1

Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Africa

Rationale, Pathways, and Cost Estimates

Tahia Devisscher

April, 2010

Sectoral Report for the AdaptCost Study

2

Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Ecosystem-based Adaptation .......................................................................................... 3

1.1 What is Ecosystem-based Adaptation?..................................................................... 3 1.2 Why Ecosystem-based Adaptation? ......................................................................... 4 1.3 How to Measure the Adaptation Benefits and Costs of EbA?.................................. 5 1.4 The Unknowns ........................................................................................................ 10

2. Effects of Climate Change on African Ecosystems...................................................... 14

2.1 African Ecosystems and Biodiversity..................................................................... 14 2.2 Present and Future Climate in Africa...................................................................... 17 2.3 Possible Impacts of Climate Change on Ecosystems ............................................. 19

2.3.1 Climate Change Effects on Ecosystems at the Continental Level................... 20 2.3.2 Economic Impacts of Climate Change on African Protected Areas: An Example of Ecosystem Services Loss....................................................................... 23

2.4 Ecosystem Responses to Climate Change .............................................................. 24 2.5 Current Conservation Practices in the Face of Future Global Changes.................. 27

3. Ecosystem-based Adaptation Pathways........................................................................ 29

3.1 Dynamic Landscape of EbA Pathways................................................................... 29 3.2 EbA Pathways: Inter-linked Strategies ................................................................... 31

Target Species Conservation Strategies.................................................................... 33 Ecosystem Management Strategies........................................................................... 35 Flexible Mechanisms to Enable EbA........................................................................ 46 Means and Adaptive Processes that Enable EbA ..................................................... 54

4. Costs of Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Africa .......................................................... 60

4.1 Challenges in Assessing EbA Costs ....................................................................... 60 4.2 “Top-Down”: Financial Flow Estimates................................................................. 62

4.2.1 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 62 4.2.2 Africa-wide Estimates...................................................................................... 64

4.3 “Bottom-Up”: EbA Strategies................................................................................. 68 4.3.1 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 68 4.3.2 Current Initiatives ............................................................................................ 71 4.3.3 Potentialities: Up-scaling Agroforestry Efforts ............................................... 74

4.4 Estimating EbA Costs According to Planning Horizons ........................................ 76 5. Future Research and Action Needs............................................................................... 82 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 84 Annexes............................................................................................................................. 90

3

Introduction We are facing an era of rapid global changes that are altering in alarming ways the biosphere and the interacting tissue of living organisms that inhabit it. In the last five decades, ecosystems and the services they provide have changed more than in any previous period of human history (MA 2005). Further global changes are inevitable and consequences may soon become irreversible (Capra 2002, Lovelock 2007, IPCC 2007). Global projections show large population increases, rise in consumption levels due to changes in life style, and changing climatic conditions by mid century, all with serious consequences to ecosystem services and human well-being (Carpenter et al. 2009). Drivers of change will intensify and feedbacks between social and ecological systems are expected to become stronger and more complex (MA 2005). This paper will explore the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach for adaptation to global changes in the context of Africa, with particular focus on climate change. The paper is structured in the following chapters: Chapter 1 - explains the relevance and benefits of ecosystem-based pathways for climate adaptation and socio-ecological resilience; Chapter 2 - analyzes the effects of climate change on African ecosystems; Chapter 3 - introduces the concept of dynamic landscape of ecosystem-based adaptation pathways and describes in detail and with examples the components of these pathways; Chapter 4 - explores the costs associated to applying an ecosystem-based approach for adaptation using a top-down financial flows analysis, and a bottom-up assessment of specific ecosystem-based adaptation measures; Chapter 5 – outlines future research and action needs.

1. Ecosystem-based Adaptation This chapter explains the importance of applying an ecosystem-based approach for socio-ecological resilience to climate change. It then explains approaches to assess the value of ecosystem services, and the costs and benefits of adopting an ecosystem-based approach for adaptation.

1.1 What is Ecosystem-based Adaptation? The Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) approach relates to the management of ecosystems within interlinked social-ecological systems to enhance ecological processes and services that are essential for resilience to multiple pressures, including climate change (CBD 2009, Chapin et al. 2009, Piran et al. 2009). In other words, EbA integrates the management of ecosystems and biodiversity1 into an overall strategy to help people and ecosystems adapt to the adverse impacts of global change, such as changing climate conditions (Colls et al. 2009). An optimal overall ecosystem-based strategy will seek to

1 For practical purposes this paper does not mention biodiversity every time if refers to ecosystems or ecosystem services, despite it acknowledges that biodiversity has strong effects on a number of ecosystem services by mediating ecosystem processes and functions (see Piran et al. 2009). When referring to ecosystem resilience and sustainable use of natural capital, this paper indirectly implies sustainable management of biodiversity as well.

4

maintain ecological functions at the landscape scale in combination with multi-functional land uses and multi-scale benefits. This approach depends highly on healthy and resilient ecosystems, which are able to deliver a bundle of ecosystem services to support adaptation and well-being of societies in the face of various pressures that can be internal to the social-ecological system, or external, such as extreme events in the short term or climate change in the longer term (Piran et al. 2009). In this sense, strategies within EbA need to consider ways of managing ecosystems for the provision of services that help reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience of socio-ecological systems to both climatic and non-climatic risks, while providing multiple benefits to society and the environment (Colls et al. 2009). At the core of this approach lays the recognition of existing interactions and feedbacks between human and ecological systems and the need to optimize these to enhance benefit flows from the system (UNEP-WCMC 2010). Ecosystem-based approaches can be applied to virtually all types of ecosystems and at different scales from local to continental and international. EbA has the potential to generate multiple environmental and societal benefits, while reconciling short and long-term priorities (TEEB 2009). For instance, EbA can be a synergistic approach that reconciles mitigation objectives by enhancing carbon stocks, with cost-effective protection against climatic hazards, and conservation objectives by preserving natural ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB 2009). By reducing trade-offs, the adoption of this approach is consistent with the precautionary principle, and can lower risks of mal-adaptation. Moreover, the multi-sectoral and multi-scale nature of EbA means that this approach integrates a range of disciplines, actors, and institutions interacting at different governance levels and influencing diverse decision networks (Vignola et al. 2009).

1.2 Why Ecosystem-based Adaptation? Several are the reasons that explain the relevance of an ecosystem-based approach for adaptation. The rationale lays mainly in the capacity of ecosystems to be resilient and protect human populations from external pressures, the multiple services and benefits to society from ecosystems, and the cost-effectiveness of implementing ecosystem-based measures to support adaptation processes and build resilience against climate risks. The following points explain these arguments with examples.

1. Enhancing ecosystems resilience can restore natural protection against extreme climatic events. For example, floodplain forests and coastal mangroves can provide storm protection and act as safety barriers against natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis, protecting human populations, local livelihoods and economic sectors that are vulnerable to these hazards.

2. Ecosystem-based approaches can complement, or be substitute for, more expensive measures to protect vulnerable settlements and sectors (World Bank 2009). For example, as natural buffers, ecosystems are often cheaper to maintain, and often more cost-effective than physical engineering structures such as dykes or concrete walls (Colls et al. 2009).

5

3. Economic gains that can occur from ecosystem conversion may be outweighed by the potential benefits of conservation and/or restoration, especially as multiple ecosystem services are considered in the assessment (Piran et al. 2009). A cost-benefit analysis would need to account not only for the replacement cost, but also for the multiple benefits/services provided by the ecosystem in addition to protection capacity.

4. Ecosystem services underpin every aspect of human life, including food security, carbon and climate regulation, livelihoods, ethnic diversity, and cultural and spiritual enrichment (World Bank 2009). Economies are highly dependent on ecosystem services, particularly in developing nations where both the formal and informal sectors rely on the products and services of natural ecosystems to generate value (Scholes 2006). By promoting healthy ecosystems, ecosystem services and benefits can be ensured under conditions of stress (e.g. drought, food or water scarcity, etc) and so also populations, livelihoods, and economies that directly or indirectly depend on these services (TEEB 2009, World Bank 2009).

5. Protecting and enhancing ecosystems and biodiversity can provide social, economic and environmental benefits (Piran et al. 2009). The multiple-benefits of EbA offer the opportunity to integrate adaptation priorities with development processes addressing many of the concerns identified by the most vulnerable countries and people (Colls et al. 2009). Investment in EbA can not only lead to more resilient systems, but also to the development of new jobs and new ways of thinking business models. In this sense, EbA is a win-win approach to adaptation, where strategies can address multiple objectives aimed at minimizing anthropogenic stresses that have degraded the condition of critical ecosystems, enhancing ecosystems resilience, reducing vulnerability and supporting human development.

6. Last but not least, the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach can also play an important role in climate mitigation (TEEB 2009, World Bank 2009). Considering the role ecosystems play in the global carbon cycle (i.e. carbon storage capacity), EbA strategies can be designed to create synergies between adaptation and mitigation, while reconciling short and long-term development and conservation priorities.

1.3 How to Measure the Adaptation Benefits and Costs of EbA? It is complicated to measure the benefits and costs of EbA, as this assessment is constrained by a series of uncertainties (see next section). Measuring the benefits requires, among other things, economic valuation of ecosystem services (see Box 1), but research on the monetary value of ecosystem services is still in its infancy. Globally, services provided by ecosystems are free to the ‘user’ or cost much less than their value (i.e. use and non-use value) to society as a whole (TEEB 2009). Lack of monetary estimates for ecosystem services lead oftentimes to incomplete cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, these assessments tend to focus only on one or two ecosystem services as opposed to the bundle of services provided by an ecosystem, and they are generally biased towards short-term economic benefits. These difficulties also pertain to efforts aimed at measuring adaptation benefits of ecosystem-based strategies.

6

Box 1. Ecosystem Services Multiple mechanisms link ecosystem services to human well-being. The same is valid for the causal connections between ecosystem changes and changes in socio-economic systems. These relations are not uniform, as socio-ecological systems are dynamic and non-linear, and ecosystem services do not operate in isolation, but interact with one another in complex, often unpredictable ways. Largely, people’s livelihoods and economies depend on a reliable flow and interaction of multiple ecosystem services. However, it is difficult to draw direct and indirect links between ecosystem services and human well-being given the complexity of the relationships between ecological and socio-economic systems. Overall, human activities and live on earth benefit from a series of inter-linked ecosystem services. According to the Millenium Assesment (2005), the range of ecosystem services enjoyed by humans can be divided into four main categories (see Figure 1 below):

Fig. 1. Ecosystem Services Categories. Adapted from the MA (2005).

• Provisioning services: Products obtained from ecosystems Include the production of basic goods such as crops, livestock, water for drinking and irrigation, fodder, timber, biomass fuels, fibers such as cotton and wool; and wild plants and animals used as sources of foods, hides, building materials, and medicines.

• Regulating services: Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes

Involve benefits obtained as ecosystem processes affect the physical and biological environment around them; these include flood protection, coastal protection, regulation of air and water quality, regulation of water flow, absorption of wastes, absorption of carbon dioxide, control of disease vectors, and regulation of climate.

• Cultural services: Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems Encompass the non-material benefits that people derive from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, recreation, tourism, outdoors-related sports, education, and aesthetic enjoyment. These services also include societies whose cultural identities are tied closely to particular habitats or wildlife.

• Supporting services: Services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services These services are necessary for the production and maintenance of the three other categories of ecosystem services. Examples are nutrient cycling, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation, and primary production of biomass through plant photosynthesis.

7

Although economic benefits of EbA will not be estimated in this study, it is important to mention that benefit flows of implementing EbA options will mostly been recognized some time after implementation, therefore these should be reported on a gradual basis. For example, the TEEB study accounted benefits of restoration efforts starting at 10% in the second year and then increasing them every year until they eventually stabilize in the sixth year at an 80% of undisturbed ecosystem benefits. These assumptions can be used to estimate the benefit of enhanced ecosystems using different valuation methods (see Box 3 below). Box 2 provides some examples that are relevant to the African context.

Box 2. Benefits from EbA Options In South Africa the government-funded Working for Water (WfW) programme clears mountain catchments and riparian zones of invasive alien plants in order to restore natural fire regimes, the productive potential of land, biodiversity, and hydrological functioning. WfW has adopted a type of payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme, where individuals tender for contracts to restore public or private wood- and shrub-lands. Costs to rehabilitate catchments using this approach range from US$ 270 – 950 per hectare (Turpie et al. 2008) while benefits may reach a 40-year net present value of about US$ 63,500 per hectare (using benefit transfer approach and a 1% discount rate). Barbier (2007) estimated that abandoned mangrove ecosystems can be rehabilitated at a cost of approx. US$ 8,240 per hectare in the first year (replanting mangroves) followed by annual costs of US$ 118 per hectare for maintenance and protecting of seedlings. Benefits from the restoration project were estimated considering: net income from collected forest products of US$ 101 per hectare/year, benefits from habitat-fishery linkages (mainly the functioning of mangroves as fishnursery) worth US$ 171 per hectare/year, and benefits from storm protection worth US$ 1,879 per hectare/year (Barbier 2007).

