Download Forest, mitigation and adaptation: Exploring evidence, synergies

Forest, mitigation and adaptation:
Exploring evidence, synergies and governance
UFRRJ/CPDA 29th August 2014
Working groups session results:
Working group 1
Relevant policies that provide evidence of can foster synergies between adaptation and
mitigation:
1. ABC Plan: evidence and possibility for synergies, the main problem is the financial
mechanism that does not support effectively smallholders, and the fact that it facilitates
monocultures and in fact might support less adaptation compared to mitigation. There
are aspects that relate to adaptation, but not so much synergies between adaptation and
mitigation, and more importantly financial mechanisms need to support such integration
and are not at the moment. Agroforestry is part of ABC Plan but, for example, the
systems that are supported are sequential monocultures (e.g. eucalyptus plantations).
Another problem with the ABC Plan is that actions are not focuses (or suitable) for
smallholder but primarily for large scale agricultural and livestock systems.
2. PRONAF: is a credit program, which focuses also on agroforestry systems, monoculture
in smallholder, eucalyptus plantations. For financial support for eucalyptus plantations,
it is harder to see opportunities for synergies here.
3. National Forest Plan (Plano Nasional Florestal): Includes reforestation and restoration,
and supports the use of species that are adapted to droughts. So opportunities for
synergies are revealed in actual practice, but there is not an explicit focus on synergies in
the plan itself.
What are the challenges to facilitate integration of Mitigation and Adaptation?
1. Emblematic is that policies include a lot of diagnostic and little concrete action, many
pilot programmes, and few structural programme. Many actions are short term, what it
needed is continuous guaranteed efforts.
2. Another aspect is that many public policies might be suitable to integrated objectives
between mitigation and adaptation, but are not explicitly oriented towards such
integration. Policies outside forestry and agricultural policies that are included in the
Pluri-Annual Plan, do not consider impacts on other sectors. What should happen is
harmonization of policies. There is the need to investigate whether and how they are
incorporating linkages between Mitigation and Adaptation and eventually investigate
how this can be achieved. E.g. one area where this would be important related is in
relation to the biodiversity objective.
3. Another point, is that Mitigation and Adaptation policy actors do not talk to each other,
there are different working groups and no integration, only at the end of the planning
stages there might be an opportunity to try to integrate different aspects in an overall
plan. It would be interesting to look at how this sectoralization can be overcome.
4. The last point relates the importance of implementation of policies in practice. Some
projects, provide a lot of opportunities for young researchers to accompany and support
capacity building in integration projects in practice. This should be done more to counter
one of the big obstacles: the “bureaucracy is the ailment of development”.
1
Working groups 2:
Areas where possible synergies are possible and examples of policies where synergies are
present:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In agroforestry systems there is potential for joint adaptation and mitigation
approaches, within forest and agricultural systems
And in the case of EMBRAPA it is trying to integrated mitigation and adaptation in
traditional agriculture, but also in agroforestry activities
ABC policy: for example, efforts to improve pasture contribute to both mitigation and
adaptation. Other examples come from low carbon agriculture. The ABC probably
provides the best opportunities for pursuing integrated approaches as it explicitly
considers mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and livestock systems, yet explicit
integration of mitigation and adaptation is not develop enough to support
implementation.
Synergies are important in the linkages between forest ecosystems and water cycles:
The link between forest ecosystems and provision and regulation of water is one the key
areas where synergies between mitigation and adaptation are visible, are felt by people,
and should be pursued more actively.
Payments for Environmental Services can support synergies between mitigation and
adaptation. Protection of water sources through reforestation contributes to adaptation
and food security.
The revision of Forest Code reduces the opportunities to pursue synergies, to that extent
that it reduces conservation targets.
Challenges:
1. Lack of effective communication between climate change science and synergies between
scientists and policy makers. Some information is lacking on how to pursue explicit
synergies in policies. There is a need to develop expertise in both mitigation and
adaptation to address linkages; lack of information on adaptation to climate change in
forest and agricultural systems makes it difficult to develop and implement synergistic
plan; knowledge and expertise is particularly lacking at sub-national level.
2. In particular at grassroot level, a main challenge is that to draw attention to climate
change issues such as adaptation and mitigation often requires a major climatic event,
such as a natural disaster, otherwise limited attention is drawn to these issues.
3. Another challenge is that forestry and agricultural systems are dominated by very
different interests. In a way there is an opportunity here for synergies, in the sense that
thinking about synergies might be able to bring discordant interests together.
4. Pursuing synergies requires a lot of additional efforts in policy making and
implementation, which translates in the need for more financial resources and human
capital compared to pursuing separate objectives.
5. In relation to mitigation, it is in fact not easy to identify how mitigation efforts can
contribute to adaptation to climate change.
6. Complexity in a major challenge:
 Particularly at the state and local levels this challenge is very relevant, maybe less so
at federal level. Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation is a complex issue and
requires integration of different sectors that is in part why the Brazilian policies do
not consider these multiple objectives.
 Different needs in terms of gaps in knowledge and challenges: in relation to
mitigation we know the solutions, but implementation remains difficult, while for
adaptation, we know less about the problem itself and possible solutions to improve
coping with climate change impacts and adaptive capacity.
 The complexity and uncertainty of climate change is a barrier to bringing together
different scientific views.
2
Working groups 3:
Challenges to pursuing synergies between mitigation and adaptation. The main challenges relate
to the different nature of mitigation and adaptation also in terms of governance.
Key differences are:
MITIGATION
Availability of substantial funding for
mitigation projects
Mitigation has a clear (relatively simple)
definition
Easier to quantify: measuring carbon emission
reduction is relative simply today
Scale relevant: mainly global and to some
extent national
Different actors involved in mitigation and
adaptation: principal interaction between large
scale actors, and technical questions
ADAPTATION
Very limited funding available, limited
initiative, and very localized initiatives
Adaptation is less well defined as a concept
and is perceived as being very abstract
Very difficult to quantify: Difficult to identify
adaptation indicators
Scale relevant: primarily an issue that relates
to the local level
Different actors involved in mitigation and
adaptation: adaptation involves interaction
with local level actors and people suffering
local impacts. This is also the reason (lack of
voice of these groups) for lack of knowledge
and investment in adaptation
Adaptation policy are incipient and much less
advanced
Objectives of adaptation are multiple and less
clearly defined, it is much more difficult to
achieve a uniquely defined definition of the
concept, together with difficulties of
quantification it is harder to define precise
objectives for policies
There is more limited evidence from studies on
adaptation. More attention on adaptation could
deliver new markets, it incorporates a lot of
potential to generate income, there is a lot of
possibility here to be explored. The question
then why is most of the investment going to
mitigation?
Mitigation policies are quite advanced in Brazil
Objectives and means to achieve mitigation are
largely clear
There is substantial scientific evidence
available from studies on mitigation. Mitigation
however, in fact often means to reduce
economic opportunities, productivity
reduction, or the need to produce in different
ways. There is incongruence in so much
funding going to mitigation and not to
adaptation
Governance:
Mitigation and adaptation are two sides of the same medal, but there is little consensus on how
this evidence can translate in an integrated approach in the current constellation of governance
Arguments for integration:
There is an opportunity in trying to achieve adaptation through mitigation means. Linking
adaptation to mitigation could provide important resources for adaptation.
In countries that are less developed there is very little interest in mitigation, but adaptation is a
high priority, it is well seen as a concept. An integrated approach in these contexts can lead to
increased interest to solve climate change problems.
3