3.5 Policy Coherence For Climate, Land-Use, Ecosystems and Food - Jane Ellis & Katia Karousakis
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,774 views
3.5 Policy Coherence For Climate, Land-Use, Ecosystems and Food - Jane Ellis & Katia Karousakis. Biodiversity Workshop 25 October 2017
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to 3.5 Policy Coherence For Climate, Land-Use, Ecosystems and Food - Jane Ellis & Katia Karousakis
Similar to 3.5 Policy Coherence For Climate, Land-Use, Ecosystems and Food - Jane Ellis & Katia Karousakis (20)
More from OECD Environment
More from OECD Environment (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
3.5 Policy Coherence For Climate, Land-Use, Ecosystems and Food - Jane Ellis & Katia Karousakis
- 1. Jane Ellis and Katia Karousakis Environment Directorate, OECD OECD WPBWE workshop on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Agriculture 25 October 2017 POLICY COHERENCE FOR CLIMATE, LAND-USE, ECOSYSTEMS AND FOOD
- 2. • Countries have multiple, interlinked, goals • Importance of policy coherence • How on-going work under WPCID/ WPBWE is examining these issues 2 Presentation outline OECD Environment Directorate
- 3. 3 Countries have agreed multiple goals – many of which are interlinked … SDG 15 Life on land SDG 13 Climate action SDG 6 Clean Water SDG 2 Zero hunger SDG 7 Clean energy 6.6 15.2 15.3 2.4 2.5 7.1 6.4 Selected interactions between selected SDGs OECD Environment Directorate
- 4. 4 … and there is a complex web of trade- offs and synergies between them… SDG 15 Life on land SDG 13 Climate action SDG 6 Clean Water SDG 2 Zero hunger SDG 7 Clean energy Food vs fuel Intensification , expansion impacts on biodiversity Changing precipitation patterns Increased agricultural production can increase GHG emissions (directly, indirectly) Competition for water, pollution from it SDG7 Pressures on biodiversity and ecosystems Reduce Pollution OECD Environment Directorate SDG1, 7,11,14 SDG1, 10 SDG1, 3, 8 SDG 10, 12,17
- 5. 5 The importance of agriculture, LULUCF varies widely between countries … OECD Environment Directorate
- 6. 6 The importance of agriculture, LULUCF varies widely between countries … OECD Environment Directorate
- 7. 7 GHG from LULUCF GHG from agriculture The importance of agriculture, LULUCF varies widely between countries… OECD Environment Directorate
- 8. … as well as between regions, and over time… OECD Environment Directorate
- 9. … as well as between regions, and over time… OECD Environment Directorate
- 10. … as well as between regions, and over time… OECD Environment Directorate
- 11. • Institutional co-ordination: e.g. lack of integration between land-use, forestry and agricultural policies, as well as climate and biodiversity policies • Lack of ecosystem valuation: weak policies to account for positive and negative externalities • Policy misalignments: e.g. agricultural subsidies that link support to production levels • Institutional structures and consumer behaviour: e.g. can lead to large volumes of food waste, and preferences for GHG- intensive food sources • Information/awareness: the role of stakeholders, including sub-national governments, financiers, farmers Policy-related challenges Source: Adapted from OECD (2015), Aligning Policies for a Low Carbon Economy. 11
- 12. • Objectives: – Highlight the synergies and trade-offs between goals related to climate, land-use, ecosystems and food – Identify policy misalignments – Explore promising policy and institutional responses to improve policy coherence in these areas • Key issues to address (selected OECD and non-OECD countries): trends, policy and institutional framework, alignment 12 On-going work on Climate, Land-use, Ecosystems and Food (CLEF) OECD Environment Directorate
- 13. 13 Thank you for your attention! For more information: http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/ http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/biodiversity http://oe.cd/climate-action jane.ellis@oecd.org, katia.karousakis@oecd.org
Editor's Notes
- Thank you for the introduction. My name is Jane Ellis, and I lead the climate negotiations team here at OECD. I am also working with Katia and David (in the back) on a new project on policy coherence for climate, land-use, ecosystems and food. We’ve heard today about some of the global challenges related to these areas, and also about how individual countries are developing policies to address one or many of these challenges. This presentation is going to highlight the inter-connectedness of these different challenges, and also the range of different country contexts. And then briefly outline our ongoing work in this area. For those of you who will be at WPBWE tomorrow and Friday, there will be further information available on this project then.
- So the presentation is first going to look at the inter-connectedness of various environmentally-related goals that countries have signed up to. It will then loo at the importance of policy coherence. And then outline what our work is in this area.
- We heard from Simon Buckle this morning about the challenge related to meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the role that ag/forestry sectors will need to play in this. And countries have agreed to further goals, including 17 Sustainable development goals, SDGs, and more than 160 targets that underly these SDGs. [highlight the SDGs most relevant for CLEF project] The SDGs are very interlinked, so achieving a specific target under a specific SDG, will impact the ability to achieve other targets under other SDGs. 2.4 - By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality 7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services 15.2 – halt deforestation, increase A and R … and there are many more 2.5 – protect and maintain the genetic diversity of seeds 6.4 increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater 6.6 – protect and restore ecosystems 15.3 – restore degraded land
- For example, climate change will alter water availability, temperatures, and temperature extremes. This will affect the ability of agricultural systems to produce the increasing quantity of food that is needed. Agroforestry can increase both production and resilience of agricultural systems to climate impacts. Increasing agricultural production can increase GHG emissions directly (livestock emissions) and also indirectly (deforestation). And deforestation will lead to pressures on biodiversity and ecosystems that can impact goals under SDG 15, which can in turn also affect the agricultural sector and therefore food production. And there are many more links, as you can see here.
