harnessing mitigation adaptation co-benefits in ind cs
TRANSCRIPT
Harnessing mitigation-adaptation co-benefits in INDCs
5th December 2015
Alexandre Meybeck, FAO
Carefull with numbers • Numerous on going analysis on INDCs • Not all countries have included adaptation • Agriculture and LULUCf often treated
differently, in particular in the adaptation part
• Different treatment of agriculture and especially of LULUCF, in mitigation, according to the type of objective
• Either included in global targets (esp for agriculture) or specific actions
Agriculture and LULUCF in INDCs:
some numbers • By 29 November, 156 parties (183 countries) submitted
• 88% of all parties include agriculture (A and/or M): highest percentages in Africa,
N-America, Asia and LAC
• Africa and LAC put more weight on adaptation in agriculture
• Europe & N-Am, mainly mitigation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Agriculture (A and/or M)
Adaptation in agriculture
Mitigation in agriculture
Obs. Figures based on preliminary analyses of all INDCs. Further analyses are being conducted.
Adaptation
• Most vulnerable sectors: water, agriculture, ecosystems
• Most vulnerable areas: arid/semi arid, coastal areas, isolated areas
• Most vulnerable populations: rural, small holders, women, youth, elderly
• Two first priorities: agriculture and water
Adaptation in agriculture/LULUCF
• Of the 122 parties having included adaptation, 113 mention agriculture, and 98 forestry and land use change
• Many parties link climate hazards to productivity losses in agriculture
• Pests, resilient crops, restoration of land, ecosystems
• Forests and land use are often attached to agriculture adaptation through ecosystem-based approaches
• Projected costs of adaptation in INDCs exceed those of mitigation
Highest vulnerability:lowest response capacity
• Most INDCs that include adaptation mention vulnerabilities to climate change and mention agriculture and water as the most affected sectors
• The most vulnerable countries have the lowest economic capacity to respond
• LDCs and SIDs highlight challenges of extreme events; other developing and transition countries emphasize more gradual changes in climate
• 18 parties mention insurance schemes for increasing resilience in the most vulnerable communities
Agriculture and LULUCF mitigation potential
• 108 parties mention mitigation measures in agriculture; 112 in LULUCF
• Agriculture measures mentioned include, e.g. agroforestry, integrated food-energy systems, enteric fermentation, soil management, manure management, rice production
• In LULUCF: afforestation, reforestation, SLM, avoided deforestation, REDD+
• 12 parties state specific explicit GHG reduction in targets in agriculture (10 in LULUCF)
Co-benefits • Because of time constraints and methodological
issues co-benefits are often not thoroughly treated.
• Two types of co-benefits:
– Non climate benefits (development, income, jobs, poverty eradication, ecosystem services…), often not quantified
– Climate co-benefits between adaptation and mitigation
• Agriculture and LULUCF strong in both cases
Adaptation-mitigation co-benefits • Out of the 156 submission, 108 parties intend to set
mitigation actions and 113 parties adaptation actions in agriculture (crops, livestock)
• Some actions can be mentioned in either mitigation or adaptation, with co benefits mentioned or not.
• 33% of parties acknowledge or prioritize actions in agriculture and LULUCF based on their potential M & A co-benefits
• 29 parties mention CSA, especially in Africa, with 9 in adaptation, 7 in mitigation, 7 in both.
Quantification • Agriculture either included in global mitigation
targets or object of specific actions • LULUCF more often a specific mitigation target or
object of specific actions • Particularly for LULUCF, often no quantification of
GHG reductions, because lack of data and/or methodological capacities
• Adaptation in need of quantification tools
• Parties call for capacity development in data (esp. forest inventories mentioned) and monitoring the results
Implementation • Many parties mention concrete actions
and/or strategies, laws, plans • Many parties mention NAPs as a way to
implement their adaptation objectives • Many parties estimate costs • Many developing country parties
distinguish unconditional and conditional parts in their INDCs
Summary of Findings • Agriculture and LULUCF prominent in INDCs in general and
the foremost priority, with water, in adaptation actions
• Agriculture and LULUCF have the strongest potential for co-benefits, both mitigation-adaptation and other, among all sectors
• CSA quite present in INDCs of African countries
• Agriculture and food security prominent in vulnerability analysis
• Mitigation potential of agriculture and LULUCF clearly recognized in INDCs
• Difficulties to quantify some GHG reduction targets (lack of data and/or methodologies)
• Actions contingent on financial and technical support