Assessing the costs of EbA is also challenging. Next section and section 4.1 summarize the main reasons for this. To estimate the costs of EbA this paper will explore different methods using top-down financial flows analysis, and bottom-up assessments of specific strategies that adopt an ecosystem-based approach. Both cases include revision of studies that used valuation methods for ecosystem services (market and non-market based) (see Box 3), application of ‘benefits transfer’ approach (see Box 3), extrapolation of intervention costs, and more ad hoc approaches as used in the NAPAs. Box 3. Relevant Methods for Estimating the Costs and Benefits of EbA There are three main methods for determining the monetary value of ecosystem services, all linked to ‘willingness to pay’. The first method is based on market analysis (i.e. revealed willingness to pay) and can be used to measure a range of benefits and costs. Examples include explicit revenues generated from services (e.g. forest products, harvest), avoided expenditure needs (e.g. avoided cost of water purification and provision, avoided cost of building protection infrastructure), replacement costs (e.g. artificial pollination), insurance costs (e.g. from natural hazards) and damage costs (e.g. damage from hurricane). Where market values are not directly available or relevant, two packages of non-market valuation methods can be used: ‘revealed preference methods’ (i.e. imputed willingness to pay) is verified through e.g. increased house prices near roads, cities, forest and beaches, which can lead to increased local government receipts; and ‘stated preference methods’ (e.g. expressed willingness to pay) such as contingent valuation, which can be used in relation to willingness to pay for e.g. improved water quality (linked to water credits), protecting symbolic species (linked to park entrance fees), aesthetic view (linked to maintaining a specific landscape). Different valuation techniques can be combined to obtain an overall picture of an ecosystem’s total value. In general, the above methods provide primary analysis for specific cases.

8

‘Benefits transfer’ is a method of estimating economic values for ecosystem services by using values already developed in other studies of a similar ecosystem. It is a pragmatic way of dealing with information gaps and resource (time and money) constraints. TEEB 2009 Velarde et al. (2004) estimated the economic value of protected areas in Africa using a benefits transfer approach. To estimate the value of services, they used the Holdridge Life Zone (HLZ) system and assumed that the value of a HLZ is the same across different protected areas in Africa. They used literature on valuation studies of different ecosystem services attributable to protected areas, such as tourism value, genetic prospecting, wildlife viewing, community uses, etc (see examples in Table 1 below). The majority of the studies were based on contingent valuation methods. Average service values were estimated for each of the 20 HLZ presented in the protected areas in Africa. Total annual present value of life zones in the network of protected areas in Africa was estimated at USD 1.9 billion (2000 prices). Other economic valuation studies have estimated services provided by mangrove ecosystems at US$4,290 annually per hectare, benefits from lagoons and seagrasses at around US$73,900 per year per hectare, and services provided by coral reefs at US$129,000 per year per hectare (TEEB 2009). Table 1. Estimated Values for Ecosystem Services Attributed to Protected Areas in Africa Country Description

(if available) USD2000 /ha/year

Study year

Source Publication year

Value description

Zimbabwe 0.89 1991 Zimbabwe, Dept. of National Parks

1991 Existence and option values: elephants and NWFP

Zimbabwe Mana Pools & Hwange (Wankie)

10.05 1994 Brown G, M Ward, DJ Jansen

1995 TEV WTP Protected areas in Zimbabwe

Uganda Rainforest 0.45 1994 Simpson R D, R A. Sedjo, J W Reid

1996 Pharmaceutical

Tanzania Tarangire NP 3.43 1994/5

Clark C, L Davenport, P Mkanga

1995 WTP Tarangire park

South Africa Hotspot:Cape Floristic Province

1.85 1994 Simpson R D, R A. Sedjo, J W Reid

1996 WTP hotspot preservation

South Africa Kruger NP extended to Mozambique

19.06 1994 Agostini P. 1995 CVM: WTP Recreation

South Africa All Pas 7.38 1994 Turpie JK, WR Siegfried

1996 Nature tourism

Rwanda Volcans NP 85.58 1989 Djoh E and van der Whal M.

2001 MP Total permits Gorilla viewing

Nigeria Hadejia-Jama’are

145.48 1989/90

Barbier, E. B. 1993 Partial valuation agriculture, fisheries and fuelwood benefits

Namibia Sossusvlei 1.28 1997 Krug 2003 Total CS Avoid congestion

9

Madagascar Hotspot 7.64 1994 Simpson R D, R A. Sedjo, J W Reid

1996 Pharmaceutical

Madagascar 1.25 1989 Munasinghe M. 1993 Production function: Reserves

Kenya Lake Nakuru NP

477.24 1991 Navrud S. and Munganata, E.D.

1994 CVM: WTP use value

Kenya Total 6.28 1989 Norton-Griffiths M, C Southey

1995 Tourism

Ivory Coast Hotspot 1.27 1994 Simpson R D, R A. Sedjo, J W Reid

1996 Pharmaceutical

Cameroon Korup NP 24.39 1989 Ruitenbeek HJ 1989 Tourism value

Cameroon NTFP Humid forests

0.07 1995 Ndoye O, M Ruiz Perez, A Eyebe

1997 MP: NTFP Humid forest

Bostwana Total PA 12.49 1992 Barnes J.I. 1996 CVM, TCM: Total PA Wildlife viewing

NP=National Park, PA=Protected area, CVM=Contingent Valuation Method, TCM=Travel Cost Method, WTP=Willingness to pay, MP=Market price, CS=Consumer Surplus, NTFP=Non Timber Forest Products, NWFP=Non-Wood Forest Products, TEV=Total Existence Value. Source: FAO 2002, EVRI 2002, adapted from Velarde et al. 2004 In theory, the benefits of EbA equal the avoided damages of future socio-economic and climate change impacts combined. Comparing the benefits to the costs of EbA is important, as this comparison will help assess cost-effectiveness and recognize if there are net benefits or, in the contrary, potential for mal-adaptation (see Figure 2 below). Note that while EbA reduces impacts, it does not reduce them entirely, and thus there are still residual impacts and economic costs (residual damages/costs).

Fig. 2. EbA Costs and Residual Damages Adapted from AdaptCost Methods, 2009

10

In practice, estimating the cost-effectiveness (comparing costs vs benefits) of EbA based on a Total Economic Value (which in theory covers all benefits) will be limited by the valuation difficulties indicated above. Assessing the ecosystem services lost due to climate change is a first step towards understanding the value at risk. Measuring replacement costs and avoided costs are ways of appraising the value of ecosystem services for adaptation. However, the total economic value of EbA is yet to be understood, as research and practice improve our understanding of benefits provided by inter-connected ecosystems managed by multiple ‘users’ across varying spatial extents and time frames. Last but not least, assessing costs and benefits of EbA may provide an essentially static picture of the value of ecosystem services, the potential and avoided damage caused by climate change and other stressors, and the synergies with other sectoral adaptation measures. As ecosystem services become scarcer or support changing economies, their value will change over time. As more information and knowledge is generated on possible climate futures, the understanding of potential damages will change over time. As decisions change, the more synergies or trade-offs can be produced by the interaction of EbA and other sectoral adaptation measures. Particular attention needs to be given where threshold effects and tipping points are possible, as feedbacks can have large unexpected consequences with serious implications for the economic value of ecosystem services. Next section will explore further the factors or “unknowns” affecting the understanding and decision-making in relation to EbA.

1.4 The Unknowns The dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems are complex, and there are several ‘unknowns’ that remain to be explored. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that despite present relevant information is vast; it is fragmented across different disciplines and communities of practice. On the other hand, it relates to the complexity of this relationship. The ‘cloud’ diagram (Figure 2) and text below it suggest some of the ‘unknowns’ that shape our current understanding, decisions, and actions around EbA. Positively, progress in understanding these ‘unknowns’ reduces the uncertainty associated to future outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation. Given present knowledge, the outcome remains highly uncertain, and robust decision-making around EbA will need to recognize and deal with this uncertainty. According to Nkem et al. (2007), better understanding of how biophysical and social systems and feedbacks interact will allow climate proofing ecosystem services as livelihood portfolios for adaptation. However, this process will require collaborative research and action supported by new perspectives and novel approaches that aim at generating new understanding to inform the cycle of data/information knowledge decisions actions and outcomes (see Figure 3).

11

Fig. 3. ‘Unknowns’ associated to the dynamic and complex relationship between social and ecological systems. Source: MA 2005, Finnoff and Tschihart 2007, IPCC 2007, Carpenter et al. 2009, Ojea et al 2009, UNEP-WCMC 2010. Unknowns are source of uncertainty for current EbA decisions and future EbA outcomes. Some of main ‘unknowns’ are the following:

1. Lack of reference systems: lack of before-and-after data of verified evidence on the relationship between incremental change in ecosystem services and human well-being/vulnerability/adaptation. This relationship is difficult to quantify because it is influenced by multiple stressors and feedbacks.

2. Role of biodiversity and individual species for ecosystem services and

functioning: despite biological diversity has proven to increase ecosystem resilience, it is still unclear the role biodiversity plays in modifying the effects of drivers on ecosystem services. Understanding the effects of species extinctions, be they global or local, in the maintenance of ecosystem services is critical for ecosystems functioning, and thus for adaptation responses. Understanding of the linkages between ecological research on individual species (i.e. population viability analysis, distribution models, rates of extinction) and community collapse (i.e. internal ecosystem dynamics: diversity stability, resilience, etc.) is poor and more research to bridge the gap is needed.

3. Representation of species function for migration: it is unclear how impact

estimates are biased by aggregation within current Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) with respect to the functional role of individual species and the assumption of their instantaneous migration. Few plant functional types (PFTs)

12

used within DGVMs aggregate numerous species into single entities. These are assumed to be entities with very broad environmental tolerances, and therefore, underlying changes in species richness are not accounted for, and the simultaneous free dispersal of PFTs is assumed.

4. Limitations of climate envelope models used to project responses of species to

climate change across heterogeneous landscapes: while models help simulating if the habitat of species becomes less suitable due to climate change, the real pattern of decline may deviate from that projected because of competitive pressure between species or altered habitat quality or other drivers.

5. Undefined true value of ecosystem services and biodiversity: use and non-use

value of ecosystem services and biodiversity is difficult to quantify, particularly when considering ecosystem configurations that deliver diverse services to different users. Moreover, the value of ecosystem services varies according to scale of use and can change over time.

6. Quantification of trade-offs and synergies (see Box 4): given that the true value of

ecosystem services and interactions among ecosystems and between biophysical and human systems is not well understood, it is difficult to quantify trade-offs and synergies between different services, particularly when multiple users at different scales are benefiting from these services directly or indirectly.

7. Magnitude of CO2 fertilization effect: unclear implications of this process over

time in the terrestrial biosphere and its components.

8. Effects of increasing surface ocean CO2 and declining pH: on marine productivity, biodiversity, biogeochemistry and marine ecosystem functioning.

9. Inadequate representation of the interactive coupling between ecosystems and the

climate system: which is complicated by the interaction of multiple drivers of global environmental change (including human use and management of ecosystems).

10. Complex interactions between social and ecological systems across space and

time: key social and ecological processes differ in spatial extents and turnover times. While social systems can present sudden changes with large implications that are difficult to predict, broad-scale biospheric responses or shifting species ranges may take several centuries. A better understanding of the functioning of ecosystems under continuously changing conditions is needed to narrow down uncertainties related to EbA strategies at the time scale of interest to present human society.

11. Non-linear relationships: complex feedbacks happen at particular locations and

time scales or across spatial extents and time horizons. Major biotic feedbacks to the climate system happen through trace gases from soils in all ecosystems.

13

Changing disturbance regimes like fire or land-use change, also have an effect on biotic feedbacks to the atmosphere, ecosystem structure, function, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Moreover, climatic changes also produce feedbacks that lead to further reactions (including species responses and human interventions) that are difficult to predict. In non-linear systems, small perturbations can become magnified and lead to qualitatively unexpected behaviors at macroscopic levels. Simulating these non-linear responses in integrated models that assess the complex interaction of social and ecological systems remains a challenge.

12. Abrupt changes and thresholds: difficulties in understanding non-linear

relationships between social and ecological systems lead to poor predictability of thresholds and tipping points. This also relates to poor understanding of interacting social and ecological thresholds and factors that control probabilities of thresholds. Exceeding critical thresholds could lead to novel states with potentially new uncertainties.

Box 4. Synergies and trade-offs Human intervention and dominant patterns of demographic, social and economic change can affect the interaction between ecosystems and thus affect multiple ecosystem services directly and indirectly. In turn, changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services can lead to changes in human well-being (Figure 4). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment highlights two specific policy-relevant interactions among ecosystem services: synergisms and tradeoffs.

Fig. 4. Drivers of change and interactions between ecosystem services and human well-being Trade-offs in ecosystem services occur when the provision of one ecosystem service is reduced as a consequence of increased use of another ecosystem service. For example, trade-offs may arise from management choices made by humans, which can change the type, magnitude and relative mix of services provided by one ecosystem, and as a consequence affect the functioning of other ecosystem services. In contrast, synergism is defined in the context of the provision of ecosystem services as a situation in which “the combined effect of several forces operating on ecosystem services is greater than the sum of their separate effects” (MA 2005). Following this line, a synergism occurs when ecosystem services interact with one another in a multiplicative way with positive or negative effects on human-well-being.

14

2. Effects of Climate Change on African Ecosystems This chapter describes briefly the biological diversity of Africa and gives some examples of the multiple role of ecosystems as habitats and providers of services to human populations in Africa and worldwide. It then explains the effects of climate change on ecosystems and their responses to “adapt naturally’, without human intervention.

