1. Synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in the land use sector Lalisa A. Duguma With contributions from ASB Team ICRAF Seminar Presentation March 26, 2012
2. About the project Project MITIADAPT: synergies and tradeoffs The conceptual Criteria and Core activities Tradeoff basis for indicators for analysis synergy synergyGeneral Review + Review Fieldworkmethods fieldwork
3. IntroductionFor a long time adaptation and mitigation measures were treated as separate policy streams: – Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA), REDD+ – National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)Despite the separate streams, evidences of practices that capture both measures at the same time is growing. At national and subnational level, wherein implementation of climate change measures is done, this dichotomy promotes inefficiencies and activity duplications.
4. Synergy• In synergy, two or more agents or components, or business units or interventions are combined to achieve a defined goal: – increasing effectiveness, – minimizing costs and or – ensuring continuity of production and or service provision by minimizing risks (Lazic and Heinzl 2011)• Synergy exists in almost all forms of science, institutions etc (Conning 1998).
5. Synergy modelsa. Additive synergy: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) = V(x1, x2,… xn)The sum of the outputs of the individual practices is the same as the outputs when they are implemented together.b. Non‐additive synergy: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) ≠ V(x1, x2,… xn)1) Superadditive model: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) < V(x1, x2,… xn)2) Subadditive model: V(x1) +V(x2) +…+V(xn) > V(x1, x2,… xn). 3) Isolated synergy model: The interaction is the focus. E.g. 6CO2 + 6H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6O2
6. For synergy to happen….Resource relatedness: common resources and activities shared. For example, mitigation and adaptation share the following: Land, Land resources management activities, Skills and know‐hows of NRM, Similar goal – reducing the impacts of climate change Resource complementarity: the increase in one resource increases the return to the other resource (Harrison et al 2001).
7. Mitigation and adaptation linkages at landscape level: practices and processes Improved carbon sink management [M] Minimized deforestation and Improved adaptive forest degradation capacity of the [M] society [A] Improved Diminished release livelihood [A] of GHGs to the Improved atmosphere [M] agriculturalproductivity [A] Sustainable Land resources forest management management [M] Enhanced ecosystem Offsetting of services and goods Soil and water conservation [A] soil carbon stock availability [A] loss [M] Agroforestry Biodiversity conservation [A] [M][A] Enhances carbon sinks [M] Afforestation and reforestation [M]
8. Current conceptualization of synergy in CCKlein et al (2007) [IPCC] highlights four main directions of integration of adaptation and mitigation: 1. Mitigation actions with adaptation benefits Cobenefit2. Adaptation actions with mitigation benefits3. Processes that promote both measures4. Policies and strategies that promote the integrationMissing element: the land use practices based approach (identifying practices and the associated actions, processes, decisions that promote synergy) (Minang et al in review).
9. Complementarity versus synergy Time and scopeThe reign of mitigation The move to landscape approaches to CC Compliance issues – just to say social issues are being addressed?
10. Why complementarity is not enough1. Inadequate ‐ The current approach is not sufficient (Klein et al 2007) and we need a blend (Parry et al 2001). 2. Inefficient – the dichotomy increases the costs of climate change [Kane and Yohe 2000]3. Competition for resources between mitigation and adaptation (Tol 2005)4. The cobenefit issue masks the apparent potentials of the practices ‐ e.g. for agroforestry
11. Why synergy is important in the land use sector• Enhances the cost‐effectiveness of CC measures (Klein et al 2005)• Helps to understand the interconnections between practices and processes at landscape level• Helps to bring together actors and stakeholders active at landscape level. Synergies could form the core of climate policy at multiple scales in the future (Tubiello et al 2008).
