Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Harnessing mitigation adaptation co-benefits in ind cs

444 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Presentation by Alexandre Meybeck (FAO) at the Paris COP21 ICRAF side event titled Implementing INDC in data and tool scarce countries: steps to success in Africa

Publicado en: Medio ambiente
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Harnessing mitigation adaptation co-benefits in ind cs

  1. 1. Harnessing mitigation-adaptation co-benefits in INDCs 5th December 2015 Alexandre Meybeck, FAO
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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.
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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)
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Thank you ! alexandre.meybeck@fao.org

×