2.1 African Ecosystems and Biodiversity Africa is endowed with a highly diverse fauna and flora. The continent is habitat to about a fifth of all known species of plants, mammals and birds in the world, and a sixth of the amphibians and reptiles. Africa contains over 3,000 protected areas including 198 marine protected areas, 50 biosphere reserves, and 80 wetlands of international importance. Eight of the world’s 34 international biodiversity hotspots2 are in Africa (UNEP 2008). These include the Western Indian Ocean islands, the Cape floristic region, the Succulent Karoo, the upper Guinea forest, and the Eastern Arc Mountain forests of East Africa (McLean 2005). Diverse ecosystems in Africa include rainforests, wetlands, deserts, savannahs, mangroves, coral reefs, and coastal deltas, among others. Savannahs, which are the richest grasslands in the world, are the most extensive ecosystem in Africa (McLean 2005), and deserts and drylands cover some 60% of the total continental surface (UNEP 2008). Forest and woodlands occupy about 22% of the land area in Africa and the region accounts for around 17% of the global forest cover (FAO 2002). Of the total area of forests and woodlands, only 5% is protected area (Osman et al. 2006). At continental level, Africa’s pattern of vegetation zones largely mirrors its climate zones (see next section). Areas with the greatest rainfall (Africa’s equatorial climate zone) have the greatest volume of biomass, which is closely linked to high biodiversity. Precipitation seasonality also influences the amount and nature of vegetation. For example, savannahs with few trees and dry deciduous forests occur where there are long dry seasons, while dense rainforests occur where rainfall is constant year round (UNEP 2008). Biomes are generally defined by and result from climate. Ecologically, Africa is home to eight major biomes3 (see Figure 5). Biomes provide a useful tool for characterizing flora and fauna at a continental scale; however, there can be significant variations within these generalized vegetation zones resulting from local changes in elevation, soils, microclimate, wildlife, and human populations.

2 Internationally recognized areas of particularly high species richness and endemism, and where less than 30% of the natural habitat remains (Mittermeier et al. 2004) 3 Large and distinct biotic communities with characteristic assemblages of flora and fauna.

15

Fig. 5. Biomes of Africa Source: UNEP 2008 The varied ecosystems of Africa are not only habitat to diverse species, but also provide a number of services and goods for the local population and the economies of African countries. Recently, a study mapped carbon stocks (carbon sequestration services) and biodiversity hotspots in Africa and worldwide (see UNEP-WCMC 2008). The study estimated that ecosystems in the African Tropics store 321 GtC, the bulk of which is held in the humid tropical forests. Figure 6 below shows areas of high carbon stocks and the area in which they overlap with high biodiversity. The eastern edge of Madagascar is one such area of overlap, as are the hotspot areas of the Eastern Afromontane and the Guinean Forests. The high biodiversity areas contain a total of 18 GtC, accounting for 6% of the total carbon stock in tropical Africa (UNEP-WCMC 2008). The areas with highest carbon and high biodiversity hold 14 Gt of carbon, accounting for 4% of the total regional carbon stock. High biodiversity lands cover 7% of the high carbon land areas. These results suggest that significant biodiversity benefits could be gained from reducing carbon loss in overlap areas, while helping mitigate climate change (UNEP-WCMC 2008). This is just an example of how African ecosystems play multiple roles as habitats and service providers to society.

16

Fig. 6. Carbon and Biodiversity Hotspots in the African Tropics Source: UNEP-WCMC 2008 In the past two decades, more protected areas have been set aside in Africa than ever before. Between 1990 and 2006, Sub-Saharan Africa increased the proportion of protected area from 8.6% to 9.4%. Likewise, northern Africa increased the proportion from 2.6% to 3.8% (UNEP 2008, see Figure 7 below).

Fig. 7. Protected Area Ratio to Total Territorial Area (percentage) Source: UNEP 2008

17

Despite the services provided by African ecosystems and the recent conservation efforts, Africa’s ecosystems and rich biological diversity are in jeopardy due to a confluence of global environmental change drivers like habitat destruction, deforestation, poaching, increasing population and urbanization, and climate change. Transformations have resulted in land degradation and desertification, water stress, increasing poverty, and declining biodiversity and ecosystems resilience. An example of ecosystem degradation is how Africa is losing more than four million hectares of forest every year, two times the world’s average deforestation rate (UNEP 2008). Only from 1990 to 2005, the proportion of forested land in Sub-Saharan Africa dropped by 3% (UNEP 2008). Ecosystem degradation in Africa is also reflected in field inventories of forest species, which show a 25–30 km shift of the Sahel, Sudan, and Guinean vegetation zones in the past half-century (Gonzalez 2001). At present, one third of the region’s pasture lands and one fifth of its forests and woodlands are classified as degraded. Degradation of ecosystems has implications for local livelihoods and the economy of African countries. For example, degradation of forests is expected to impact export of forest products, which generate about 6% of the economic product of African countries (Osman et al. 2006). Another example is migration of farmers that have been forced to move to either marginal land or to cities and slums due to soil erosion problems, which have degraded about 65% of agricultural lands in Africa (UNEP 2008). Moreover, changes in livelihoods and economies due to ecosystem degradation feed back to the process, oftentimes intensifying or accelerating degradation. Despite ecosystem degradation is a result of the dynamic interaction of multiple variables, the following section will focus mainly on the effects caused by climate change.

2.2 Present and Future Climate in Africa The equator lies very near to the latitudinal halfway mark of the African continent. For this reason, Africa’s climate is predominantly tropical, with mean temperatures above 21 degrees Celsius for most of the year. Moving away from the equator, climate zones vary in nearly mirror-image patterns to the north and south (UNEP 2008, see Figure 8 below). This also relates to precipitation patterns, which are largely determined by the air movement surrounding the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and associated equatorial trough. The mean temperature in the hottest and coldest months of the year varies little for most of equatorial Africa. Mean temperature during summer and winter months in tropical Africa varies only 1.4 °C. However, away from the equator and the coast, seasonal variation can be dramatic. In the Sahara Desert there can be up to a 24 °C difference between the mean temperatures of the coldest and hottest months (UNEP 2008).

18

Fig. 8. Climate Zones in Africa Source: UNEP 2008 The climate trend for Africa shows warming of approximately 0.7°C over most of the continent during the twentieth century; a decrease in rainfall over portions of the Sahel (the semi-arid region south of the Sahara); and an increase in rainfall in east central Africa (Desanker 2009). Over the next century, warming trends are expected to continue and the large-scale picture for Africa is one of drying in much of the subtropics and an increase or small variation in precipitation in the tropics, increasing the rainfall gradients. While the exact magnitude and intensity in changes of temperature, precipitation, and extreme events is not known, climate change scenarios for Africa agree on a future warming across the continent ranging from 0.2°C per decade (mitigation scenario) to more than 0.5°C per decade (business as usual scenario) (Hulme et al. 2001). Concerning precipitation changes, IPCC simulations present higher uncertainty. Projections show drying signal in the northern Sahara, and down the West Coast as far as 15°N, as well as drying in southern Africa due to a possible delay in the onset of the rainy season. The ensemble of models shows an increase in rainfall in East Africa, but the Guinean coastal rain belts and the Sahel show high uncertainty (Christensen et al. 2007). Simulations show a weak drying trend in the Sahel in the 20th century that does not continue in the future projections. Individual models generate large, but different responses in the Sahel. While one outlier projects very strong drying in the Sahel and throughout the Sahara, another shows a very strong trend towards increased rainfall in the same region (Christensen et al. 2007). Clearly, these projections are at macro-scales and

19

there may be differences at local scales due to a range of complex biophysical interactions (e.g. hydrological, land-use, vegetation changes). Maintaining a generalized picture, next section will focus on the effects of climate change on ecosystems and species.

2.3 Possible Impacts of Climate Change on Ecosystems As previously mentioned, there are multiple stressors affecting ecosystems in Africa: agricultural expansion and subsequent destruction of habitat; pollution; poaching; civil war; high rates of land use change; population growth, the introduction of exotic species, among others. These detrimental pressures are going to be exacerbated by increasing frequency of extreme events (e.g. floods, droughts, fires, etc) associated with increased climate variability and change. Dynamic global vegetation modeling (DGVM) and bio-climate envelope modeling provide a picture of possible climate change impacts and risks on ecosystems and biodiversity. While the DGVM approach reveals performance of broad-range, generalist plant species, climate envelope modeling uses real species and focuses on endemics, which have shown to have greater vulnerability to climate change. For this reason, results obtained through bio-climate envelope modeling seem to be more appropriate for assessing extinction risks, while DGVM is used for evaluating changes in ecosystem functions and spatial distribution (IPCC 2007). At the global level, DGVMs show that by mid century moderate levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may be beneficial in some regions, depending on latitude, CO2 fertilization effect, and natural adaptive capacity of biota. But as global change continues (incl. mean temperature rise), ecosystems functions may cease leading to impacts that have a very slow recovery or to irreversible effects such as extinction (IPCC 2007). By 2100, under a business as usual scenario (A2), DGVMs show that large part of the global ecosystems (37%) reveal appreciable changes with substantial decline of forests and woodland. Particularly, the DGVM approach reveals changes in the spatial distribution of ecosystems (based on plant functional types) and significant changes in key regulating ecosystem services (i.e. carbon sequestration). For instance, long-term projections show that the global carbon sink is likely to deteriorate after 2030, and by 2070 (assuming average temperature 2.5 °C over pre-industrial) the terrestrial biosphere will become an increasing carbon source (IPCC 2007). Additionally, bio-climate envelope modeling shows a decline in areal extent of some ecosystems due to climate change, which has consequent impacts on ecosystem properties and services, as well as on the abundance of wild species. Using a mid-range scenario for mid century with a 1.8 to 2.0oC increase in temperature, Thomas et al. (2004) estimated that 15-20% of species with dispersal into new climate space would be committed to extinction. In case of no dispersal, 26-37% of species would be committed to extinction. Furthermore, Leemans and Eickhout (2004) estimated that above a 3.5 °C warming, bio-climatic envelopes are likely to be exceeded, leading to eventual transformation of 22% of global ecosystems, loss of 68% of wooded tundra, 44% cool conifer forests, 34% of shrubland, 28% of grasslands, 27% of savanna, and 26% of

20

temperate deciduous forest. Some of the effects of climate change on ecosystems and species include (Mawdsley et al. 2009):

• shifts in species distributions, often along elevational gradients; • changes in the timing of life-history events, or phenology, for particular species; • decoupling of coevolved interactions, such as plant–pollinator relationships; • effects on demographic rates, such as survival and fecundity; • reductions in population size (especially for boreal or montane species); • extinction or extirpation of range-restricted or isolated species and populations; • direct loss of habitat due to sea-level rise, increased fire frequency, altered

weather patterns, glacial recession, and direct warming of habitats (such as mountain streams);

• increased spread of wildlife diseases, parasites, and plagues; • increased populations of species that are direct competitors of focal species for

conservation efforts; • increased spread of invasive or non-native species, including plants, animals, and

pathogens. This section describes the possible effects of climate change on African ecosystems at continental level focusing on the vulnerability of biodiversity and ecosystems. It does not include the resultant vulnerability of human populations that use and depend on these ecosystems and the possible feedbacks.

2.3.1 Climate Change Effects on Ecosystems at the Continental Level Climate change is expected to put African ecosystems and biodiversity at severe risk. Results using several scenarios show that around 5,000 African plant species and over 50% of bird and mammal species will be seriously affected or even lost by the end of this century (IPCC 2007). McClean et al. (2005) estimated substantial reductions in areas of suitable climate for 81-97% of the 5,197 African examined, with 25-42% having lost all area by 2085. Moreover, the IPCC (2007) estimates that by 2100 the productivity of Africa’s lakes will decline by 20 to 30%. As temperature rises, impacts on ecosystems are expected to escalate quickly, compounded by other factors such as infestations of alien species, over-exploitation, land-use change, habitat fragmentation, water scarcity, etc (Gaston et al. 2003). Currently, more than half of African ecosystems are over-exploited and show increasing signs of degradation. This alone will cause biodiversity loss. However, climate change will exacerbate this pressure, and is very likely to be the major driver for biodiversity loss in the long term (whereas land-use change may be a strong driver in the near/mid term). In South Africa, for example, climate change may have at least as significant impact on endemic species’ extinction risk as land-use change by 2020 (IPCC 2007). And according to Malcolm et al. (2006), climate-induced species extinction rates in tropical biodiversity hotspots are likely to exceed the projected extinctions from deforestation by the end of this century.

21

The magnitude and timing of climate change impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity will vary with the amount and rate of climate change (World Bank 2009). Studies that consider different scenarios of global mean annual temperature rise (relative to pre-industrial climate) project different impacts on ecosystems and population systems by the end of this century. Table 2 shows some of the estimated effects of climate change on African ecosystems and species considering scenarios with temperature levels above and below a 2°C increase (As a threshold recognized under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord). Table 2. Effects of Climate Change on African Ecosystems and Species for Different Temperature Increase above Pre-Industrial Level (based on a various scenarios for mid-end of this century)

Mitigation Scenario: Below 2°C Business as Usual Scenario: Above 2°C ΔT range (°C)

Possible Impacts ΔT range (°C)

Possible Impacts

<1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 <1.5 <1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0

Up to 15% of Sub-Saharan species could be at risk of extinction, water stress in North Africa (IPCC WGII 2007). Widespread bleaching of up to 97% of coral reefs on Indian Ocean coasts of East Africa (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). Increased damage from floods and storms (IPCC WGII 2007). Flora and fauna disappear in the Sahel due to possible drought and shifting sands (ECF 2004). Glaciers on Mount Kilamanjaro, Mount Kenya and Ruwenzori could be lost by 2015 (Thompson et al. 2002) Severe loss in the extent of the Karoo in S. Africa, threatening 2,800 plants with extinction (Rutherford et al. 1999). Five south African parks could lose more than 40% of their animals (Rutherford et al. 1999). 10-15% of sub-Saharan species will be at risk of extinction (IPCC WGII 2007). 41-51% loss in plant endemic richness in S. Africa and Namibia (Broennimann et al. 2006).