12. Some emerging examples of CC synergyCountry Name of project Implementation approach SourceBangladesh Waste‐to‐compost Improve the environment by promoting Ayers and project waste recycling. Huq (2009)Kenya Kenya Agriculture Carbon sequestration through http://web.w Carbon Project sustainable agricultural land orldbank.org management practices Tanzania The HASHI project Ecosystem restoration using enclosures Monela et al (Ngitili) and agroforestry practices (2005)Ethiopia Humbo Assisted Rehabilitation of degraded forest lands http://cdm.u Natural Regeneration for ecosystem services provision and nfccc.int/ Project community livelihood improvementPeru CEPICAFE Project Addressing the multiple problems in the GTZ (2010) under the AdapCC landscape through reforestation and project carbon sequestration, and capacity building and implementation of integrated coffee management practices.
13. The application in a snapshot: The Shinyanga case, Tanzania
14. The practices in Shinyanga landscapes and their interrelationships Less dependence on Practice 2 (Cotton farming) and Practice 3 (maize and Practice 6: Fodder Practice 7: Livestock sorghum farming) [A-M] banks [M+A] rearing [A-M] Household consumables Better vegetation cover in the Abundant livestock feed and livestock products area due to reduced forest and thus enhanced increased [A] clearance [M+A] productivity Income from grazing contracts Practice 1: and carbon money from pilot Improved ecosystemNgitili [M+A] REDD+ projects services provision [A+M] Edible wild fruits, edible insects, herbal traditional medicines Better habitat for wildlife [A] Improved honey Enhanced water availability production Enhanced carbon both for household use and storage [M] livestock [A] Sufficient wood for energy and construction Practice 4: Reduced land degradation Agroforestry [A+M] through control of wind and water erosion [A+M]
15. Ecosystem goods from Ngitili practices Tanzanian Shilling Summarized from figures in Monela et al (2005)
16. Ngitili system and the super additive synergy modelEconomic valuesAverage economic value of Ngitili per person per month – 14 USDAverage expenditure of rural Tanzanian per month – 8.5 USD Carbon sequestration 1986 ‐ 611 ha (27428 t C) 2005 ‐ 377756 ha (16,957,467 t C)Biodiversity conservationBird species reemerged after Ngitili ‐22‐65Mammal species reemerged after Ngitili ‐ 10Plant species recorded in restored Ngitili ‐152 Monela et al (2005)
17. Habitat Wood ShadeImproved soil conditions Livestock feed How life is changing for A land restored using Ngitili agropastoralists Degraded grazing land
18. Moving towards synergy: what does it take?
19. 1. Processes necessary for the move System analysis: identifying what the system components are, how they function and interact and how good the selected measures fit into the system’s context.
20. 2. Potential approaches that promote synergy1. Landscape approaches – a holistic look at practices, processes, actors in different land uses within the landscape. 2. The practice‐based approach – identifying practices that address adaptation and mitigation together. E.g. Agroforestry, tree‐based soil conservation, ecosystem based adaptation, climate smart agriculture, etc. 3. Cross‐sectoral and interdisciplinary planning approaches ‐ an integrated approach to CC measures at planning level
21. 3. The challenges Our ‘carbonized’ view of climate change issues The compartmented look at CC measures ‐ adaptation, mitigation. The strong emphasis of the UNFCCC on stabilization of GHG – adaptation as an accessory activity. Lack of metrics – criteria and indicators for synergy The scientific uncertainty about the optimal mix of practices The poor emphasis on the systems thinking or holistic approaches to abating CC
22. Some reflectionsTo realize the benefits of synergy….1. It should happen at all scales i. International (e.g. UNFCCC), ii. National (e.g. climate policies and strategies, land use policies, etc), iii. Subnational (e.g. landscape level operational plans and strategies) and iv. Project level2. The necessary processes should be sufficiently addressed3. The various challenges impeding its application at various scales should be properly dealt with.
23. Acknowledgement• ASB, SD5, SD6• The agropastoralists• ICRAF Tanzania – Shinyanga field visit• TaTEDO Tanzania• NAFRAC Tanzania• ICRAF HQ