The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

! • Many carbon mitigation funds have been established, but most do not support AFOLU activities in SSA. • National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) have been developed by most African countries, but implementation has been limited by funding and other constraints. Several adaptation funds have been established, but they are small compared to the total need, and access to these funds in SSA has been very limited so far. • Implementation of National Action Programmes of the UNCCD has also been limited by funding constraints and other factors. NEPAD’s CAADP and TerrAfrica are working in partnership to promote upscaling of SLM in Africa, with increasing focus on climate change mitigation and adaption. TerrAfrica has mobilized $150 million in funds that are expected to leverage an additional $1 billion to support this goal. CAADP and TerrAfrica are working with African governments to develop and support Country Strategic Investment Frameworks (CSIFs) for SLM. Integrating strategies and programs to promote SLM and address climate change with each other and with national development strategies and policies is a major challenge. Addressing this challenge is a major emphasis of the CSIFs. There are opportunities to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation through SLM in SSA through existing mechanisms. In the present context, the opportunities include increased use of the CDM to finance A/R projects; increased use of voluntary carbon markets and carbon mitigation funds to test and demonstrate methodologies for a wider range of AFOLU activities; increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities prioritized by African governments; increased funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation through programs promoting SLM in Africa; and increased integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation activities, including SLM, into development strategies of African governments and donors. Many challenges and constraints may prevent realization of these opportunities. The main constraints to expanded use of the CDM to support SLM in the present framework include CDM eligibility restrictions; high transactions costs of registering and certifying CDM projects; low prices for certified emissions reductions (CERs), especially for A/R projects; long time lags in achieving CERs; uncertainty about the benefits of projects and the future of the CDM; and land ! "#!
! tenure insecurity in many African contexts. These constraints are exacerbated by the limited technical, financial and organizational capacities of key actors in SSA. Many of the same constraints apply to supporting AFOLU investments through voluntary and other compliance carbon markets, although to a lesser degree in some cases. Constraints to increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities for climate adaptation include the limited size of these funds; lack of coordination among key government ministries; lack of technical and human capacity to implement adaptation activities; and others. Major new opportunities may arise as a result of development of a cap and trade system in the United States and inclusion of REDD and a broader set of AFOLU activities in the post Kyoto climate framework. Prospects for a U.S. cap and trade system have substantially improved as a result of the election of 2008, although passage of such a system or U.S. ratification of a post Kyoto treaty is by no means assured. The 2007 Bali Plan of Action of the UNFCCC urges consideration of REDD payments in the post-Kyoto framework, and many proposals for such schemes have been tabled by Parties to the convention and others. Proposals for expanding the eligible AFOLU activities in the post-Kyoto framework are also being suggested, although the UNFCCC has not taken a formal decision to consider those. There are many uncertainties, challenges and constraints to realizing these new opportunities as well. Challenges to U.S. participation in the global carbon market include the political challenge of achieving ratification of a post-Kyoto treaty; concerns about the effectiveness and risks of emissions reductions purchased from developing countries; and possible opposition by U.S. lobby groups to offset payments to foreign land users. Challenges to REDD payments include the technical difficulties and costs of defining baselines and assuring additionality; concerns about leakages; potential adverse incentives caused by such payments; concerns about the fairness of paying countries with a poor record of protecting forests and not paying those that have protected their forests; possible negative impacts on poor people, especially where they have insecure land and forest tenure; and concerns about flooding the carbon market with cheap offsets. Many of the same challenges will affect payments for AFOLU activities. Many of these concerns are likely to be less problematic than for REDD payments, except the size of transaction costs relative to the value of payments per hectare. Given the low payments per hectare possible for many AFOLU activities, projects will need to ! #!
Page 1 and 2: Land&Climate The Role of Sustainabl
Page 3 and 4: PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Climate
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 7 and 8: List of Figures Figure 2-1. Number
Page 9 and 10: ICRISAT IGAD IPCC ISDR JI lCER LDCF
Page 11 and 12: ! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Coping with cli
Page 13: ! organic carbon. SLM represents a
Page 17 and 18: ! To achieve success in the first t
Page 19 and 20: ! degradation, soil and biomass car
Page 21 and 22: ! 2. The Challenge of Climate Varia
Page 23 and 24: ! production and food security for
Page 25 and 26: ! production in Africa and other re
Page 27 and 28: ! Ethiopia consider soil and water
Page 29 and 30: ! the region is degraded to such an
Page 31 and 32: ! In terms of affected area, UNEP (
Page 33 and 34: ! techniques, like bunding (e.g. Ke
Page 35 and 36: ! flooding in sloping lands and pro
Page 37 and 38: ! Reducing Emissions from Deforesta
Page 39 and 40: ! organic carbon. Principles of div
Page 41 and 42: ! A first major impact in Africa wo
Page 43 and 44: ! the practices and qualitatively a
Page 45 and 46: ! o Several adaptation funds have b
Page 47 and 48: ! feeding practices), improved fert
Page 49 and 50: ! billion for the CTF and $2.0 bill
Page 51 and 52: ! require social and environment be
Page 53 and 54: ! focus on financing CDM and/or JI
Page 55 and 56: ! nations have ratified (or adopted
Page 57 and 58: ! vulnerability assessment, develop
Page 59 and 60: ! The TerrAfrica partnership is pla
Page 61 and 62: ! o increased use of voluntary carb
Page 63 and 64: ! • increased integration of clim
Page 65 and 66:
! allowances and offsets are within
Page 67 and 68:
! greater financial resources than
Page 69 and 70:
! activities (these challenges are
Page 71 and 72:
! CER can be carried over to subseq
Page 73 and 74:
! However, the limited extent of su
Page 75 and 76:
! doubts about the verifiability an
Page 77 and 78:
! REDD payments also could have neg
Page 79 and 80:
! VCS, rather than trying to measur
Page 81 and 82:
! Applied research and knowledge ma
Page 83 and 84:
! important to address, so that the
Page 85 and 86:
! As shown earlier in this report,
Page 87 and 88:
! non-A/R projects (a lower thresho
Page 89 and 90:
! countries, including national pov
Page 91 and 92:
! and developing programs and proje
Page 93 and 94:
! • Land degradation increases th
Page 95 and 96:
! • Constraints to increased use
Page 97 and 98:
! and TerrAfrica process to develop
Page 99 and 100:
! Table 2-2. Projected mean tempera
Page 101 and 102:
! Table 2-5. Severe environmental c
Page 103 and 104:
! Table 3-2. Importance of Causes o
Page 105 and 106:
! Practice Adaptation aspects Mitig
Page 107 and 108:
! Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volume
Page 109 and 110:
! Table 4-3. Summary of Progress du
Page 111 and 112:
! Figure 2-3. Projected increases i
Page 113 and 114:
! Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates
Page 115 and 116:
! Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emissi
Page 117 and 118:
! Figure 4-2. Potential savings by
Page 119 and 120:
! References ! Ambrosi, P. 2009. No
Page 121 and 122:
! Dregne, H. and M. Kassas. 1991. A
Page 123 and 124:
! Kruseman, G., Ruben, R. and G. Te
Page 125 and 126:
! Sustainable Land Management in th
Page 127:
! United States Government Accounta
show all

The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?