• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Clua presentation  12 07 12 draft 3
 

Clua presentation 12 07 12 draft 3

on

  • 335 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
335
Views on SlideShare
298
Embed Views
37

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 37

http://bfnd.de 37

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Land use is currently responsible for about 25% of global human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, greater than emissions from the transportation sector worldwide. These emissions come predominantly in the form of CO2 from deforestation, forest degradation, and the draining and burning of tropical peatlands, and as N 2 O production from fertilizer application to agricultural fields, and CH 4 from rice paddies and enteric fermentation. Avoiding dangerous climate change will be significantly harder and more costly if emissions from land use are not substantially reduced.
  • Land-use emission sources are not distributed uniformly across the globe. For example, deforestation emissions have been concentrated in the Brazilian Amazon, where they have declined dramatically since 2005, and in Indonesia, where peatland emissions are also highest. The economic incentives for deforestation differ between those places: in Brazil, expansion of cattle ranching has been most important; in Indonesia, oil palm and fiber production (for pulp and paper) are currently the major “drivers.” Both countries have ambitious emission reduction targets. The Brazilian case illustrates the feasibility of increasing production while reducing deforestation, along with the complexity of adaptation to, and backlash against implementation of anti-deforestation policies and regulations Sources: Congressional Budget Office based on data from World Resources Institute,“Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT)” (2011), http://cait.wri.org. For details, see World Resources Institute, CAIT: GHG Sources and Methods (Washington, D.C.: WRI, November 2010), http://cait.wri.org/downloads/cait_ghgs.pdf; and World Bank, World Development Report: Development and Climate Change, Selected Indicators, Table A2 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2010), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/ Resources/5287678-1226014527953/WDR10-Full-Text.pdf. Researchers use regional and global estimates of changes in land use to derive estimates for forest-based emissions of the 25 largest national contributors. They typically base the country estimates on a single data point for each year in the period, and errors associated with the estimates may be substantial. Emissions of greenhouse gases are measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). A metric ton of CO2e is the amount of a given greenhouse gas that makes the same contribution to global warming as a metric ton of CO2. (A metric ton equals 1.1 tons.) PNG = Papua New Guinea.
  • Forests absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, making their use and conservation a key factor in the global fight against climate change. An increasing number of countries are exploring sustainable economic development strategies that allow them to keep forests standing. Image: Gunung Lumut, East Kalimantan, Indonesia © Jan van der Ploeg / CIFOR
  • Success will require that we simultaneously protect the livelihoods and rights of indigenous people and local communities. Image: A child from the Sao Felix community in the Brazilian Amazon with a basket of leaves. Amazon - Brazil, 2011. © Neil Palmer/CIAT
  • Over a billion poor rural people depend on forest resources for all or part of their livelihoods. Forest clearance and degradation directly and immediately affect local and indigenous communities living in and near forests. Bureaucratic barriers and insecure tenure constrain the access of local communities to forests with only 30% of forest areas in developing countries are owned or designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Unclear forest rights and incoherent or inconsistent policies can also cause conflict as well as exacerbate deforestation. Forest resources provide 30% or more of the cash and non-cash incomes of a significant number of households living in and near forests. (Shepherd, G. 2012. IUCN; World Bank) Image: Gunung Simpang, West Java, Indonesia, February, 2009. photo by Yayan Indriatmoko/CIFOR
  • The Climate and Land Use Alliance is a collaborative initiative of the ClimateWorks Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.   These partner foundations are implementing a shared strategy to address one of the most challenging and critical aspects of climate change mitigation: reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation and other land use changes.
  • What do we do?   The Alliance catalyzes the potential of forested and agricultural landscapes to mitigate climate change, benefit people and protect the environment.   How do we do this?   We do this by making high-impact grants and engaging key stakeholders, policy-makers and experts to explore and develop solutions.   The Alliance seeks to contribute toward the following benefits: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices. Development, implementation and financial support for low-carbon growth. Protection of land and resource rights of indigenous peoples and rural communities. Conservation of plants, trees, wildlife and the many benefits that result from preserving natural landscapes. More efficient and sustainable agricultural practices.
  • The Alliance seeks to contribute toward the following benefits: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices. Development, implementation and financial support for low-carbon growth. Protection of land and resource rights of indigenous peoples and rural communities. Conservation of plants, trees, wildlife and the many benefits that result from preserving natural landscapes. More efficient and sustainable agricultural practices.
  • Part of our commitment to being an effective organization is evaluating our own progress. To do this, we have recently launched an independent  mid-term evaluation (MTE)
  • Collectively, the CLUA partner Foundations have identified and articulated an important niche that would be extremely hard for any single philanthropy to address alone. The partner Foundations’ earlier experiences in tropical forest conservation and the rights of forest-dependent peoples have largely shaped CLUA’s approach, especially in Brazil, Indonesia and Mesoamerica. CLUA’s quantitative emission reduction goals appear more viable as a vision to aim towards than a target to which CLUA should be held accountable for reaching within a finite number of years. CLUA’s ambition to address emissions from land use while safeguarding rural populations, indigenous peoples, food security, ecosystem services and biodiversity by mobilizing, organizing, guiding, encouraging and otherwise supporting a wide range of actors is a bold undertaking.
  • The Alliance has demonstrated steady progress towards its institutional aims: Coordination and focus around a collaborative, integrated strategy. Grantmaking impact greater than could be achieved through the sum of the activities of the individual foundations. Commitment and engagement by the Alliance Board, the Executive Director, Director of Programs and members of the Program Team. Considering the diversity in perspectives among CLUA’s Foundation partners, an impressive degree of mutual trust and collaboration has already been established. CLUA grants and contracts funded by ClimateWorks generally cannot exceed one year in duration. We support a structured move toward grants for longer periods, as long as the responsibility and resources for monitoring these grants have been clearly identified. Strategy reviews and updates were taken seriously and involved extensive discussions among the program teams, including CLUA’s leadership. These processes appear to have been valuable and contributed to significant knowledge sharing and mutual learning. 
  • I’d like to focus on the learnings from the evaluation related to challenges and opportunities. I’ll present a selection here that may have particular relevance to GEM and CLUA’s work.