1.7 – 3.2 1.2 – 2.7 2.4 >2.0 >2.0 2.5 – 3.0 2.3 – 4.6 2.6-3.7

8-12% of 277 medium/large mammals in 141 national parks critically endangered or extinct; 22-25% endangered in Africa (Thuiller et al. 2006). Extinction of 10% endemics; 51-65% loss of Fynbos, including 21-40% of Protoceae committed to extinction; Succulent Karoo area reduced by 80%; threatening 2,800 plant species with extinction; 5 parks lose more than 40% of plant species in S. Africa (Thomas et al. 2004, Rutherford et al. 2000, Midgley et al. 2002, Hannah et al. 2002). Bio-climatic range of 25-57% (full dispersal) or 34-76% (no dispersal) of 5,197 plant species exceeded in Sub-Saharan Africa (McClean et al. 2005). Erosion is likely to outpace growth of tropical coral reefs (University of Copenhagen 2009). At least 40% of sub-Saharan species at risk of extinction (IPCC WGII 2007). 24-59% of mammals, 28-40% of birds, 13-70% of butterflies, 18-80% of other invertebrates, 21-45% of reptiles committed to extinction; 66% of animal species potentially lost from Kruger National Park in S. Africa (Thomas et al. 2004, Erasmus et al. 2002). Cloud forests lose hundred of meters of elevational extent, potential extinctions at 2.5 °C for Africa (Still et al. 1999). 30-40% of 277 mammals in 141 parks critically endangered; 15-20% endangered (Thuiller et al. 2006).

Sources: IPCC AR4, PA 2009

22

From Table 2 above, it is possible to see that many ecosystems and species could be adversely affected by an increase in global mean temperatures of 1 to 2°C. Impacts will not only be reflected in changing ecosystems distributional ranges or existence, but also in their ability to function and provide services. A rise beyond 2°C increases the possibility of species extinctions with serious implications for ecosystem functioning and resilience. Although impact models are preliminary and may overestimate potential extinctions, they suggest that efforts to protect African biological diversity should take into account future climate-forced distribution changes (McClean 2005). To provide examples related to the unique native environments of Africa, Figure 9 and the text below describe possible future effects of climate change on ecosystems and species in each sub-region of Africa.

Fig. 9. Examples of Current and Possible Future Impacts of Climate Change on African Ecosystems North Africa Droughts during the past three decades and degradation of land at the margins of the Sahara desert have raised concerns of expanding desertification in the future (Herrmann and Hutchinson 2005). The full nature of this problem and the degree to which climate change is contributing to it are still being determined. East Africa Changes in seawater temperatures are causing coral bleaching on the coasts of the Indian Ocean. Mountainous ecosystems, mangroves and coral reefs are all expected to change further, resulting in species moving westward (IPCC 2007). Major migratory systems located in the Serengeti area of Tanzania and the Masai-Mara region of Kenya are

23

climate-sensitive, and therefore expected to be affected by climate change, particularly in the presence of additional land-pressures (Desanker 2009). Mountains of eastern coastal Africa are predicted to retain more plant diversity than elsewhere in this region, acting as rainforest refugia under changing climate conditions (Lovett 2007). West and Central Africa Montane centers of biodiversity like the mountains of Cameroon are particularly threatened by increases in temperature because they contain isolated plant populations with no possibility of migration (Desanker 2009). Climate models indicate changes in the Guineo-Congolian forests, mirroring proposed ecological dynamics in the past (McClean 2005). Long-term predictions show expansion of the Sahara southwards into what are now the Congo rainforests. Models of vegetation shifts suggest that forest plants will move southwards into Angola and up into the mountains of the central rift. The wetter parts of central Africa, which are the coastal regions of Cameroon and Gabon, are predicted to retain more plant diversity than elsewhere in this region (Lovett 2007). Southern Africa Almost 68% of the plant species in the Cape Floral Kingdom (fynbos) are endemic and over 2,500 plant species in the adjacent Succulent Karoo biome are native. These two floral biodiversity hot spots in Southern Africa occur in winter rainfall regions and will be threatened by a shift in rainfall seasonality (Desanker 2009). Other important floral regions affected by global warming include the island-like Afromontane habitats that stretch from Ethiopia to South Africa at altitudes above about 2,000 meters (Desanker 2009). Studies carried out in Sub-Saharan Africa on the shifts in climatically suitable areas for 5,197 African plant species under future climate models for the years 2025, 2055, and 2085 show major shifts in areas suitable for most species with large geographical changes in species composition. The areas of suitable climate for 81%-97% of plant species are projected to decrease in size and/or shift in location, many to higher altitudes, and 25%-12% of the species are projected to lose all of their area by 2085 (McClean 2005). Slow growing Quiver Tree (Aloe dichotoma) populations in the northern part of the range in Namibia are already dying as the area experiences more dry conditions (Foden 2002). Wetlands of international importance and wildlife are also under threat from drying conditions in Southern Africa (Lovett 2007). Changes in habitats due to climate change are expected to continue with species migrating eastward (IPCC 2007). Reduced large-mammal migratory systems that persist in the Kalahari (Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia) and Etosha (Namibia) areas of Southern Africa could be also compromised by climate change, particularly in the presence of additional land-use pressures (Desanker 2009).

2.3.2 Economic Impacts of Climate Change on African Protected Areas: An Example of Ecosystem Services Loss The economies of African countries depend largely on ecosystem services, and therefore are vulnerable to changes in climate and other stressors that undermine the capacity of ecosystems to provide these services. This goes without saying that losses of direct and functional benefits from ecosystems not only affect national economies, but also compromise livelihoods and exacerbate poverty.

24

Fisheries, agriculture, forestry, and tourism sectors play a key role in the African economies and rely heavily on services provided by ecosystems. Studies in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia reveal that between 73% and 90% of tourists visit these countries primarily for nature tourism (Wells 1996). Thus, impacts on biodiversity and landscape in protected areas can seriously impact this activity, affecting national incomes. To have an idea of the level of impact to the economy, Velarde et al. (2004) conducted a quantification of the economic costs of climate change impacts on protected areas in Africa. They used the Holdridge Life Zone (HLZ) system4 and a benefits transfer approach to place an economic value on the predicted ecosystem shifts resulting from climate change in protected areas (under a business as usual scenario). The geographical analysis shows that there are 20 HLZs in Africa of the 38 HLZs in the world and all of them are represented in the protected area network. The most important HLZs in terms of area coverage in Africa are Tropical Dry Forest, Sub-Tropical Moist Forest, Sub-Tropical Desert, and Tropical Desert. These areas in aggregate occupy 56.32% of the African land surface. Under current HLZs, Subtropical Dry Forest, Subtropical Moist Forest, and Tropical Dry Forest together represent 55.87% of the overall protected area in Africa, but only 3.27% of the total area of the continent as a whole. Comparing life zone output derived from four GCM models to the current climate HLZs in protected areas, Velarde et al. (2004) realized that only three of these HLZs do not change in extent as a result of climate change. Using literature on valuation studies of different ecosystem services attributable to protected areas (most of them based on contingent valuation methods, see section 1.3), and assuming that the willingness to pay (WTP) values and the preferences for different ecosystem services remain constant, three of the GCM models showed a (undiscounted) negative damage for the year 2099. The worst-case scenario of damages from climate change to protected areas in Africa due to losses of benefits they provide totals US$ 74.5 million by 21005. This estimate would certainly vary if additional external pressures and feedbacks would be considered in the analysis.

2.4 Ecosystem Responses to Climate Change Ecosystems and biodiversity are constantly responding to changes in climate and the environment. In general, ecosystems are expected to tolerate some level of future climate change and will continue to persist in some form or another, as they have done several times under palaeo-climatic changes (Jansen et al., 2007). However, it is unknown whether ecosystem resilience inferred from these responses will be sufficient to tolerate future anthropogenic climate change (Chapin et al., 2004). According to Parry et al. 4 The Holdridge Life Zone (HLZ) System is a widely used vegetation classification system. The HZs are nt only basic bio-climatic units but also zones describing similar human activities, which make them adequate for benefit transfer purposes and assumptions about use and non-use values pertaining to vegetation change (Velarde et al. 2004). 5 Note that the study is static and assumed that designated protected areas are not subjected to other external pressures. If this would be considered, as well as the dynamics of climatic effects, results would most likely vary (Velarde et al. 2004).

25

(2007), unprecedented global change disturbances are likely to decrease ecosystems capacity to respond and adapt to changes. The uncertainty is compounded by possible increases in productivity due to climate change, which may also have effects on resilience, as these may occur in certain terrestrial ecosystems through likely atmospheric CO2-fertilisation effects and/or modest warming. Generating more knowledge on the capacity of ecosystems to tolerate disturbance is critical, as it will help understanding better their “ability to adapt naturally” and predicting thresholds and tipping-points. This section describes the mechanisms that ecosystems have to “adapt naturally”. Ecosystems have two primary mechanisms to adapt in place: phenotypic plasticity and adaptive evolution (Running and Mills 2009). Phenotypic plasticity occurs when the external stressor is “within the response envelope of the species such that individuals can adjust behavior, morphology, or physiology to accommodate the change” (Hendry et al. 2008). Such plasticity allows for an individual to modify its phenotype without changes in genotype across a reaction norm as environmental conditions change (Nussey et al. 2007). While phenotypic plasticity represents an adaptive response to a stressor without a genetic change, adaptive evolution facilitates adaptation in place through changes in gene frequencies following natural selection (Running and Mills 2009). Evolution via natural selection has traditionally been thought of as a long‐term process divorced from the short‐term time scale of ecological processes. However, Running and Mills (2009) point out that adaptive evolution can be surprisingly rapid, where changes can be observed over a period of a few years. Although this area of research is still evolving, five generalities have emerged to guide expectation of the most possible scope and speed of adaptive evolution (Kinnison and Hairston 2007, Bell and Collins 2008) in response to climate change. Conditions that facilitate evolutionary change via natural selection in time scales that can affect contemporary ecological dynamics are (Running and Mills 2009): Large population size and/or rapid population growth: Large population size provides a great supply of raw evolutionary material via mutation and allows natural selection to shape gene frequencies without being overwhelmed by random genetic drift. Similarly, populations that become small and declining remain much more susceptible to extinction. Short generation times: Over a determined time interval, species with short generation times will be exposed to more rounds of selection and therefore will have a greater potential to manifest evolutionary change. Furthermore, species with short generation times tend to have higher capacity for population growth, which gives them advantage against the demographic costs of natural selection. Stressor is directional and relatively constant: Using experiments that isolate climate change as the external stressor and evaluating responses as species composition of ecological communities change may help understand the effects of this stressor on the natural selection process.

