Finding the sweet spot: How to scale up and finance ecosystem-based adaptation

Banjul, The Gambia. Used under Creative Commons license. Photo credit: Roel van Deursen
Banjul, The Gambia. Used under Creative Commons license. Photo credit: Roel van Deursen.

By Julie Mollins, Forests News (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Protecting and restoring landscapes and building sustainable agroforestry systems is a powerful way to boost resilience to climate change and extreme weather events while supporting billions of livelihoods.

Incorporated into the international framework on climate change in 2011 at COP17, adaptation became a specific area of focus at the U.N. COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, where a work program was established to define specific global goals pertaining to it.

At the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), scientists are working on developing robust ecosystem-based adaptation strategies.

They must be part of broad, systems-wide approaches integrated into economic, political and social strategies, said Patrick Worms, senior science policy advisor at CIFOR-ICRAF, who led a side event discussion at COP26.

“The solution is thus not rocket science, but something much harder: the ability of our institutional systems to work across silos to jointly manage this fragile planet of ours.”

Patrick Worms, senior science policy advisor at CIFOR-ICRAF

“We need to embed ecosystem adaptation – just like we need to embed mitigation – in the way the economy works, in the way government works, in the way that everything works, as we try to arrest carbon buildup, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss,” Worms said.

Lalisa Duguma, a scientist in the CIFOR-ICRAF Sustainable Landscapes and Integrated Climate Actions team, is working on a large-scale ecosystem-based adaptation project, funded by the multi-billion-dollar Green Climate Fund (GCF) which aims to promote the climate-resilience of rural communities in Gambia.

One difficulty working in African countries is that data on climate is scarce and inconsistent, which makes it a challenge to determine the extent of interventions required.

“Most is based on global data sets downscaled to the local context, but in this downscaling process, a lot of contextual realities are missing, which could inform the design process much better,” Duguma said.

Other challenges involve a lack of human resources and institutional capacity to implement adaptation actions, resource mismatches and how to measure the impact of interventions.

“In most ongoing adaptation actions, there is no clear strategy for scaling up – how scaling should go forward,” he said.

To address some of the challenges around capacity and infrastructure in Gambia, a baseline for tree cover was established, leading to investments into nine central nurseries and 100 million seedlings a year, said Malanding Jaiteh, who manages the $20 million, six-year forest restoration project on behalf of the country’s Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources.

Another challenge is livestock grazing which can compromise restoration efforts, making it difficult to plan and establish. Grazing is free range in Gambia, and even takes on an international dimension as nomadic herders at times enter the country from Senegal.

“Transmigration presents serious challenges, especially to our newly established seedlings or newly established planting areas — farmers may be planting in the agricultural lands, but as soon as they are gone, or two years later, you know, some other population can come in and start destroying them,” Jaiteh said.

Fires are also damaging and demand a lot of resources, requiring a long term fire management system, he said.

In India’s state of Maharashtra, where monocropping of cotton and sugarcane have left farmers vulnerable to climate change, a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral approach is proving effective, said Arjuna Srinidhi, associate thematic lead of climate change adaptation at the Watershed Organization Trust.

More than 80 percent of the state consists of rainfed drylands, where drought frequency has increased sevenfold over the past 50 years, Srinidhi said. Flooding is also a problem and due to erratic weather, adding to the vulnerability of farmers. Over 40 percent of the land is degraded, and groundwater levels are falling rapidly by 1 to 2 meters every year. More than three quarters of the farmers are smallholders with less than 2 hectares of land, so their adaptive capacities are limited, he said.

Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation strategies into government policies and programs is key, but we also learned that watershed development was vital.

“This collaborative process resulted in an evidence-based and demand-driven roadmap for upscaling,” Srinidhi said. “There were several lessons that we learned over the past couple of years, the unanimous acceptance of a roadmap from diverse stakeholders — generating a buy-in from early stages of the project was crucial.”

Serah Kiragu-Wissler, a research associate at TMG Think Tank for Sustainability, observed that capacity-building and extension services are essential. Farmers she worked with said they need ongoing support for adaptation efforts. Land tenure rights are also critical for soil protection, Kiragu-Wissler said, citing examples from Burkina Faso and Kenya.

“Farmers cannot develop much interest in protecting soils if they have no security to the tenure to the land that they are working on,” she said. “They clear their land this season they plant and next season they are not actually there. So, what will motivate them to carry loads of manure from the village to the fields if they cannot be assured that it will be there for you know, two, three, four seasons?”

