* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Forest, mitigation and adaptation: Exploring evidence, synergies
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Stern Review wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
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