- So if we now turn to the national level… You have already heard today about the global and regional importance of agricultural emissions, as well as in emissions from “land-use, land-use change and forestry” (LULUCF). An important factor in policy responses, however, is the variation in importance of these emission sources by country. If you look at emissions that come directly from agriculture, these are approximately 6% of total emissions from OECD countries. But they vary widely – accounting for almost half of NZ’s emissions for example. Our ongoing work will focus on countries with large emissions from ag or LULUCF – either on an absolute level, or in terms of importance for a specific country.
- If you look at emissions or removals from land-use, land-use change and forestry, the picture changes again. The height of the bar is calculated as the proportion of total emissions excluding LULUCF. This is because, as you’ll see for OECD as a whole, agricultural emissions are offset from sequestration by forestry. So if the y axis was total emissions including LULUCF, OECD would show as zero, as they’d cancel each other out. However, doing so would mask trends that need policy responses. You can again see the variation between different countries. For some countries, such as Chile, GHG removals from LULUCF are larger than ag emissions. For other countries, LULUCF is still an emissions sink, but not as much as agriculture is an emissions source. And for further countries, including large OECD partner countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, LULUCF is a very significant emissions source – with LULUCF accounting for almost half of Indonesia’s emissions. This range of contexts is why we are looking at a range of individual countries in our study.
- Trade in agricultural and forestry products is also becoming increasingly important. And you can see from the slide here that there is also a large variation in the importance of agriculture and forestry to a country’s GDP. For example, the contribution of ag to OECD countries’ GDP on average is approximately 1% (right hand axis). However, it is more than 8% for NZ, and more than 12% for Indonesia. Policy options to limit emissions from ag and forestry will be influenced by the importance of trade in agricultural goods. So for example, there is a significant potential for both supply-side and D-side GHG mitigation measures in agriculture. But if a large proportion of ag production is exported, then D-side measures are likely to have less impact.
- The importance of agriculture and LULUCF emissions can also vary widely between regions and over time. For example, if you look at global ag GHG emissions since 1990, you will see an approx 10% increase (blue line, left hand axis). However, the value of ag products has more than doubled in the same timeframe (brown line, right hand axis – and the food price spike of 2007/08 is clearly visible). [>food price spike particularly notable for grains and for oils]
- If you look at the same issues just for OECD countries, you will see a very different picture: although the value of agricultural products in OECD countries (brown dashed line) almost doubled between 2000 and 2010, emissions (blue dashed line) actually dropped. It is for this reason that we intend for our project to look across both OECD and non-OECD countries, because looking at OECD only will not give you a representative picture.
- … and if you look at the situation in Brazil – which is a key producer of selected food crops such as soy and maize, the situation is different again. It’s hard to see in detail because the axis is the same as global, but the level of Brazilian GHG emissions from ag (blue dashed line) has increased by about 30% since 2000. And the value of ag production has more than tripled. This has been driven by an increase in production, and exports, and value – including of beef (more than tripled since 2000) and dairy (almost quadrupled). This highlights the importance of an increasingly globalised market for food, as well as for biofuels – so as well as different issues being inter-connected, different countries are also inter-connected. Brazil - (maize [7% of global crop, and a similar proportion of global trade in maize], soy [25% of global production, and 2nd largest exporter globally], sugar cane … but also wheat, rice and others).
- So there are many variations in country contexts, as well as trade-offs and synergies between different issues. This leads to a variety of policy-related challenges. These include. 1. Lack of co-ordination and integration. Synergies and tradeoffs are not always identified or quantified. But unless they are, it is difficult to make explicit choices about them. So for example, most countries’ climate contributions do not mention the issue of biodiversity or food [– although they do highlight the importance of agriculture, particularly for climate adaptation]. 2. Weak policies or a lack of biodiversity and ecosystem valuation in decision-making processes. This can lead to over-exploitation of resources that underpin such systems. 3. Policy misalignments: ag subsidies linked to production can encourage an increase in production area, which can lead to expansion of ag land, and therefore deforestation. 4. Institutional structures and consumer behaviour [>read] 5. Information/awareness: we heard that in Sweden there was a good awareness by farmers’ of national pesticide policy. But in many countries the link between national policy-makers and local/regional implementers (farmers, sub-national governments) may be indirect or broken, which can impede policy implementation.
- So to now let you know about our on-going work. This aims to highlight synergies and trade-offs… . Jussi has highlighted the work that they’re doing on this relating to agriculture in OECD countries. Our work will also look at: Forestry and other land-use Non-OECD as well as OECD countries Looking at D-side policies, as well as S-side … and will explicitly look at this in the context of the international goals that countries have signed up to, including SDGs, Paris Agreement, Aichi Biodiversity targets. Ensuring that synergies are maximised and trade-offs balanced between different aspects of these issues will be crucial if the international community is to meet the (SDG and climate) goals it set itself in 2015. So we’re going to explore promising policy and institutional responses to improve policy coherence in these areas – both within countries, and also between countries: policies in one country or region can impact climate, biodiversity and food issues in another (as we’ve seen for biofuels, for example). Will do qualitative analysis, based on case studies. With the aim of identifying lessons learned that will be useful for other countries. They are more climate-friendly than petrol or diesel, and the EU’s renewable energy directive mandates that at least 10% of road transport fuels should be renewable energy. However, more than half of the feedstock used to produce biodiesel in Europe is imported. So this may have impacts elsewhere. So this project aims to identify the key interlinkages, synergies and tradeoffs – between different goals, amongst different stakeholders and countries, with a view to identifying promising policy options going forward. We will be presenting the project in more detail at WPBWE this Friday.