Suchergebnisse

Context and framing of the UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2021 The sixth edition of the UNEP Adaptation Gap Report (AGR2021) has been produced in the second year of the global COVID-19 pandemic. While encouraging trends in tackling the pandemic are emerging, including the unprecedented development and roll-out of highly effective vaccines in many industrialized countries, the COVID-19 crisis continues to create severe human health challenges, economic turmoil and recurring restrictions on daily life in most parts of the world. The pandemic's impact on global climate change adaptation processes is increasingly visible through direct effects on adaptation planning and constraints on available finance. Climate impacts also tend to be more severe in vulnerable developing economies, many of which are also among the worst affected by COVID-19. At the same time, rescue and recovery initiatives designed to kick start economies in the wake of the pandemic offer a unique opportunity to secure a green recovery by mainstreaming adaptation into public financing streams worth trillions of dollars, dwarfing the sums otherwise dedicated to adaptation. Furthermore, climate change and the pandemic share some striking similarities: like the pandemic, the climate change crisis is a systemic problem that requires coordinated global, national and local responses. Many of the lessons learned from handling the pandemic have the potential to serve as examples of how to improve climate adaptation planning and financing. Meanwhile, climate change continues its unrelenting path towards a warmer future. As the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in August 2021, starkly documents, some impacts are now irreversible. Many parts of the world have experienced unprecedented climate impacts this year, such as the heat dome and rampant wildfires in the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America and Canada; severe flooding in Western Europe, eastern parts of the United States of America, the province of Henan in China, and the state of Maharashtra in India; and imminent hunger after continued droughts in Madagascar. The assessment report also documents how, even under the most optimistic emissions mitigation scenarios where net-zero is reached by around 2050, global warming will continue in the short to medium term, potentially levelling off at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. All this makes adaptation an increasingly urgent global imperative. At the political level, international climate efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) continue, despite the postponement of the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 26), which was put back from November 2020 to November 2021. COP 26 will have a strong focus on adaptation issues and will see consultations and work proceed towards the first Global Stocktake in 2023, including the submission of new and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). AGR2021 provides an update on current actions and the emerging results of regional-level to national-level adaptation planning, finance and implementation worldwide (figure ES.1). All three elements are critical for tracking and assessing progress towards the global goal on adaptation. AGR2021 also expands and strengthens the assessment of future adaptation outcomes, in particular through the inclusion of qualitative expert judgements. In view of the ongoing pandemic, the report provides an in-depth assessment of the emerging consequences of COVID-19 in relation to adaptation planning and finance and highlights the lessons and opportunities for future adaptation efforts through economic growth and climate resilience as part of a green recovery. Status and progress of global adaptation planning, finance and implementation PLANNING Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change adaptation is becoming increasingly embedded in policy and planning across the world. National-level adaptation planning processes remain a critical element in the global response to the impacts of climate change, as underscored by the Paris Agreement. While early evidence suggests that some National Adaptation Plan (NAP) development processes have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among least developed countries, progress is still being made on national adaptation planning agendas. Around 79 per cent of all countries have now adopted at least one national-level adaptation planning instrument (for example, a plan, strategy, policy or law). This is an increase of 7 per cent since 2020 (figure ES.1). Furthermore, 9 per cent of countries that do not currently have such an instrument in place are in the process of developing one (no change since 2020). At least 65 per cent of countries have one or more sectoral plans in place and at least 26 per cent have one or more subnational planning instruments.

The Adaptation Gap Report AGR2021 builds on the framing first introduced in the 2020 edition of the report to further advance knowledge on adaptation progress around the world. It focuses on adaptation progress at the global and national scales, relying primarily on publications from national governments (for example, documents submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] process). It has also expanded the sources of information to include recent peer-reviewed scientific literature and reports by multilateral organizations and think tanks. This chapter frames the report both in terms of the climate risk context within which adaptation is taking place (section 2.2) and the conceptual and methodological approach used to understand adaptation progress (section 2.3).

Soil genesis and landscape evolution along a toposequense of Rio Araguari, Central Brazil..........