26

Medium level of gene flow: Gene flow can bring adaptive variation into a population. For example, if immigrants from southern populations bring adaptive genes into northern populations during range shifts, evolutionary adaptation may be enhanced (Kinnison and Hairston 2007). Generalist species: Evolutionary change requires heritable variation in the traits under selection. For a given trait, highly specialized species will be less likely to possess the variation necessary to adapt to rapid and large changes. Generally, species that have high heritability to endure a specific stress can evolve rapidly in response to an increase in this or a similar stress caused by external factors. Although adaptation in place is one possible response for species exposed to stressors, there are other mechanisms that ecosystems and species use to “adapt naturally: they shift to areas where the stressor is ameliorated. Range shifts and changes in animal migration patterns—typically poleward and upward— have already been documented as some of the most remarkable responses of ecosystems and species to climate change (Parmesan 2006). Noticeably, adaptive movement is itself a target of plasticity and adaptive evolution (Running and Mills 2009). The number of studies concerned with ecosystems and species’ responses to climate change is increasing (see examples in Box 5) and bio-climatic envelope modeling studies project range shifts for a variety of taxa (Araújo, Thuiller & Pearson 2006; Harrison et al. 2006). However, whether species can migrate and colonize new climate space depends both on species and landscape characteristics. Future land-use changes may complicate this process, as natural or semi-natural ecosystems become more fragmented and embedded in a landscape matrix with low permeability to dispersing individuals (Vos et al. 2008). Studies that consider land-use change in the analysis have shown that the effects of climate change can be aggravated by land-cover and other human-induced changes (Berry et al. 2006). Next section will discuss this further focusing on the effectiveness of current conservation practices to deal with future changes. Box 5. Ecosystems Responses to Climate Change in Southern Africa As part of the Analysis of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change (AIACC), three case studies were used to develop and test tools and methodologies for better understanding the response of species and ecosystems in Southern Africa to the predicted impacts of climate change. The first was located in the extreme southwestern tip of South Africa: the Fynbos biome with very high levels of endemism in a very small area. The second case study area was the succulent Karoo, on the west coast of Southern Africa, also with high endemic plant biodiversity. The final case study area was the north-eastern Lowveld of South Africa, a savanna area famous for its large mammal wildlife populations. Fynbos biome of Western Cape: data of Proteaceae distribution data was used to test the model for the Fynbos biome of the Western Cape. Though most of the Protea species were projected to persist in the predicted climate of 2050, about 11% of species had no future habitat and 6% would need to move to new locations. The Karoo: models to understand likely extinction of individual animal species, based on the impacts that climate change would have on habitat structure and food plants were used for two karoo species, the highly endangered riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis) and the padloper tortoise (Homopus singnatus). Under the investigated climate scenarios, the likelihood of extinction of the riverine rabbit is likely to increase, while it appears that the padloper tortoise will be able to persist. Range shifts modeled for 2050, using 4

27

different visions of future climate, suggest minor losses in range, primarily as a result of a narrowing of the range along northern or escarpment portions of the range. There are, however, areas where the suitable habitat for the padloper tortoise is projected to expand. Lowveld of South Africa: this case study takes a different approach. Rather than considering individual species, it concentrates on changes in the functional ecosystem level attributes due to climate change. Modelling approaches based on relatively simple procedure, based on empirical equations, for predicting the key functional properties of savannas (tree cover, fire frequency, grass and browse production and carrying capacity for major herbivores and carnivores) were developed. The modelling considered both the impacts of temperature and rainfall, as well as changes in CO2 on relative competitive advantage of grasses and trees. The model predicted slight increases in woodiness in the coming century and estimated that water availability and temperature consequences of climate change may overwhelm the elevated CO2 effect on both overall plant production, and vegetation structure. According to the model, substantial (>20%) decreases in herbivore stocking rate are possible by mid-century as a result of climate change. Also, elephant density and fire were found to be influencing variables controlling vegetation dynamics in the savannah. Elephants at high density put the tree cover into a stable coppice state, and this has profoundly negative consequences for the populations of medium-sized browsers and grazers, and therefore carnivores. This effect overshadows the climate change effect, and is partly mediated by fire. As a result, the outcome of climate-change induced habitat change in the Lowveld will depend on the management of fires and elephants. Scholes 2006

2.5 Current Conservation Practices in the Face of Future Global Changes Protected areas play the crucial function of conserving biodiversity and supporting ecological processes, however their extent and selection need to be better informed by future changes. As climate and habitat types shift in space as a response to climate change, current reserves are unlikely to be effective in fulfilling their main function. At present, effectiveness of the global reserve network in protecting habitats and maintaining representative species diversity is evaluated in relation to past human land-use change. However, Lee and Jetz (2008) demonstrated that patterns of past human land-use change are not necessarily useful indicators of future environmental change, as future land-use transformation by climate and/or land-use change is at best weakly correlated to past conversion. This reveals potential problems for effective long-term conservation planning based on existing global conservation prioritization templates. In particular, Lee and Jetz (2008) highlighted that Africa and many tropical biomes are forecasted to have dramatic increases in conservation risk6 due to land-use change. According to their study, much of Africa is likely to be increasingly at risk by the end of this century (see Figure 10). Results show that geographical patterns of future conservation risk differ between the climate and the land-use change: “tropical/sub- 6 ‘Conservation risk’ is defined as the area subjected to past or future land-cover transformation divided by area currently protected.

28

tropical bio-realms and countries are generally at greatest risk due to future land-use change, while regions of high conservation risk due to climate change are mostly located near the poles” (Lee and Jetz 2008).

Fig. 10. Geographical Trends of Past and Future Conservation Risk for Global Terrestrial Vertebrates Notes: Trends are shown across (a,c,e,g,i) bio-realms and (b,d,f,h,j) countries. Biorealms provide a critical taxon-free perspective in the face of limited knowledge about the exact distribution and magnitude of biodiversity. On the contrary, countries represent the political units to make conservation, management and policy decisions. Geographical units are ranked by global conservation risk rank due to: (a,b) past land-use change, (c,d) future land-use change, or (e, f) climate change. Biorealms and nations exposed to the greatest environmental change impact are those with the lowest rank and represented in red. Source: Lee and Jetz (2008) Such results highlight the need for integrating projected future environmental change threats (i.e. climate and land-use change) into conservation practices, presently unaccounted for in any major proactive conservation and prioritization strategy. With this in mind, next chapter will explore a number of strategies, mechanisms, and processes to enable ecosystem-based pathways that facilitate adaptation to climate change.

29

3. Ecosystem-based Adaptation Pathways This chapter explains the rationale behind the concept of a dynamic landscape of ecosystem-based pathways for adaptation, and the main strategies, mechanisms, and processes that can enable these pathways.

3.1 Dynamic Landscape of EbA Pathways The dynamic landscape of EbA pathways is a conceptual framework that uses an integrated ecosystem management approach within interlinked socio-ecological systems to enhance resilience and maintain ecological functions and services at the landscape scale. It combines multi-functional land uses and conservation of natural capital7 to enhance multi-scale benefits from ecosystems that help socio-ecological systems adapt to changing conditions and multiple pressures, including climate change. This framework suggests a new landscape paradigm to maximize the adaptation benefits of ecosystem-based pathways that combine strategies over a mosaic of inter-connected ecosystems. It is based on the premise and recognition that the ability of ecosystems to adapt naturally (section 2) can be affected by the quality, quantity and nature of changes in the landscape, and that beyond certain thresholds natural ecosystems may be unable to adapt at all, hence active human intervention for planned adaptation is necessary. The landscape comprises a series of EbA inter-linked pathways, each conforming to specific planning needs and contexts, and combining strategies through flexible mechanisms and adaptive processes (Figure 11 below).

Fig. 11. Dynamic Landscape of Ecosystem-based Adaptation Pathways 7 ‘Natural capital’ refers to the components of nature that can be linked directly or indirectly with human well-being. In addition to traditional natural resources, it also includes biodiversity and ecosystems that provide ecological services (TEEB 2009).

30

Investment under this framework entails enhancing natural capital stocks to maintain ecological functions and improve flows of ecosystem services that support and enhance human well-being even under constant changes due to external and internal stressors. Because the future is constantly changing and inter-connectivity and feedbacks between bio-physical and socio-ecological systems are recognized, the landscape is dynamic, and processes are flexible to allow for learning on the best combination of strategies and mechanisms to maximize returns on investments in ecological, social and economic terms (i.e. ecosystem services and benefits, adaptation, resilience, human well-being). A flexible framework with enabling mechanisms and adaptive processes (Box 6) will also help improving understanding of the “unknowns” (see section 1.4) in order to reduce and manage uncertainty for more robust decisions and consequent outcomes for EbA. Box 6. Components of the Dynamic Landscape of EbA Pathways

To facilitate the adjustment of human societies and ecological systems to changing conditions and multiple stressors, the dynamic landscape of EbA Pathways combines EbA strategies (active core, in blue), with flexible enabling mechanisms and adaptive processes (supportive milieu, in green). Applying this framework responds to needs of bridging conservation, climate adaptation and mitigation, and socio-economic goals, linked to better appreciation of the multiple services (reflected in use and non-use values) provided by ecosystems (recognizing the role of biodiversity) (Nkem et al. 2007). Moreover, it is relevant to wide range of sectors,

31

particularly those vulnerable to natural hazards or dependent on natural capital (i.e. energy, water, agriculture, transport, tourism). In this sense, this framework provides a synergistic approach and oftentimes more cost-effective pathways to explore adaptation strategies across multiple policy arenas (TEEB 2009). This is especially true when considering the multiple benefits provided by a spectrum of interconnected ecosystems over large landscapes characterized by a shared set of ecological and bio-geographical features (UNEP-WCMC 2010). The challenge in this sense is in actively managing this landscape to balance production with conservation, and development with restoration (UNEP-WCMC 2010). The need to move towards a resource efficient economy, and the role of ecosystems and biodiversity in this transition are still to be explored and better understood. The dynamic landscape concept provides the framework for this exploration, as well as the flexibility to develop and accommodate strategies tailored to specific contexts and interests that account for interactions across spatial and temporal scales.

3.2 EbA Pathways: Inter-linked Strategies Ecosystem-based Adaptation pathways involve a wide range of strategies combined with support of flexible mechanisms and adaptive processes that recognize the dynamics of the socio-ecological systems in the landscape. The strategies are based largely on ecological theory and potential management alternatives applicable to varying spatial scales, however there is a lack of measured evidence of their effectiveness to minimize climate impacts in practice (i.e. assessed relationship between incremental change in ecosystem integrity/resilience and human well-being/vulnerability, see section 1.3) (Berry 2007). This relationship is difficult to quantify because multiple stressors and feedbacks that complicate predictability of outcomes influence it. Therefore, these strategies are implemented and supported by flexible mechanisms and adaptive processes that allow testing and learning, optimizing, shifting, integrating, and eventually up-scaling. Moreover, the landscape of EbA pathways accounts for elements that are more static and elements that are dynamic within the socio-ecological systems, as well as for the interconnections and feedbacks among and between these systems in order explore pro-active and multi-scale processes necessary to help societies and ecological systems adapt well to global changes. This section will describe the range of potential strategies and the enabling mechanisms and processes that form possible EbA pathways in a dynamic landscape (see Box 6 in previous section). It will first focus on the strategies that make up the active core: 1) target species conservation strategies and 2) ecosystem management strategies. It will then explain 3) flexible mechanisms and 4) means and adaptive processes that enable the supportive milieu (see Box 7). Because the future is constantly changing, the landscape is dynamic and allows for flexible combinations of strategies supported by enabling mechanisms and processes to facilitate adaptation. Each combination varies in terms of required resources, complexity, institutional arrangements, planning horizon, etc. The next chapter and particularly section 4.4 will discuss this further.

32

Box 7. Strategies, Mechanisms and Processes for EbA Target species conservation and ecosystem management strategies include:

Reducing and managing existing stresses, such as fragmentation, pollution, over-harvesting, population encroachment, habitat conversion and invasive species;

Maintaining ecosystem structure and function as a means to ensure healthy and genetically diverse populations able to adapt to climate change;

Increasing the size and/or number of reserves;

Increasing habitat heterogeneity within reserves and between reserves by including gradients of latitude, altitude and soil moisture and by including different successional states;

Building in buffer zones to existing reserves;

Increasing connectivity, for example with the use of biological corridors or stepping stones to link areas, removal barriers for dispersal, linking of reserves and refugia;

Increasing landscape permeability through reduction in unfavourable management practices and increasing area for biodiversity dispersal e.g. through agri-environment schemes;

Increasing and maintaining monitoring programs to study response of species to climate change (physiological, behavioral, demographic) and socio-ecological dynamics;

Integrating climate change into planning exercises and programmes;

Assessing, modelling, and experimenting at different spatial scales for improved predictive capacity and outcomes;

Improving inter-agency, regional coordination;

Conducting restoration and rehabilitation of habitats and ecosystems with high adaptation value;

Translocation or reintroduction of species at risk of extinction to new areas that are climatically suitable for their existence;

Ex situ conservation e.g. seed banks, zoos, botanic gardens, captive breeding for release into wild. These options also need to be considered alongside other options for enhancing ecosystem services. These include flexible mechanisms such as: Regulation Economic Instruments Integration Market-based Mechanisms Green Investment And means and adaptive processes: Research Capacity, Knowledge Sharing, Technology and Innovation, Adaptive Governance, Socio-institutional Change The combination of the principles of adaptation and the consideration of ecosystem services are being brought together under the concept of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA).

33

Target Species Conservation Strategies These strategies include actions that focus on the management of individual species to help them adapt to global changes (including climate change). The strategies in this envelope range from in-situ conservation to increasing the network and connectivity between protected areas to enhance the maintenance of species in danger of extinction and allow for range shifts due to climate change. In case climate change and other stressors alter habitats, ecological processes, and the landscape in such a way that species cannot be sustained in-situ, translocation or ex-situ strategies may need to be considered and are also included in this envelope of strategies. In all cases, future climate and environmental risks scenarios need to be accounted for in the design of these strategies. In line with this essential step, the IUCN already started incorporating climate risk projections into its red-list rankings (Mawdsley et al. 2009). Conservation and Expansion of Protected Areas Habitat conservation and protected areas play an important and cost‐effective role in protecting biological resources and reducing their vulnerability to climate change. Protected areas can also represent an insurance against instability of agriculture, fisheries and water resources. For example, the Foret du Day National Park, which is the only large protected area in arid Djibouti (IUCN category II, 10,000 ha), retains vegetation and provides a source of forage during drought, acting as a natural buffer that contributes to food and water security (Hansen et al. 2003). The basic strategy to minimize possible climate change impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity is to strengthen current protected areas by improving their management. Effectively managing the network of protected areas is fundamental to ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem services that increase resilience to climate change (Colls et al. 2009). Moreover, conservation strategies could focus additional attention and resources to value the multiple benefits of protected areas as biodiversity hot spots, natural buffers, and service providers for local livelihoods and global mitigation targets (World Bank 2009). For example, UNWP-WCMC (2008) identified large overlaps of carbon stocks with biodiversity hotspots that could be further explored in the network of protected areas (see section 2.1). Nevertheless, to help natural ecosystems and species adapt to climate changes, an increase in area and density of the protected area network is critical. On the one hand, this would entail the strategic identification of additional reserve area, whether by increasing the size or number of reserves (Scholes 2006, Vos et al. 2008). On the other hand, conservation strategies could focus on increasing habitat heterogeneity within reserves, for example, by including gradients of latitude, altitude, and soil moisture and by including different succession states (UNFCCC 2007). The combination of these two approaches would build a more robust portfolio of protected areas, improving representation and replication within the protected area network (Mawdsley et al. 2009). In all cases, strategies need to be informed by potential shifts in species distribution and other possible effects of climate and human-induced change on species and ecosystems.

