Transcript Country System - Global Climate Change Alliance+

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°C
warmer, 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
REDD+, within and outside
the UNFCCC process
2007
Bali
AP
2011
2015
KP:
LULUCF
ADP
LCA:
REDD+
CDM
A/R
WB's
BioCF
Review
WB's
FCPF
UNREDD
Protocol
with legal
force
Phase 2
Capacity Building
& Demonstration
Phase 1
Readiness
Readiness
2020
FIP
EU
REDD
ODA
Post 2020
Climate regime:
Role of the land sector?
Phase 3
Full Implementation
GCF
WB's FCPF
Carbon
Fund
Markets
?
Yet REDD+ is primarily
a mitigation mechanism in the making
COP Guidance
National
REDD+ level
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strategy
MRV
Reference Lvl
Safeguards/NCB
Fund(s)?
Registry/Buffers?
Info
Technical
Assessment
+
International
Consultation
and Analysis
Info
Global
Info
Hub
Bilateral or
multilateral
delivery
institutions,
including GEF
and GCF
Results Based
Payments
i.e. €/tCO2
International
Climate Finance
• Public/Private
• Market/Non Market?
• Mitigation/ Joint M&A?
Questions remain on REDD+
fate, from "sellers" and "buyers":
From possible REDD+
contributors
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?
From possible REDD+
recipients
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
CIFOR 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.
OPPORTUNITIES
• 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
Questions
Country 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
[email protected]
Assessing risks, building trust, learning
from FLEGT: the legality matrix
"Country
System"
REDD+, NCB,
Risks
& Safeguards
Adaptation
in forests
Adaptation in
agriculture
Country
Law 1
Country
Law 2
Country
Institution
Country
Instrument
Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering
could tweak REDD+ Results Based Payments towards
sustainability
Results
Based
Payments
Emission
Reductions
Cancel
Emission
Reductions
RA
Carbon
Buffer(s)
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)
Assessing risks, building trust, learning
from FLEGT: the legality matrix
"Country
System"
REDD+, NCB,
Risks
& Safeguards
Adaptation
in forests
Adaptation in
agriculture
Country
Law 1
Country
Law 2
Country
Institution
Country
Instrument
Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering
could tweak REDD+ RBP towards sustainability
Results
Based
Payments
Emission
Reductions
Cancel
ER
RA
Carbon
Buffer(s)
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
Questions
Country 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]