The GHG (greenhouse gas) mitigation potential from the agricultural sector is set to increase in coming decades. Much of the agricultural mitigation potential lies in developing countries where systems are dominated by smallholder farmers. There is therefore an opportunity for smallholders not only to gain environmental benefits from carbon friendly practices, but also to receive much needed financial input, either directly from carbon financing, or from development agencies looking to support carbon friendly activities. However, the problem remains of how to quantify carbon gains from mitigation activities carried out by smallholder farmers. Landscape-scale quantification enables farmers to pool resources and expertise, which can put participation in carbon markets and access to other funding sources, within their reach. Therefore, funding agencies, governments and NGOs are increasingly recognizing the benefits of taking a landscape approach to GHG quantification. This paper gives an overview of approaches that have been taken to date for landscape-scale GHG quantification, covering both measurement and modelling and the reliance of one upon the other. The discussion covers ground-based measurement approaches for carbon stock changes in biomass and soils, methods for measuring GHG flux and the application of remote sensing techniques. Computational approaches for estimating carbon stock changes and GHG emissions are discussed, in addition to the use of more complex dynamic ecosystem models. This is followed by an analysis of some of the resources that are available for those wishing to do GHG quantification at the landscape scale in areas dominated by smallholders. This analysis is intended to provide an aid to funding agencies, government agencies, NGOs, academics and others. Information for this section comes from questionnaires distributed to selected resource developers.

The GHG (greenhouse gas) mitigation potential from the agricultural sector is set to increase in coming decades. Much of the agricultural mitigation potential lies in developing countries where systems are dominated by smallholder farmers. There is therefore an opportunity for smallholders not only to gain environmental benefits from carbon friendly practices, but also to receive much needed financial input, either directly from carbon financing, or from development agencies looking to support carbon friendly activities. However, the problem remains of how to quantify carbon gains from mitigation activities carried out by smallholder farmers. Landscape-scale quantification enables farmers to pool resources and expertise, which can put participation in carbon markets and access to other funding sources, within their reach. Therefore, funding agencies, governments and NGOs are increasingly recognizing the benefits of taking a landscape approach to GHG quantification. This paper gives an overview of approaches that have been taken to date for landscape-scale GHG quantification, covering both measurement and modelling and the reliance of one upon the other. The discussion covers ground-based measurement approaches for carbon stock changes in biomass and soils, methods for measuring GHG flux and the application of remote sensing techniques. Computational approaches for estimating carbon stock changes and GHG emissions are discussed, in addition to the use of more complex dynamic ecosystem models. This is followed by an analysis of some of the resources that are available for those wishing to do GHG quantification at the landscape scale in areas dominated by smallholders. This analysis is intended to provide an aid to funding agencies, government agencies, NGOs, academics and others. Information for this section comes from questionnaires distributed to selected resource developers.

SBSTA 45 in Marrakech represents a unique opportunity for Parties to decide on the future of agriculture within the UNFCCC. The process of discussions on issues related to agriculture initiated at COP17 in Durban 2011 culminates at COP22 in Marrakech 2016. The explicit reference to food security in the preamble of the Paris Agreement and the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions which prioritize agriculture as a sector for adaptation and mitigation actions, provide a foundation for Parties to develop appropriate frameworks to support actions within the agricultural sector. SBSTA workshops on agriculture in 2015 and 2016 allowed Parties to share experiences, identify priorities, and propose ways of taking action within the agricultural sector and so provide the core knowledge base to work from. As Parties reach a decision on issues related to agriculture at SBSTA 45, a number of options are available. This report presents ten such options that might contribute to a decision, taking into consideration political priorities, implementation arrangements, timelines and level of ambition. Options outlined in this report are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in many different ways.

Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.

Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.

Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.

Background: The vast majority of households in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) depend on wood energy—comprising firewood and charcoal—for their daily energetic needs. Such consumption trends are expected to remain a common feature of SSA's wood energy production and supply chains, at least in the short- to medium-terms. Notwithstanding its importance, wood energy generally has low priority in SSA national policies. However, the use of wood energy is often considered a key driver of unsustainable management and negative environmental consequences in the humid and dry forests. To date, unsystematic assessments of the socio-economic and environmental consequences of wood energy use have underplayed its significance, thus further hampering policy debates. Therefore, a more balanced approach which considers both demand and supply dynamics is needed. This systematic map aims at providing a comprehensive approach to understanding the role and impacts of wood energy across all regions and aspects in SSA. Methods: The objective of this systematic map is to collate evidence from studies of environmental and socio-economic impacts of wood energy value chains, by considering both demand and supply within SSA. The map questions are framed using a Populations, Exposure, Comparators and Outcomes (PECO) approach. We name the supply and demand of wood energy as the "exposure," composed of wood energy production, harvesting, processing, and consumption. The populations of interest include both the actors involved in these activities and the forest sites where these activities occur. The comparator is defined as those cases where the same wood energy activities occur with i) available/accessible alternative energy sources, ii) regulatory frameworks that govern the sector and iii) alternative technologies for efficient use. The outcomes of interest encompass both socioeconomic and environmental impacts that can affect more than the populations named above. For instance, in addition to the direct socioeconomic impacts felt by participants in the wood energy value chain, forest dwellers may experience livelihood changes due to forest degradation caused by external harvesters. Moreover, intensified deforestation in one area may concurrently lead to forest regeneration in another.