34

Despite the multiple benefits of protected areas, strategies based on the conservation of particular terrestrial or sea habitats are limited as they only protect or sustain specific species and resources and are spatially constrained (Piran et al. 2009). The next strategies focus on conservation strategies outside the network of protected areas. Network Connectivity Ecosystems and species can “naturally adapt” by shifting to areas where the stressor is ameliorated (i.e. new suitable bio-climatic zones) (see section 2.4). However, without having the opportunity to migrate, many species will not survive climate-induced changes (World Bank 2009). Therefore, enhancing network connectivity to provide organisms with the spatial flexibility to move as climatic conditions change is essential (Scholes 2006, Mawdsley et al. 2009). Network connectivity can be enhanced by creating migratory pathways of natural habitat within transformed landscapes (biological corridors), or by using remaining habitat links between protected areas (stepping-stones) or climate refugia that are essential for climate-induced species movements (Vos et al. 2008). Critical habitats within landscapes can be protected (i.e. be ‘climate-proof’) if connectivity is enhanced and ‘de-fragmentation’ is pursued removing barriers to adaptive movement (Berry 2007). For instance, protection of large habitats in the Maloti‐Drakensberg Transfrontier region in Lesotho and South Africa is currently supported by the development of biological corridors that promote connectivity between mega‐reserves from mountains to the sea in the Cape Region (World Bank 2009). In the Netherlands, a new national conservation plan for 2020 promotes the development of a climate-proof ecological network by supporting migration between protected areas and a process of “de-fragmentation” by removal of physical barriers (Hansen et al. 2003, Berry 2007). Translocation and Ex-situ Conservation Translocation and ex-situ conservation are normally applied to species at risk of extinction. In the context of climate change, translocation would entail physically moving species from one location where the climate has become unsuitable to a new location that is climatically suitable for the continued existence of the species (Mawdsley et al. 2008). This strategy would be implemented when species are not able to “naturally adapt” and/or move between suitable habitats as climatic conditions change, either because intervening habitats are inhospitable or because the rate of migration is too slow, or the distance too long (Scholes 2006). Physical barriers and land-use change can also be obstacles to adaptive movement. Translocation is generally practiced for large animals, but is rarely used for plants and insects, in which case it is applied on species that have essential functions, like pollinators (Carter and Newbury 2004). Other names for this strategy include assisted dispersal, assisted migration, and assisted colonization (Mitchell et al. 2007; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008 in Mawdsley et al 2009). Ex-situ conservation comprises establishing captive populations of species that would otherwise go extinct. In the climate change context, captive conservation would be considered as a last resort for species that could not adapt to climate change, because they could not find suitable habitats to persist naturally (Mawdsley et al. 2009, Scholes 2006).

35

Ex-situ conservation could be implemented in botanical gardens, zoos, seedbanks, or by means of cryo-preservation. Although it includes captive breeding for later release into wild (Berry 2007), this is unlikely to be a viable long-term strategy for any more than a few species (Mawdsley et al. 2009).

Ecosystem Management Strategies The strategies in this envelope include actions that focus on the enhancement of resilience and ecological functions and services at the landscape scale that help human societies and ecosystems adapt to changing conditions and multiple pressures, including possible climate change impacts. This envelope entails strategies that range from baseline assessments and monitoring, to better understanding the dynamic interplay between social and biophysical systems, to integrated management and ecosystem restoration, and ecosystem-based sectoral protection. It reconciles multiple objectives related to adaptation, conservation, and human development and security. Reducing Threats Improved management of natural ecosystems by reducing threats from sources other than climate change such as habitat conversion, overharvesting, degradation, alien species, and pollution can contribute to more resilient ecosystems. For example, reducing the pressures from coastal pollution, overexploitation and destructive fishing practices, improves the health of coral reefs increasing their resilience to increased water temperatures and bleaching (World Bank 2009). By reducing non-climatic stressors, this strategy gives wildlife species and ecosystems more flexibility to evolve responses to climate change (Mitchell et al. 2007). Currently, there are many international Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) signed by numerous countries that address threats on ecosystems and biodiversity, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBC), the Ramsar convention, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, among others (Parry et al. 2007). Integrated actions that improve environmental quality and comply with conditions agreed under these MEAs, are synergistic with strategies that aim at increasing ecosystems resilience to help human and ecological systems adapt to climate change. Reducing and managing stresses from non-climatic stressors may be particularly difficult in densely populated areas (i.e. urban ecosystems and surrounding area), however it can be also one of the most synergetic strategies for enhancing ecosystems resilience and human well-being in the face of climate change. Vulnerability Assessment and Monitoring Assessments and monitoring systems provide information that decision-makers and practitioners can use to adjust or modify their strategies. Such information is particularly relevant in times of rapid global change (Fischlin et al. 2007). Therefore, a crucial and basic step is to develop more comprehensive systems at different scales (local, national, regional) that collect, analyze, and interpret quantitative and qualitative information on (UNEP-WCMC 2010, Ojea et al. 2009, Carpenter et al. 2009):

36

1. Ongoing losses of and impacts to natural capital (i.e. ecosystems and services/benefits they provide, biodiversity, and natural resources linked directly or indirectly with human well-being) caused by climate change. This includes the identification of ecosystems and species that are climate-sensitive and therefore highly vulnerable to climate change. (See Box 8 for an example of an Ecological Observatory).

2. Effects caused by different human-induced changes (positive and negative) on

ecosystem functional processes that maintain the delivery of ecosystem services. This includes better assessment of trade-offs and synergies, and better understanding of interactions among ecosystems and the dynamics between social and ecological systems.

Improved assessment and monitoring of the above will help building capacity to allocate resources, define strategies, predict outcomes, and evaluate effectiveness of ecosystem-based adaptation pathways. Furthermore, high quality information and evidence-based knowledge stemming from improved monitoring and assessments will help clarifying the ‘unknowns’ that are source of uncertainty in this realm, including predictability of possible thresholds and tipping-points.

Box 8. Ecological Observatory for Climate-induced Changes in Ecosystems The Succulent Karoo Biome covers 116,000 km2 of desert along the Atlantic coast of South Africa and southern Namibia and supports the world’s richest succulent flora. This biome is one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, and one of the 34 most endemic species‐rich and threatened regions on Earth. The Richtersveld in South Africa forms part of this biome, and compared to other hotspots, its vegetation remains relatively intact in spite of pressures from overgrazing and diamond mining. Recognizing this, the Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape has recently been included in UNESCO's World Heritage List. The area is now globally recognized as an example of a biodiversity hotspot under apparent and imminent threat from climate change (World Bank 2009). Given possible future climate impacts and the fact that 75% of the land is under communal management, a GEF‐funded project in the Richtersveld has opted for a strategy to improve and integrate conservation measures into land use management. One of the principal pillars of this strategy is monitoring the effectiveness of land use planning and management in achieving conservation objectives. This means, for example, monitoring the distribution of climate-sensitive species as indicator species for climate change. The attributes of the Richtersveld make the region highly suitable as an international ecological research location for the study of global climate change, acting as an ecological observatory for climate-induced change in ecosystems. World Bank 2009

Assessment of Ecosystems with High Adaptation Value (HAV) Assessing ecosystems that have high adaptation value (HAV) entails the identification of ecosystems that provide key services for climate adaptation. This strategy is very important as it indicates decision-makers and practitioners where and how to allocate investments and deploy programmes and actions that will enhance adaptive capacity (TEEB 2009).

37

Assessing HAV requires systems that account for the benefits of natural capital and ecological processes for adaptation. This requires tracking flow of ecosystem services over space and time, while linking social and ecological systems. Quality assessments using participatory approaches for local knowledge elicitation can provide an idea of the role of ecosystems in helping societies adapt to changes and withstand stresses, as well as serve as a way to monitor interactions between social and ecological systems over time (see Box 6). This could be complemented by biophysical and socio-economic modeling approaches that help quantify ecosystem services and account for the processes necessary to provide these services, thus measuring the role of natural capital and ecological processes for adaptation. In these procedures, it is important to consider the evidence for non-linearity in ecosystem services, the spatial extent of the inter-linked ecosystems responsible for providing key services for adaptation, the future use of the natural capital and possible impacts of climate change, and the variation in perceived value according to the spatial and temporal scale of use, the different beneficiaries of services (individuals, markets and societies) and their perception of climate risk and costs of loosing these services (UNEP-WCMC 2010). Box 9 below describes some of the new modeling approaches to quantify the generation, consumption and flow of ecosystems. Box 9. New Approaches to Quantify and Value Ecosystem Services InVEST The Natural Capital Project, a partnership of Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund, has developed a new set of spatially explicit, process-based models for mapping and valuing services provided by ecosystems. InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs) addresses many of the limitations of previous methodologies. Models consist of a biophysical step, where supply of the service is quantified, a use step where demand for the service is quantified, and an economic step for valuation in monetary terms. InVEST is sufficiently general to be transferable, assessing a suite of ecosystem services for diverse habitats, policy issues, stakeholders, data limitations, and scales. By mapping and valuing a suite of services, the InVEST approach can elucidate the relationships between services and help to identify management options that minimise trade-offs. The models map and value ecosystem services under current and future management, and climate-change scenarios. For instance, InVEST models can be used to assess how alternative management scenarios, coupled with climate change, are likely to influence ecosystem structure and function, and then how such changes might affect the flows of ecosystem services. Finally, the InVEST models are spatially explicit in order to account for landscape heterogeneity, such as variation in the area and density of biogenic habitat, or hydrodynamic conditions that could influence the delivery of the service (UNEP-WCMC 2010). ARIES ARIES (ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) is a new web-based tool for ecosystem services assessment, planning and valuation, developed by the University of Vermont, Conservation International, Earth Economics, and UNEP-WCMC. By creating ad-hoc, probabilistic models of both provision and use of ecosystem services in a region of interest, and mapping the actual physical flows of those benefits to their beneficiaries, ARIES helps discover, understand and quantify environmental assets, and what factors influence their value according to explicit needs and priorities. Analysis of multiple ecosystem services using ARIES enable users to overlay services, identifying areas that provide multiple ‘stacked’ or ‘co-benefit’ services, to compare tradeoffs between services, and to consider the policy options that affect their provision. Scenario analysis through ARIES can highlight areas that need to be preserved in order to maintain the interconnections between ecosystems, aiming to ensure their full functionality. Finally, by identifying agents that benefit from or degrade service flows, these analyses can also support implementation of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs (with beneficiaries or polluters paying according to use) (UNEP-WCMC 2010).

38

Agent-based Modelling Agent-based modelling (ABM) is a promising way to study interactions between local decisions and actions and ecosystem functions. This approach considers micro-level geographical, social and ecological dynamics within macro-level processes. For instance, ABMs can simulate relationships between micro-level decisions (resource decisions, policies) and macro-level drivers (e.g. development, social norms, knowledge sharing) for analyzing possible outcomes of inter-connected socio-ecological systems in the context of climate change. In this line, using ABM it is possible to analyze how different social conditions and ecosystem management systems can produce different outcomes based on the dynamic link between environmental changes and resource decisions at the micro-level and the macro-level patterns. While ABMs can generate analysis across levels of complexity and aggregation, they can also consider spatial and social heterogeneity, capturing impacts distribution and dynamic vulnerability (Taylor 2010). This process is complex and there is much research to be done to better connect the knowledge available on biophysical processes with new knowledge on social systems and how they interact. Spatial and temporal mismatch in the multi-scale dynamics and non-linear interactions are a challenge when analyzing scenarios in a quantitative-qualitative way (UNEP-WCMC 2010). However, this sort of assessments could help identifying ecosystems that are likely to have higher value for adaptation. Special attention should be given to those that supply large benefits for adaptation, playing a principal role in the capacity of socio-ecological systems to adapt well (see Box 10).

