scenarios. Complementing quantitative modeling of future macro-level assumptions, narratives or storylines of future political, economic, institutional, cultural, and other factors that influence aspects terrestrial ecosystems resilience could also be used to inform the indicators, particularly those that are qualitative.

2. Dynamics and feedbacks: Because human and natural systems are inseparable, terrestrial ecosystems adaptation options should be considered in the broader context of social-ecological systems (SES) analysis. An SES approach takes into consideration many of the resilience concepts (described in earlier sections), such as interactions between spatial and temporal scales, nonlinearity, adaptive cycles, and other dynamics and feedbacks that are difficult to capture in one-directional causal terms.

3. Co-benefits: Co-benefits, tradeoffs, and synergies among adaptation policy options, as well as

between mitigation and adaptation policy options for terrestrial ecosystems resilience have already been discussed in previous sections. It is imperative that sound climate policy consider not only these interactions, but also the interactions between terrestrial ecosystems and other themes being developed in the MCA4climate initiative (i.e., see section 6, below). Mutual consideration will not ensure that ‘optimal’ choices will be made, but rather that decision makers will likely settle on ‘second-best’ policies over the ‘third-and-fourth-best’ polices that might have been chosen in the absence of co-benefits, tradeoffs, and synergies considerations. Such broader thinking will also serve to avoid negative surprises in outcomes.

26

4. Valuation issues: While market/monetary values are applicable to several of the indicators of

terrestrial ecosystems, many elements affecting adaptation policy options within this theme are more appropriately depicted in non-monetary, or even qualitative terms. This is particularly relevant for the consideration of ecosystems goods and services.

5. Discount rates: The discount rate selected in economic analyses plays a substantial role in

determining the ultimate viability of a particular policy option. Fortunately, the MCA4climate approach and initiative represents a path forward for making decisions that are not solely based on valuing monetary costs and benefits (see point 4, above). When monetary valuation occurs, however, we suggest an intergenerational discount approach (i.e., a low discount approach), because of the long-term, cross-generational aspects of terrestrial ecosystems goods and services (which are overlooked in traditional discounting approaches). The choice of a discount rate depends importantly on the period considered; a short-term discount rate may be appropriately higher than a long-term discount rate, as the long-term preservation of ecosystem services must be duly considered and reasonably priced (hence the lower discount rate), reinforcing the need to include both slow-moving and fast-moving variables (see #7, below).

6. Time horizon: Considering terrestrial ecosystems adaptation policy options in the context of short-term coping and longer-term systemic measures is important for addressing the ‘slow’ and ‘fast moving’ variables in these systems, as described in previous sections. The general guidance for the MCA4climate initiative is to consider the short term as 10 years and the longer-term as 20 to 40 years. In addition, the very long term (from the perspective of policy formation and implementation) should be considered (i.e., 50-100 years), but is slightly less important than the others due to the large amounts of uncertainty inherent this far into the future.

7. Uncertainty: Uncertainty is inherent in many shapes and forms for developing terrestrial ecosystems adaptation policies (e.g., uncertainty in the various future systems being modeled – climate, socioeconomic, ecological – and uncertainty in the effectiveness of policy options and their influence in increasing resilience, to name a few). In order to address the issue of uncertainty, we suggest decision makers consider several issues when deciding between policy options and evaluating the MCA4climate indicators. First, there should be a preference for decisions that emphasize co-benefits (see point 3, above) across multiple time scales (see point 7, below). Second, ensemble models should be considered in conjunction with the indicators in order to develop a more robust understanding of the future state of particular ecosystem. And third, narratives and storylines (preferably using participatory methods that include a wide-range of stakeholder preferences and interests) should be considered to help decision makers conceptualize the uncertainties, particularly allowing for consideration of high-impact/low-probability events that might otherwise be overlooked in typical policy decisions.

27

6. Interactions with other themes The linkages between terrestrial ecosystems and other themes within the MCA4climate initiative are manifold. Rather than provide an exhaustive list of potential (direct and indirect) linkages, we offer several examples of the relationships that decision makers might anticipate when implementing the methodology. Improve energy efficiency: Sustainable harvesting of biomass/timber for meeting local heating and fuel needs more efficiently, while also ensuring the integrity of forest ecosystems Improve land-use management: Reforestation, afforestation, and avoided deforestation to improve land management practices, while also increasing critical habitat Increase low-carbon energy sources: Cellulosic ethanol and other energy sources available in terrestrial ecosystems; implications of the placement of renewable energy infrastructure within terrestrial ecosystems Capture and store emissions of CO2: Interaction between siting infrastructure necessary for capture and storage and the implications for the terrestrial ecosystems affected by such infrastructure; potential leakage of captured emissions and their effects on terrestrial ecosystems Improve coastal zone management: Building, development, and zoning practices that affect critical terrestrial ecosystem habitat on or near coasts Reduce human health impacts and risks: Food, nutritional, and other livelihood needs; medicinal species that are currently at risk/endangered; psychological and emotional benefits provided by terrestrial ecosystems Increase infrastructure resilience: Implications of building and construction on functional groups of species or trophic levels, such as the alteration of ecosystem make-up from dam construction Improve water resources management: Water-use efficiency improvements that allow for more surface and groundwater to be available for terrestrial ecosystems Increase marine ecosystem resilience: Marches, mangroves, and other estuarine environments that are integral for maintaining terrestrial ecosystems resilience; implications of rivers and watersheds within terrestrial ecosystems on marine ecosystems Reduce extreme weather event impacts: Critical buffers during extreme events, such as hurricanes and floods Reduce agriculture output losses: Competition for land between agriculture and maintenance of terrestrial ecosystem habitat; creating agricultural landscapes that are most likely to increase biodiversity; implications of nitrogen and phosphorus run-off on riverine and riparian areas.

28

References:

Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL. 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 15: 77-86.

Barnett J, O'Neill S. 2010. Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change 20: 211-213.

Bebbington A. 1999. Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development 27: 2021-2044.

Chapin FS III, Vitousek PM, Matson PA. In Press. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York: Springer.

Ellis EC, Ramankutty N. 2008. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 439-447.

Engle NL. 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.1001.1019.

Foley JA. 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 309: 570-574.

Folke C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253-267.

Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 557-581.

Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-473.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). 2004. Economic valuation of water resources in agriculture. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. Report no. 173672.

Glick P, Stein BA, Edelson NA, (eds.). 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation.

Goklany I. 2007. Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 755-786.

Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23.

29

Holling CS. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley.

Kane S, Shogren JF. 2000. Linking Adaptation and Mitigation in Climate Change Policy. Climatic Change 45: 75-102.

Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes TP, Wilson J. 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11: 19. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art19/

Lee KN. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, D.C., USA.: Island Press.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC. Report no.

Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004. Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems. Environmental Management 34: 75-90.

Orlove B. 2005. Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three historical cases and some general perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 8: 589-600.

Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linde PJ, Hanson CE, (eds), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Report no.

Peterson G. 1998. Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems 1: 6-18.

Postel S, Richter B. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature Washington, DC: Island Press.

Running SW, Mills LS. 2009. Terrestrial Ecosystem Adaptation. Resources for the Future. Report no.

United Nations Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change (UNSEG). 2007. Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. Rosina M. Bierbaum, John P. Holdren, Michael C. MacCracken, Richard H. Moss, and Peter H. Raven (eds.). Report prepared for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC, and the United Nations Foundation, Washington DC, 144pp. Report no.

Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9: 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

Walker B, Gunderson L, Kinzig A, Folke C, Carpenter S, Schultz L. 2006. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11: 13. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art13/