Global Climate Change Alliance:

Informing the International Climate Debate

From forests to sustainable land management: creating synergies between adaptation and mitigation

Peter Wehrheim,Head of Unit, Climate Finance and Deforestation,

DG CLIMA

Content:

• State of Play: Testing REDD+ at scale

2015-2020

• What about adaptation in REDD+?

• Looking forward: incentivizing sustainable

land management post 2020

Forests, forest people … and forest carbon face risks

By 2050 (i.e. +/- one forest generation), Earth might well be 2°°°°Cwarmer, yet it will need to produce 60%-100% more calories for

human consumption, with less fossil fuels, fewer energy-intensive

chemicals and more frequent climate extremes, especially in the

tropics. Forward looking land management is needed.

Large scale forest dieback could be expected as soon as 2025 due

to anthropogenic climate change, triggering more emissions

(negative carbon feedback) and harmful repercussions for water,

energy, food, biodiversity, soils, commodity markets and

livelihoods.

Fire prevention, climate smart landscapes, and adaptative

management of forest cover (promoting diversity in tree species

and stand structure) are key to contain climate change rate and

magnitude in viable ranges.

The REDD+ concept

REDD+: developed countries provide financial support to developing

ones for demonstrated reduced emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation, as measured against a pre-defined “reference level”.

Issues under negotiation include the following:

• the establishment of forest (emission) reference levels;

• modalities for national forest monitoring systems;

• modalities for REDD+ monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV);

Barriers to more speedy implementation:

• Delays in the finalisation of the REDD+ “methodological package”

• Uncertainty of data on e.g. forest cover, forest carbon stocks

• Poor institutional framework e.g. with regard to forest

governance, land use planning and management, land tenure

security

ODA

REDD+, within and outside the UNFCCC process

Bali AP

Post 2020Climate regime:

Role of the land sector?ADP

KP: LULUCF

LCA: REDD+

ReviewProtocolwith legal

force

Phase 1

Readiness

Phase 2

Capacity Building

& Demonstration

Phase 3

Full Implementation

2007 2011 2015 2020

CDMA/R

WB's

BioCF

WB's

FCPFReadiness

UNREDD

WB's FCPF CarbonFund

FIPEU

REDD

GCF

Markets?

Yet REDD+ is primarilya mitigation mechanism in the making

National REDD+ level

• Strategy

• MRV

• Reference Lvl

• Safeguards/NCB

• Fund(s)?

• Registry/Buffers?

COP Guidance

International Climate Finance

• Public/Private• Market/Non Market?• Mitigation/ Joint M&A?

TechnicalAssessment

+International Consultation and Analysis

Bilateral or multilateral

deliveryinstitutions,

including GEF and GCF

Global

Info

Hub

Results BasedPayments

i.e. €/tCO2

InfoInfo

Questions remain on REDD+

fate, from "sellers" and "buyers":

From possible REDD+

contributors

From possible REDD+

recipients

Are REDD+ Emission Reductions (ER)

real (uncertainty on data), lasting

(risk of reversals) ? Aren't forest

emissions not merely displaced (risk

of leakage)?

Does REDD+ money trigger

lasting/transformational changes, is

it effective and efficient compared

to other mitigation options?

How much REDD+ money will be

available? How long and for how

much carbon?

How will decisions be made:

how/when will "results" be

assessed and paid for?

Will LDCs and "forest guardians"

(i.e. high forest / low deforestation

countries) benefit as well?

REDD+ presents both new risks and new opportunities for adaptation in forests and crops

RISKS OPPORTUNITIESCIFOR study shows conditions

imposed by early REDD+ projects had

major, possibly negative "implications

for livelihood activities, which may

ultimately affect food security and

income in the village", thus increasing

the risk of project abandonment,

reversal of previously credited

emission reductions and

maladaptation.

• Mixed cropping, new and improved crop

varieties, agro-ecology and agroforestry.

• New income-generating activities

ranging from forest monitoring to better

collection and marketing of forest fruits,

to beekeeping, fish farming and

mushroom growing.

• Better information, planning, training,

financing and participative governance

in land activities.

• Private sector involvment (greener

supply chains, improved resilience, etc)

REDD+ recognizes the role and importance of Adaptation as one of the

"Non Carbon Benefits (NCB)"

Since Cancun (2010) Since Durban (2011)"National REDD+ strategies should address the

drivers of deforestation, land tenure, forest

governance, gender considerations, social and

environmental safeguards and the effective

participation of relevant stakeholders, including

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities"

"The COP recognizes REDD+

activities can promote poverty

alleviation, biodiversity benefits,

ecosystem resilience and the

linkages between adaptation and

mitigation"

… but does not include any mechanism to assess and incentivize them (yet?).