Box 10. Using Vulnerability Assessment to Identify HAV IUCN’s Climate Change and Development project in Eastern and Southern Africa is being implemented in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, to ensure that climate change-related policies and strategies lead to adaptation activities that emphasize the role of natural ecosystems in supporting people’s livelihoods. The project has focused on risk screening and scoping of adaptation activities at the community level using participatory approaches to conduct vulnerability assessments. The assessments were applied on different livelihood systems (farmers, agro-pastoralists, fishermen), in different ecological zones such as arid, coastal and sub-humid zones – each facing extreme climatic events with increasing incidence and intensity (i.e. droughts, floods and hurricanes). Based on the vulnerability assessments at local level, the project has assisted in the development of Ecosystem-based Adaptation practices at community level, including revegetation and reforestation of dunes along the Mozambique coast, tree enrichment along flood-prone areas in Tanzania, and use of non-timber forest products in Zambia. Colls et al. 2009

In some instances, HAV ecosystems may be related to ecosystems with high natural buffer capacity that are at the same time highly vulnerable to climate change. For instance, freshwater and coastal wetlands are some of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth, and yet they provide many vital functions for adaptation. They are critical water recharge areas and important sources of water in times of water stress, and provide different services to support coping capacity of local livelihoods (e.g. agriculture and fisheries). Mountain forests are also highly vulnerable to climatic extremes, and yet they provide multiple services with social, economic, and environmental benefits that are key

39

for the adaptive capacity of social systems and species (e.g. as water towers, or climate refugia) (Vos et al. 2008, World Bank 2009). Identification of HAV ecosystems is key for their consideration into EbA strategies. HAV ecosystems are key in developing climate-proof networks to enhance ecosystem services and increase resilience of socio-ecological systems to climate change at landscape level. Sustainable Production Practices Enhancement of socio-economic activities that incorporate knowledge, awareness, good conservation practices, and sustainable management of natural capital can contribute to the maintenance of ecosystem services and/or partial recovery of resilient, species-rich ecosystems that play an important role for adaptation (TEEB 2009). Moreover, promoting sustainable production practices can also be a cost-efficient and synergistic way to increase adaptive capacity while contributing to different development objectives. Evidence-based knowledge on sustainable production practices already exists; integrating these to larger planning processes and up-scaling successful actions is gaining importance (see Box 11). Strategies based on sustainable production practices include: ecologically sound improvements to arable lands and non-arable lands that are managed for useful purposes i.e. cultivated ecosystems (e.g. agro-forestry); improvements in the sustainable use of biological resources (e.g. sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products, sustainable fisheries); sustainable water management (e.g. integrated management of river basins, aquifers, flood plains, and their associated vegetation to provide water storage and flood regulation services); sustainable management of grasslands and rangelands to enhance pastoral livelihoods and increase resilience to drought and flooding; using indigenous knowledge of specific crop and/or livestock varieties, maintaining or increasing genetic diversity of crops and livestock, and increasing livelihoods diversity (e.g. promoting diverse agricultural landscapes to secure food provision in changing local climatic conditions); management of shrublands and forests to avoid degradation (e.g. limit the frequency and size of uncontrolled forest fires); among others (PA 2009, TEEB 2009, Colls et al. 2009). Box 11. Fanya juu: Success Story in Kenya The Regional Development Authorities in Kenya are implementing catchment conservation programmes covering vast areas in the country. In some parts of Kenya, farmers have adopted practices that not only address soil erosion, but also water loss. Of particular interest is the “fanya juu” and the cut of drains that were adopted in dry parts of Machakos, Majueni, and Kitui districts. Fanya juu terraces are constructed by digging a contour trench and moving the soil to the upper part of the trench in order to form an embankment on which to plant fruit trees, Napier grass, or others. The trench traps and holds water that is gradually released to the farmland. These practices have shown very successful results in areas that otherwise would be bare lands and therefore are spreading to other areas of the country. Modified management systems and alternative technologies and practices such as the ones mentioned above can play a central role to sustainable production with positive effects on natural and cultivated ecosystems that provide key services essential to human populations (Box 12). For example, agroforestry (combining trees and shrubs with crops

40

and/or livestock) has demonstrated multiple benefits such as soil regeneration, increase productivity of food, fibre and medicines, and maintaining ecosystem services such as water, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity (see example of agroforestry up-scaling for Africa in section 4.3).

Box 12. Benefits of Sustainable Production ‘Best Practices’ Global Assessment A study of 286 recent ‘best practice’ initiatives in 57 developing countries covering 37 million hectares (3% of cultivated area in developing countries) across 12.6 million farms showed how productivity increased along with enhancing supply of ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestration and water quality). The average yield increase was 79%, depending on crop type, and all crops showed gains in efficiency of water use. Examples of these ‘best practices’ included:

pest management: using ecosystem resilience and diversity to control pests, diseases and weeds; nutrient management: controlling erosion to help reduce nutrient losses; soil and other resources management: using conservation tillage, agro-forestry practices,

aquaculture, and water harvesting techniques, to improve soil and water availability for farmers. Pretty et al. 2006

Matrix Management This approach acknowledges the dynamic nature of climate-change effects on ecosystems and species and recognizes the interactions between ecological and social systems within a defined landscape of inter-connected ecosystems. In general, this landscape, which can be an eco-region, comprises of a network of protected areas and the area between them, which is referred to as the matrix. Rather than focusing on a single species or ecosystem type, this strategy allows for a more integrated approach that combines 1) increasing landscape matrix permeability and connectivity to support movement of large numbers of species in response to climatic changes (Mawdsley et al. 2008), and 2) conserving natural capital and enhancing ecosystem functions and services in multi-functional land uses to facilitate adaptation of socio-ecological systems to changing conditions and multiple pressures (World Bank 2009). Following this line of thought, matrix management prioritizes human activities that enhance and preserve multiple ecosystem services essential for socio-ecological resilience to future risks, as well as conservation practices that enable creating permeability in the matrix for biodiversity to move through the area (Scholes 2006). Moreover, integrated management of a mosaic of inter-connected ecosystems entails recognizing the benefits from different terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, acknowledging these are part of natural and man-made ecosystems located in rural and urban areas within the landscape (see Box 13 for an example of benefits from urban ecosystems). Neglecting inter-connections among these ecosystems and socio-ecological dynamics that have an effect on the mosaic of ecosystems within the landscape carries the significant risk of individual ecosystems deteriorating despite management efforts, with the consequence of loss in important services and the potential threat of tipping points (UNEP-WCMC 2010).

41

Box 13. Benefits from Urban Ecosystems As cities are expected to grow at a rapid rate in the coming decades, with more than 60% of the world’s population expected to live in cities by 2030, it is important that the ecosystem services in urban areas and the ecosystems that provide them are understood and valued in urban planning and matrix management strategies. Most cities are dependent on large hinterlands needed to provide input and take care of output from cities. A study of several large cities in the Baltic region estimated that cities claim ecosystem support areas 500-1000 times larger than the area of the cities themselves (Folke et al., 1997). However, there is also a presence of natural ecosystems within the city boundaries. Bolund and Hunhammar (1999) studied natural ecosystems in Stockholm and identified seven different urban natural ecosystems, most of them manipulated and managed by man: street trees, parks, urban forests, cultivated land, wetlands, lakes/sea, and streams. The study also identified several services from these urban ecosystems that contribute to public health and increase the quality of-life of urban citizens. Some of these ecosystem services are:

air filtering (gas regulation) micro-climate regulation noise reduction (disturbance regulation) rainwater drainage (water regulation) sewage treatment (waste treatment) food production erosion control recreational:cultural values

In general, all ecosystems assessed in the study wee found to contribute to climate regulation, as well as providing recreational and cultural values. Bolund and Hunhammar (1999) also identified that the process of increasing the density of buildings threatens urban ecosystems, suggesting that land use planning and expansion should probably aim at allowing urban sprawl rather than increasing urban density. Moreover, they also highlight that the size and nature of the urban green areas are important for the preservation of fauna, where high diversity of species in the city requires that connections between larger ecosystems surrounding the urban area and green spaces in the city are not disrupted.

This approach has the potential to provide multiple benefits (e.g. improve human health, maintain water quality, protect biodiversity) and enhance synergies between adaptation and mitigation (e.g. in case of conservation of forest ecosystems) balancing different interests. Examples and rough cost estimates for managing the wider matrix in Africa are provided in section 4.2. Restoration, Rehabilitation, and Reallocation If ecosystems are very degraded or transformed, or have crossed one or more thresholds of irreversibility, ecological restoration and rehabilitation are probably the most viable management strategies to repairing some ecological processes at site and help recover flow of some ecosystem services (TEEB 2009). Nonetheless, it is important to highlight that costs of implementing these strategies are high and many ecosystems cannot be effectively restored within reasonable timescales (i.e. full benefits of restoration build up over long periods of time). Therefore, avoiding degradation and enhancing ecosystems functioning and resilience needs to be considered in the fist place before undertaking any restoration measure (TEEB 2009). While ecosystem restoration/rehabilitation may help recovering systems to pre-disturbance conditions, these strategies may never fully reproduce pre-disturbance

42

conditions or species composition after a severe transformation (TEEB 2009). Full restoration is most likely not feasible for ecosystems destroyed or degraded beyond a certain point. In these cases, it may be necessary to implement measures for reallocation of the most degraded areas. This strategy entails assigning an ecosystem a new – usually economic – main function, which is generally unrelated to the function of the original ecosystem (e.g. forest reallocated to farmland and road construction) (TEEB 2009). In cases where reallocation is not an option, replacement alternatives could be considered for making up the loss of specific ecosystem services (e.g., ecosystem re-creation, rapid dispersal by humans, pollinator reintroduction, use of pesticides for pest outbreaks) (UNFCCC 2007), although the sustainability of this strategy is highly questioned. Despite the benefits of restoration become more obvious in the long term, the flow of some goods and services may increase from the early stages of a restoration activity, even if the optimum is only reached much later. This means that some restoration activities can have rapid benefits with respect to at least partial recovery of some key ecosystem functions (TEEB 2009). This could apply to restoration of ecosystems with high buffering capacity (e.g. mangroves, green belts), where benefits of protecting vulnerable populations from possible impacts of extreme events can be perceived already in early stages of the restoration process. Box 14 below provides some examples of benefits and costs of restoration projects in Africa.

Box 14. Restoration Costs and Benefits Case study in Cameroon (Loth 2004, UNDP-UNEP 2008) The Waza floodplain is a high productivity area and critical for biodiversity. Despite its importance, the area is also very fragile with fluctuating levels of rainfall, widespread poverty and precarious living conditions. About 125,000 people depend on services provided by this floodplain ecosystem for subsistence livelihoods. In 1979, construction of a large irrigated rice scheme reduced flooding by almost 1,000 km² affecting the region’s ecology, biodiversity and human populations (UNDP-UNEP 2008). Loth (2004) assessed that engineering works to recover the flooding regime have the potential to restore up to 90% of the floodplain area. These works would cost approximately US$ 11.2 million (Loth 2004). The same study found that the socio-economic effects of flood loss caused by the rice scheme were significant, incurring in livelihood costs of almost US$ 50 million over the 20 years following construction. It was estimated that local households suffer direct economic losses of more than US$ 2 million/year through reduced dry season grazing, fishing, natural resource harvesting and surface water supplies. On this basis, floodplain restoration (i.e. ecological and hydrological restoration) demonstrated to have significant benefits in development and poverty alleviation terms. According to the study, benefits of restoring the pre-disturbance flood regime will cover initial investment costs in less than 5 years. Investment in flood restoration measures was calculated to have a benefit: cost ratio of 6.5: 1 over a period of 25 years using a discount rate of 10%. Total net livelihoods benefits fro restoration estimated by the study equal US$ 2.32 millions a year (Loth 2004). Case study in South Africa (Pollard et al. 2008) The Manalana wetland (Mpumalanga, South Africa) was severely degraded by erosion, which threatened to consume the entire system. The wetland supports about 100 small-scale farmers, 98 of whom are women. Given that about 70% of local people make use of the wetland in some way and around 25% depend on it as their sole source of food and income, the wetland was considered to offer an important safety net. To improve the wetland’s ability to continue providing its beneficial services, the ‘Working for Wetlands’ public works programme intervened in 2006 to stabilise the erosion. In 2008, an economic valuation study of the wetland rehabilitation revealed that:

43

the value of livelihood benefits derived from the degraded wetland was just 34% of what could be achieved after investment in ecosystem rehabilitation;

the rehabilitated wetland now provides services conservatively estimated at US$ 419 per year to some 70% of local households, in an area where 50% of households survive on an income of less than US$ 690 per year;

the total economic value of the livelihood benefits (US$ 242,000) provided by the rehabilitated wetland is more than twice what it cost to undertake the rehabilitation works (US$ 115,000), indicating a worthwhile return on investment;

the Manalana wetland acted as a safety-net that buffered households from slipping further into poverty during times of shock or stress.

In general, restoration across a mosaic of ecosystems can achieve enhancement of services even if full recovery is rarely possible (Rey-Beneyas et al. 2009). Restoring mosaics of inter-connected ecosystems can ensure that if some very degraded ecosystems are only slowly recovering, other functioning ecosystems will provide services and structure to build on. Moreover, restoration efforts that recognize possible effects of climatic change will most likely focus on enhancing ecosystem function and ecological processes across mosaics of ecosystems, rather than attempting to maintain a particular species composition or community type at a given site (Harris et al. 2006). Given the high costs of restoration and rehabilitation activities, it makes economic sense to initiate this process in areas where multiple ecosystem services can be enhanced (Vos et al. 2008). For example, investment on cost-effective opportunities could focus on ecosystems restoration actions that can simultaneously increase ecosystem resilience to climate change (e.g. by introducing a mix of species that may be more resilient to anticipated changes in a particular area), reduce risk from natural hazards (e.g. by enhancing natural buffer capacity), and improve food and water security as a contribution to poverty alleviation. In such cases, the social benefits that flow from restoration can be several times higher than the costs (TEEB 2009). Ecosystem-based Sectoral Protection Reactive restoration and disaster management efforts are generally the fall-back option for severe cases where ecosystem degradation or even collapse has already taken place (TEEB 2009). A more pro-active approach would be investing in natural capital to prevent catastrophes and adapt to rapid changes. By integrating ecosystem-based protection in the design of projects and sectoral planning, the damage potential of storms, floods, landslides, and other natural hazards can be considerably reduced. Ecosystem-based protection entails a combination of strategic land-use planning and maintenance or restoration of ecosystems to enhance buffering capacity and ecological services (e.g. regulating services) that provide protection to the targeted area, project, or sector. This strategy is particularly relevant to risk prone areas, or sectors that are highly vulnerable to climate change and the effects of natural disasters. Instead of working against nature, as traditional engineering tends to do, this approach will account for externalities and the dynamic interplay between human interventions and the ecological processes and services, trying to find solutions that will provide larger benefits in economic, social, and environmental terms in conditions of stress and change.