Clua presentation  12 07 12 draft 3 Clua presentation 12 07 12 draft 3 Presentation Transcript

  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies  Improving land use management to mitigate climate change Learning from evaluation and what it means for GEM
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies Your scholar today: Executive Director Climate and Land Use Alliance Member Advisory Board GEM Initiative, Yale UniversityDr. Chris Elliott 2
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 112 What’s the problem?212 What are we doing?312 What have we learned?412 What does all this mean? 3
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 112 What’s the problem? 4
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies  Land use has a big impact on emissions Source: Congressional Budget Office
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies  Ranking of countries by their estimated contribution to global forest-based emissions 1990 to 2005% Source: Congressional Budget Office
  • The global response to climate change will be unsuccessful without significant reductions in deforestation and forest degradation and improved agricultural practices.© Jan van der Ploeg / CIFOR
  • Success will require that we simultaneously protect the livelihoods and rights of indigenous people and local communities. 8© Neil Palmer/CIAT
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies  Global demand for food, fuel and fiber increasing 9 Source: USAID
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 212 What are we doing?Four partner foundations implementing a shared strategyto reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused bydeforestation and other land use changes. 10
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies Our aim:The Alliance catalyzes the potential of forested andagricultural landscapes to mitigate climate change, benefitpeople and protect the environment. How? We do this by making high-impact grants and engaging key stakeholders, policy-makers and experts to explore and develop solutions. 11
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies What are our goals?• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use management• Protect the livelihoods and rights of indigenous peoples and rural Communities and slow the loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity• Single grantmaking strategy; draw on collective expertise, networks, and local offices• Overcome significant technical, social and political barriers through necessary scale, intensity, and innovation• Leverage funding for the Alliance strategy 12
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies Where do we work?Global climate and land use, and national action in prioritycountries (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico & Central America, andthe United States). 13
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 312 What have we learned? • Part of our commitment to being an effective organization is evaluating our own progress. • To do this, we launched an independent mid-term evaluation (MTE) in which we examined our: 1. Approach: Has our grant making been well planned and prepared? 2. Deployment: How well organized and efficient is CLUA? 3. Selected challenges and opportunities: What’s next? 14
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 2 1.1 Approach: Has our grant making been well planned and prepared? •Important niche, hard for any philanthropy to address alone •Shaped by prior foundation experiences, especially in Brazil, Indonesia and Mesoamerica •Emission reduction goals more vision than target to be held accountable for reaching within a finite number of years •Bold undertaking 15
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 2 2.1 Deployment: How well organized and efficient is CLUA? •Steady progress toward institutional aims •Impressive mutual trust and collaboration, particularly with diversity of foundation perspectives •Strategy reviews valuable; contribute to significant knowledge sharing and mutual learning •Resources allocated consistently with strategies and outcomes 16
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 2 3.1 Selected challenges and opportunities: What’s next? What have we learned from this evaluation?  What does it mean for CLUA and GEM? 17
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 412 What does all this mean? Diminished prospects for Global REDD+; political realities (less favourable policy environments) Focus on identifying other viable pathways to pursue policy outcomes we seek and furthering a “no regrets” approach to the work 18
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 412 What does all this mean? Engaging other sectors, including private sector and diverse economic sub-sectors that influence land use Private sector so important that it deserves explicit consideration Broad engagement increases expertise and influence to support solutions that stick 19
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 412 What does all this mean? Development of low carbon development plans easier than encouraging their adoption and implementation In addition to identifying viable pathways to low carbon development, explore how to ensure follow through of adoption and implementation – need to ensure the work is done! 20
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies 412 What does all this mean? Periodically summarize and report on the impact of scientific advances and how this impacts approach Opportunity for GEM/CLUA synergy? 21
  • Yale School of Forestry &  Environmental Studies  www.ClimateAndLandUseAlliance.org