There is a large overlap between risk

reduction strategies and adaptation

1. Lower uncertainty on the actual volume and causes of emission reductions (���� good forest/drivers information, addressing national drivers, institutional capacity, accountability, securing land rights, preventing conflicts)

2. Lower risk of risk of reversal (���� resilience and sustainability, i.e. improving livelihoods, governance, ES services and biodiversity)

3. Lower risk of leakage (���� food/energy security, international drivers, broad participation)

Conclusions• Urgent need to scale up performance based payments and

to test policy approaches for REDD+ in order to generate

lessons for 2020-2030-2050

• Sustainable land management provides opportunities for

mitigation, adaptation, livelihood and biodiversity benefits. It

can and should benefit more from REDD+ results based

payments

• Factoring risks into REDD+ incentives would modify the

allocation of REDD+ Results Based Payments, improve

REDD+ credibility and create larger financing opportunities

for mitigation and adaptation in the land-use sectors

QuestionsCountry experience on promoting synergies between

adaptation, mitigation in the fields of forestry and sustainable

land management: What are the challenges? How is the country

addressing them? What have been the results to date? Could

REDD+ help or hinder efforts?

Recommendations to (EU) climate change negotiators and the

international development community to make climate change

actions more effective: E.g. Could REDD+, and agriculture help

bridging the divide between the global mitigation and adaptation

agendas?

Contact: Michael.Bucki@ec.europa.eu; or

Peter.Wehrheim@ec.europa.eu

"Country

System"

Country

Law 1

Country

Law 2

Country

Institution

Country

Instrument

REDD+, NCB,

Risks

& Safeguards

Adaptation

in forests

Adaptation in

agriculture

Assessing risks, building trust, learning from FLEGT: the legality matrix

Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering could tweak REDD+ Results Based Payments towards

sustainability

Emission Reductions

CarbonBuffer(s)

ResultsBased

Payments

Reductions

CancelEmission

Reductions

RA

RA

REDD+ recognizes the role and importance of Adaptation as one of the

"Non Carbon Benefits (NCB)"

Since Cancun (2010) Since Durban (2011)"National REDD+ strategies should address the

drivers of deforestation, land tenure, forest

governance, gender considerations, social and

environmental safeguards and the effective

participation of relevant stakeholders, including

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities"

"The COP recognizes REDD+

activities can promote poverty

alleviation, biodiversity benefits,

ecosystem resilience and the

linkages between adaptation and

mitigation"

… but does not include any mechanism to assess and incentivize them (yet?).

There is a large overlap between risk

reduction strategies and adaptation

1. Lower uncertainty on the actual volume and causes of emission reductions (���� good forest/drivers information, addressing national drivers, institutional capacity, accountability, securing land rights, preventing conflicts)

2. Lower risk of risk of reversal (���� resilience and sustainability, i.e. improving livelihoods, governance, ES services and biodiversity)

3. Lower risk of leakage (���� food/energy security, international drivers, broad participation)

"Country

System"

Country

Law 1

Country

Law 2

Country

Institution

Country

Instrument

REDD+, NCB,

Risks

& Safeguards

Adaptation

in forests

Adaptation in

agriculture

Assessing risks, building trust, learning from FLEGT: the legality matrix

Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering could tweak REDD+ RBP towards sustainability

Emission Reductions

CarbonBuffer(s)

ResultsBased

PaymentsCancel

ER

RA

RA

Conclusions• Urgent need to scale up action, participation and

performance based payments and to test policy approaches

for REDD+ in order to generate lessons for 2020-2030-2050

• Sustainable land management provides opportunities for

mitigation, adaptation, livelihood and biodiversity benefits. It

can and should benefit more from REDD+ results based

payments (RBP)

• Factoring risks in REDD+ incentives would modify the

allocation of REDD+ RBP to countries and stakeholders,

while improving REDD+ credibility and creating larger

financing opportunities for mitigation and adaptation in the

land-use sectors

QuestionsCountry experience on promoting synergies between

adaptation, mitigation and rural development: What are the

challenges? How is the country addressing them? What have

been the results to date? Could REDD+ help or hinder efforts?

Recommendations to (EU) climate change negotiators and

the international development community to make climate

change actions more effective: E.g. Could REDD+, and

agriculture help bridging the divide between the global

mitigation and adaptation agendas?

Contact: Peter.Wehrheim@ec.europa.eu