By implementing a community-led institution for managing how land is used, guidelines were introduced which helped secure access to land for women and youth. Now recognized by the local government, this approach is under consideration by other jurisdictions, she said.

Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash
Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

Finding finance

Ensuring adequate financing for ecosystem-based adaptation projects is also a challenge, particularly due to its innovative aspects and the fact that so many proposals are unproven.

“Banks, investors and insurance need to make better decisions by assessing the impacts and dependencies on nature and materiality around climate risks,” said Namita Vikas, managing director of auctusESG, a Mumbai-based financial advisory firm.  “By deploying capital goods, and surveys, given the effectiveness of such solutions. Adaptation, finance is about going beyond business as usual and incorporating the possible effects of climate change into the design of an activity.”

Andreas Reumann, who works for the GCF, which was established under U.N. climate talks to help poor countries pursue clean growth and adapt to global warming, is a specialist in designing monitoring systems that measure for outcomes.

The fund conducted a global evidence review on adaptation and forest activities with partners, which helped reveal gaps in understanding what works in a specific context.

From there, a two-dimensional matrix was created, which illustrated an imbalance regarding the geographical distribution of information. It also highlighted the question of enabling environments – and how to engage the policy arena, which is a subject that has not yet been researched, Reumann said.

“We as evaluators are thinking about and addressing these issues,” he added. “It requires more knowledge sharing, stronger evidence, and more collaboration on the ground to truly understand what matters.”

Creating data sets has proven to be effective, said Nitin Pandit, director of the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment. By identifying 13 million hectares of land, with 100 million households, just outside the protected areas in peninsular India, and working with partners, accumulated data are supplied to financiers.

“So, they know that there is an upside in this because there is a scale that we are already planning in from day one,” Pandit said, sharing an image of large-scale elephants, which are made by artisans from lantana wood, an invasive species. Sold at a high price, the elephants were displayed outside Queen Elizabeth’s Buckingham Palace in London.

“The type of value addition that we can do by using the resources available must add an incentive for people to actually be engaged in adaptation, and therefore demand the kind of finance that is needed to support that kind of work,” he said.

For adaptation initiatives to be effective, it is vital to build dialogue processes and co-generate of the evidence base with government ministries, said Jessica Troni, senior programme officer responsible for the U.N. Environment Programme – Global Environment Facility Climate Change Adaptation portfolio. Budgets and systems thinking must be incorporated to determine how project targets can be mainstreamed into national development plans.

“Mainstreaming has to mean that every single chapter in your national development plan is geared towards building resilience to adaptation – you can then create budgets support for mechanisms that are able to absorb larger investment flows,” Troni said.

Promises to increase the coffers for adaptation ambitions were made at COP26 in an effort catch up with a shortfall in the $100 billion a year by 2020 pledged at COP17 amid efforts to avert, minimize and address loss and damage already occurring from climate change.

“The beautiful thing is that it’s extraordinarily hard to do land-based mitigation without, at the same time, boosting that land’s ability to adapt to climate change, its biodiversity or its ability to provide a range of nutritious foods and other products,” Worms said.

“The solution is thus not rocket science, but something much harder: the ability of our institutional systems to work across silos to jointly manage this fragile planet of ours.”

Products tied to legal and illegal deforestation may be banned in the European Union

Photo by Jace & Afsoon on Unsplash
Photo by Jace & Afsoon on Unsplash

By Maxwell Radwin, Mongabay (CC BY-ND 4.0).

  • Proposed legislation in the European Union would require suppliers to prove their products haven’t contributed to legal or illegal deforestation.

  • The law would focus on the industries with some of the most egregious environmental track records, including soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa and coffee, as well as leather, chocolate and furniture.

  • Conservation groups have expressed satisfaction with the first-of-its kind legislation but are concerned about the lack of protections for Indigenous peoples, as well as carbon-rich ecosystems like savannas, wetlands and peatlands.

The European Union is considering an ambitious new proposal that would regulate imports of products linked to global forest loss.

The law would require suppliers to prove their products haven’t contributed to deforestation, whether legal or illegal. If passed, it would force producers to raise their environmental standards or risk losing out on a market of 27 countries and 450 million people.

“Europe is finally taking steps against the deforestation that it drives, and it is doing it not by placing the burden on consumers, but on the big companies that produce these products,” Nico Muzi, Europe director of environmental advocacy group Mighty Earth, told Mongabay. “If we want change, we need to regulate the industries that cause deforestation.”

