Synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in the land use sector


Published on

Synergies between climate change
mitigation and adaptation measures in
the land use sector

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in the land use sector

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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  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  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. 13. The application in a snapshot: The Shinyanga case, Tanzania
  14. 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. 15. Ecosystem goods from Ngitili practices Tanzanian Shilling Summarized from figures in Monela et al (2005)
  16. 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. 17. Habitat Wood ShadeImproved soil conditions Livestock feed How life is changing for  A land restored using Ngitili agropastoralists Degraded grazing land
  18. 18. Moving towards synergy: what  does it take?
  19. 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. 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. 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. 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. 23. Acknowledgement• ASB, SD5, SD6• The agropastoralists• ICRAF Tanzania – Shinyanga field visit• TaTEDO Tanzania• NAFRAC Tanzania• ICRAF HQ