The proposal, introduced by the European Commission earlier this week, gives special focus to products with some of the most egregious environmental track records, including soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa and coffee, as well as leather, chocolate and furniture. Should the proposal pass, importers will have to meet stricter traceability measures, such as sharing geographic coordinates of where their products originated.

It also establishes a benchmarking system to determine which countries are the most at risk of deforestation, and pledges 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) to help them develop more sustainable forest management programs.

The EU predicts the proposal will cut at least 31.9 million metric tons of annual carbon emissions and save around 3.2 billion euros ($3.6 billion).

“We must protect biodiversity and fight climate change not only in the EU, but globally, and our consumption should not contribute to global deforestation, which is a major cause of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions,” said Virginijus Sinkevičius, the European commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries.

Between 1990 and 2020, an estimated 420 million trees were lost to deforestation worldwide, according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Agriculture is responsible for nearly 90% of that, with cattle ranching being the biggest contributor.

Globally, Europe is the second-largest importer of products associated with deforestation, according to a 2021 WWF report. In recent years, trade to the region has led to around 16% of global forest loss.

A herd of cattle on a ranch in Colombia. Image by Rhett Butler, Mongabay.com
A herd of cattle on a ranch in Colombia. Image by Rhett Butler, Mongabay.com

The deforestation proposal is part of a package of recently announced environmental initiatives that include more rigorous regulations for waste and waste trafficking, as well as improved soil protections to increase carbon storage in agricultural areas, fight desertification and restore degraded land, the European Commission said in a statement.

“If we expect more ambitious climate and environmental policies from partners, we should stop exporting pollution and supporting deforestation ourselves,” Sinkevičius said, adding, “With these proposals, we are taking our responsibility and walking the talk by lowering our global impact on pollution and biodiversity loss.”

Other countries, coming out of the U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, have announced similar plans to clean up supply chains. Last week, the U.K. passed a law banning products linked to illegal deforestation. In October, U.S. lawmakers introduced a bill that holds importers accountable for forest loss.

However, unlike the European proposal, neither of those measures targets legal drivers of deforestation.

Loopholes and missed opportunities

While the EU’s proposal takes ambitious steps to protect forests, it falls short when it comes to other types of carbon-rich ecosystems, some environmental groups pointed out. For example, the proposal’s current language would exclude protection of many savannas, wetlands and peatlands.

In addition to storing massive amounts of carbon, these ecosystems prevent soil erosion and flooding, and help provide clean drinking water.

“There’s simply no need to destroy native ecosystems to make room for commercial crops,” Mighty Earth’s Muzi said. “There are more than 1 billion acres [400 million hectares] of previously degraded land where all future agricultural needs can easily be met without threatening the world’s last ecosystems.”

Mongabay has reported extensively on the rapid disappearance of wetlands and peatlands due to palm oiltimber and other agricultural commodities, as well as governments’ continued omission of these landscapes from legislation.

The EU’s proposal also fails to include special protections for Indigenous communities, which often serve as stewards of the environment. Instead, it relies on the local laws of the exporting countries despite the fact they’re often weak or ignored.

Muzi said he expects officials to close this loophole by including international human rights standards in the proposal’s language. And because proposals by the European Commission are often heavily revised, he expects many of the other loopholes to be addressed, too.

“Usually, Europe sets the standard for environmental regulations,” he said. “It is often at the forefront. We expect other regions will follow.”

Fight against fossil fuels gains new allies at COP26

Fossil fuels have barely been mentioned in previous climate talks. COP26 has seen a shift, and new movements are forming.

By Catherine Early, The Ecologist (CC BY-ND 4.0).

A fight for the future of fossil fuels is underway at COP26 in Glasgow. On one side, the fossil fuel industry, whose lobbyists have been found to be more numerous than any single country’s delegates.

On the other, progressive countries vowing to phase out oil and gas, and campaigners urging for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

Draft texts of the final deal at Glasgow unveiled in the past couple of days have been interfered with by the hands of fossil fuel interests, who have “watered it down with weasel words,” said Cat Abreu, founder and executive of Canadian climate advisors Destination Zero.

Oil and gas

The first draft text released on Thursday morning called for governments to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”, but this was amended in the second draft text to “accelerating the phaseout of unabated coal power and of inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels”.

This language has been used before, Abreu said, pointing to the example of the G20 group of nations, who pledged to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but still have not done so.

“’Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies’ means nothing, and we’ve seen no progress on eliminating those subsidies since we’ve had that language,” she added.

Abreu noted that UN climate talks had never explicitly focused on fossil fuels up till now. “It’s as if we set up a system to deal with a pandemic and never mentioned what caused the virus!” she said.

However, other developments at COP26 have struck a blow at fossil fuels. On Thursday, Denmark and Costa Rica launched the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – the first time governments have led a move away from oil and gas production.

Unabated

France, Greenland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales and Quebec have joined the founder countries to commit to an end date for their oil and gas exploration and extraction, and curtail new licensing of oil and gas production. New Zealand and California have also pledged to take steps such as subsidy reform.

Though noticeably lacking large gas producers such as Russia and COP26 host the UK, climate campaigners were jubilant, calling it a gamechanger. “The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is a turning point. For far too long, climate negotiations have ignored the basic reality that keeping 1.5°C alive requires an equitable global plan to keep fossil fuels in the ground,” said Romain Ioualalen, global policy campaign manager at Oil Change International.

Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction. 

Speaking at the launch of BOGA at COP26, Danish climate minister Dan Jørgensen stressed that the launch was just the first step, and that it was urging other countries to join, with new signatories expected in the coming days. He also spoke of the need for a just transition, with retraining to be offered to workers in the sector.

The announcement on oil and gas followed a flurry of announcements at COP26 last week targeted at coal power. These included at least 23 new countries committing to phase out existing coal power, including Vietnam and Poland, who also committed to building no new coal plants.

Some 25 countries have signed up to ending international government funding for unabated fossil fuel energy by the end of 2022. Nearly 30 new countries signed up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, including Chile and Singapore, bringing the total membership to 188 countries, sub-national governments and businesses.

Consumption

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published on Friday found that pledges made at and in the run-up to COP26 have had an “unprecedentedly large and direct” impact on coal-fired power generation. This includes 370 more coal plants generating 290GW given a close-by date, the likely cancellation of 90 new coal power projects (totalling 88GW); and a further 130 new projects totally 165GW called into question.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at CREA pointed out that 95% of the world’s coal power plants are now covered by carbon neutrality targets, which cannot be met without closing essentially all of the coal fired power plants.

However, Abreu pointed out that some governments had signed these initiatives while continuing to pour millions of dollars into coal power in their own countries. A report published November 13, 2021 by a group of NGOs including Stand.earth and Greenpeace pointed out that the UK, US, Canada, Norway and Australia are all planning to approve and subsidise new fossil fuel projects, undermining their recent claims of leadership in addressing the climate crisis.

Despite their net zero targets and climate pledges these five nations alone have provided over $150 billion in public support for the fossil fuel production and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, the report found. This level of support to fossil fuel production is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery ($147 billion).

Protagonists

During COP26, the European Commission proposed plans to subsidise new fossil gas pipelines, terminals and storage facilities which could import gas that would emit more carbon than Austria and Denmark combined, according to analysis by Global Witness.

Meanwhile, youth activists Fridays for the Future have called for governments to sign a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, joining a movement that now includes more than 120 nationally-elected parliamentarians from 25 countries including Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan, more than 2000 scientists, over 700 civil society organisations and indigenous peoples.

Fossil fuel production must decline by roughly 50% by 2030 to keep average global temperature rise within 1.5C from pre-industrial times, according to a report by the UN Environment Programme, while the International Energy Agency has said that expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with the target.

The campaign is based on other global campaigns including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Anti-personnel Landmine Convention and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, all of which provide a model towards a treaty to abandon fossil fuels, its protagonists believe.

Burning

The treaty proposed by campaigners would bring about an immediate end to the expansion of all new coal, oil and gas production; a fair phase out of existing fossil fuel production and a just transition for workers and communities dependent on jobs in the industry so that they can diversify their economies.

A letter signed by young people from 20 countries in support of the treaty complained that their participation in climate conferences had been tokenised, while that of fossil fuel interests had been supported.

Speaking at a press conference with Fridays for the Future at COP26, Brenna Two Bears said: “Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction.

“We are doing this because of the wilful ignorance of our leaders, and their predominant fixation on profit and economic growth. Young people are not just inheriting a burning, flooding, melting planet, we are already living in it,” she said.


Catherine Early is chief reporter for The Ecologist and a freelance environmental journalist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.