44

Examples of how to integrate ecosystems protection into infrastructure and livelihoods development projects already exist (see Box 15 below), this could serve as a basis to further develop an ecosystem-based approach for sectoral protection. Box 15. Conservation Actions in the Construction of Energy–Pipelines; Transportation–Roads; Telecommunications–Access Corridors Several environmental impacts are caused by infrastructure development projects in these sectors. To minimize these impacts, several conservation actions are considered during deployment, such us:

generation of wildlife corridors to connect habitats; minimization of project footprint; creation of compensatory protected areas; management plans; use of native plant species as barriers to avoid or reduce undesirable intrusions; minimization of access roads and right of way (ROW) width for pipelines; minimization of forest edges; implementation of management and maintenance plans for all routes; revegetation along all routes; ROW maintenance; improvement of land use management; elaboration and implementation of zoning plans; environmental education and awareness programs

World Bank 2009 This approach could be applied in different sectors and could also be used as a cross-sectoral protection mechanism if aimed at protecting an area with different economic potentials (e.g. mangroves close to a harbour, green belt around a city, see Box 16) or a sector that is closely linked to others (e.g. sectors dependent on hydropower-generated energy). Using ecosystems for cross-sectoral protection could be a cost-effective way to ensure services for multiple purposes, contributing simultaneously to food, water, and energy security measures (World Bank 2009). Managing ecosystems to protect vulnerable areas could also generate multiple benefits while preventing effects from several risks. In coastal areas, restoration of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves have proved to be an effective measure against storm-surges, hurricanes, coastal erosion, saline intrusion, and natural barriers to enhance human security (Colls et al. 2009). In peri-urban areas, watershed management and forest ecosystems restoration has proven to help enhancing water regulation services that support the supply of water for drinking and hydroelectricity generation of cities like Nairobi, Cape Town, Dar es Salaam, Harare, Johannesburg, among others (Dudle and Stolton 2005). Box 16. The Green Wall Concept For several decades, the CEN-SAD (Community of Sahel-Saharan States) countries have faced persistent rainfall shortages that, despite the occurrence of rainy years, have led to a southward isohyets migration in the Sahelian countries, and to a northward migration in the north of the Sahara. This situation may be exacerbated by climate change over the next decades. To address this issue, the Great Green Wall initiative was adopted in 2005 by CEN-SAD as a solution that combines a set of cross-sectoral actions and interventions aimed at the conservation and protection of natural resources with a view to achieving sustainable development and protection against increasing risks of desertification and climate change in the sub-region.

45

The green wall concept (or other terms such as green belt, green dam, green pole, green anchor, etc.) strongly suggest a vocation for providing protection against a danger that is "advancing" towards the exposure unit (e.g. populated areas, roads, irrigated plots, etc.); this unit will, at the same time, spur and undergo increased pressure from other stressors (e.g. population increase, over-exploitation, etc). Characteristics of this concept involve the range of land planning and development actions that:

cover a given area, especially village lands; are mainly sylvo-pastoral in nature and structured as a "long-term investment; aim mainly at combating desertification, under the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD)

and/or are oriented towards protection and production; represent a curative and/or preventive measure; are spatially discontinuous in relation to settlements; are integrated or to be integrated into national and sub-national agricultural and/or socioeconomic

development programmes, or at least in synergy with them; provide support for alternative activities to natural resources exploitation, e.g. trade, transport,

manufacturing. The wall/belt does not have to have a geometrical form. It could be discontinuous and should be linked to the water and soil conditions that are the most potentially productive. In general, there is a "protecting area/protected area" ratio of 1 to 7. This ratio can easily be improved to 1 to 10 if wise technical choices are made and land use plans considering population movements are carefully designed. OSS 2008 Moreover, tourism is a sector that could greatly benefit from ecosystem-based protection. In the last decade, biodiversity hotspots have been experiencing rapid tourism growth. The ecotourism8 sector grew between 20-34% annually during the 1990s and in 2004 the nature and ecotourism market grew three times faster than the tourism industry as a whole (TEEB 2009). Protecting tourism from possible impacts of global changes will require increasing the resilience of ecosystems on which the sector depends, including the bundle of ecosystem services necessary to fulfill the expectations and willingness to pay of tourists. Thus, countries interested in keeping the growth of this sector will need to invest in conserving ecosystems and biodiversity. Another sector that could benefit largely from ecosystem-based protection is agriculture. More resilient agriculture can be achieved through a better management of the matrix and introduction of conservation and sustainable production practices into the land-use planning of this sector, as mentioned in sections above. In all the examples above, adopting an ecosystem-based approach for sectoral protection will require the integration of ecosystem management strategies into sectoral planning. Next section will explain further the mechanisms and processes that will enable effective adoption of these strategies.

8 Ecotourism is understood as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people. This differs from nature-based tourism (i.e. travel to unspoilt places to experience and enjoy nature), which focuses more on what the tourist can gain and less on ensuring that nature is protected. The new Tourism Sustainability Council established in 2009 has the potential to provide a global accreditation body for ecotourism programmes that meet agreed standards.

46

Flexible Mechanisms to Enable EbA The application of these mechanisms will depend on the context of practice, the priorities and planning horizon, and the combination of strategies (see sections above) to be promoted. These mechanisms are flexible and can be shaped and/or integrated to best-fit varying interests and changing ecological and social systems within the landscape. To maximize benefits in ecological, social, and economic terms, it is suitable to plan investment using these mechanisms at the landscape level. The envelope of mechanisms that enable ecosystem-based adaptation ranges from improving regulation and enforcement and applying economic instruments that promote EbA strategies, to integrating ecosystem-based strategies into planning processes (i.e. sectoral, cross-sectoral planning), and exploring market incentives to enhance ecosystem services that help building socio-ecological resilience to climatic and environmental changes. Regulation and Economic Instruments Robust regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms can help reduce threats to biodiversity and ecosystems, while enhancing ecological services for human wellbeing. Current regulation for conserving natural capital is based on static approaches, but new frameworks will need to be revisited and modified to provide practitioners with the flexibility, tools and approaches needed to effectively implement strategies that consider the dynamic effects of climatic changes on socio-ecological systems. Moreover, new legislative tools or regulations may be necessary to address specific climate-change impacts that can be anticipated (The Heinz Center 2008, Mawdsley et al. 2009). Standards, codes, compliance and liability regimes will vary according to the intended purpose. Experience with these regimes exists already, and it has been proven that they perform even better when linked to economic instruments based on the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘full cost recovery’ principles – to alter the status quo which often leaves society or nature to pay the price (TEEB 2009). In the climate change context, these principles and the “precautionary” principle are very relevant given the uncertainty of possible outcomes; therefore regulations and incentives that go in line with these principles can be considered proactive mechanisms to build adaptive capacity. Governments play an important role in enabling ecosystem-based strategies for adaptation by introducing mechanisms that can influence or incentivize markets, practitioners, and society to adopt them. The pool of economic instruments they can use is large and well tested. It includes mechanisms such as innovative tax and fiscal policies, performance standards, verification systems, compensation, subsidies, intergovernmental fiscal transfers, government spending, among others. Given that benefits of some EbA strategies build on with time, and sometimes only become clear in the future, some of these mechanisms (e.g. subsidies, credits, tax exemptions) can provide support for their immediate uptake by rewarding positive efforts in the short-term (TEEB 2009).

47

Box 17. Debt-for-Nature Swaps Madagascar Nearly 98% of Madagascar’s land mammals, 92% of its reptiles, and 80% of its plants are found nowhere else on earth. Burdened with high levels of debt, Madagascar has limited domestic resources to address environmental degradation and preserve its unique and globally significant biodiversity. In 2008, the government of Madagascar signed a large debt-for-nature swap agreement with the Government of France, allocating roughly US$20 million to preserve Madagascar’s rich biodiversity. This agreement is part of Madagascar’s ambitious national effort to triple the size of the country’s protected areas. The funds will be managed through the Foundation for Protected Areas and Biodiversity—a conservation trust fund established by WWF, Conservation International and the Government of Madagascar to support the country’s ecosystems and wildlife (ScienceDaily 2008). Cameroon In 2006, France and Cameroon signed the first Central African debt-for-nature swap agreement. Under this agreement, Cameroon committed to invest at least US$25 million by 2011 to protect part of the world’s second largest tropical forest. The funds will finance the Forest and Environment Development Program, a program aimed at reducing poverty while protecting and managing natural forest resources. In addition to improving the management of 40 protected areas, wildlife and forest production and increase community forest resources and research capacity, the program is designed to secure increase the present protected area network from 14 to 17% of the national land area and improve job opportunities in the country (The forest sector is the largest private employer in Cameroon) (WWF 2006). Other Debt-for-Nature Swaps In total 33 countries in Africa are classified among the 40 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC, initiative launched in 1996 by the IMF/World Bank and other creditors an enhanced in 1999, it has an explicit link to poverty reduction through Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers) worldwide. Of these 33 counties only few have implemented debt-for-nature swaps and not all have reached completion point (World Bank 2009b); therefore, the potential to explore opportunities with this mechanism is still large. Some additional examples of conservation funds generated through Debt-for-Nature Swaps in Africa are (in US$, Moye 2002): Ghana: $1 million Nigeria: $93,000 Tanzania: $8 million (for eco-tourism) Zambia: $2.3 million

Other mechanisms can create or re-allocate funds conditioned to the enhancement of ecosystem services (e.g. environmental levies or taxes, fiscal transfers, debt-for-nature swaps, see Box 17). For instance, environmental taxes or levies per inhabitant or business can help raise funds for restoration programmes, which otherwise would be too costly to finance (TEEB 2009). Tax revenues of this sort could be paid into special funds spent on enhancing natural capital and ecological services associated to HAV ecosystems, or for the ecosystem-based protection of a particular vulnerable sector (see Box 18). Similarly, ecological fiscal transfers could help funding EbA by enhancing conservation practices with benefits to people around conserved areas. Moreover, EbA strategies could be enabled through damage compensation schemes (i.e. seeing wildlife as a cost) or public payments that reward the enhancement of ecosystem services and conservation of dynamic biodiversity (i.e. protecting migration pathways) on private lands (TEEB 2009).

48

Box 18. Innovative Levies for Nature In 1999, the South African municipality of Hermanus acted on a water shortage by introducing a block rate tariff system to reduce water demand. A significant percentage of revenues collected through these levies were paid to the Working for Water (WfW) public works programme to clear invasive alien plants in the mountain catchment of the reservoir supplying Hermanus with water. This activity helped restoring natural fire regimes, the productive potential of land, biodiversity and hydrological functioning. The funds obtained through the levies and the formal agreement between the municipality and WfW prevented losses estimated at between 1.1-1.6 million m³ of water per year (Turpie et al. 2008).

Economic instruments complement regulation, but could also be used in voluntary systems, as is the case of certification schemes, informal codes of conduct and non-binding agreements. Payment for ecosystem services is a sort of economic instrument that can also be applied in the market context. It will be described in more detail later on in this section. Strategic Plans and Policy Integration Loss of natural capital and ecosystem degradation can represent a threat to a number of development, environmental, and climate adaptation and mitigation objectives. Similarly, interventions to achieve one of these objectives can affect the others in a positive or negative way (i.e. building on synergies or conflicts). Given the strong links between ecosystem-based adaptation, development, and conservation, it seems essential to coordinate and integrate the policies that govern them. Integrating policies would increase the cost-effectiveness of investment aimed at enhancing the flow of ecological services from relevant natural capital, as the co-benefits would support multiple agendas (Vignola et al. 2009, TEEB 2009). This process would also help addressing issues of leakage and additionality (TEEB 2009). In this sense, the integration of policies and mainstreaming of ecosystem management into the planning process would need to adopt a multi-scale (i.e. national, regional) and cross-sectoral approach. This process would also need to respond to calls for the development of strong synergy between international agreements (see Box 19). Box 19. Call for Synergies and Integration of Environmental Conventions There have been calls for the development of strong synergy between the international and regional environmental conventions, supporting their integration into national development programmes and establishing synergies and linkages among them. Although many African countries have ratified these conventions, it has been a challenge to ensure effective implementation of their emerging strategies and plans, largely due to a lack of integration into broader national planning processes (Elasha et al 2006). Some examples of environmental conventions ratified by African countries are (NEPAD 2003):

1990 London Convention for the Protection of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish in Africa 1968 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1992 Rio Convention on Environment and Development Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Convention on Migratory Species of Wildlife Animals and its instruments Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Convention on Biological Diversity 1985 Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Coastal Environment of Eastern

African region The World Heritage Convention

49

In addition, there is growing consensus between the Parties to the international conventions on climate change (UNFCCC) and biological diversity (CBD) for strengthening conservation and management of natural ecosystems as part of climate change response strategies. The Ad Hoc Technical Group (AHTEG) on Biodiversity and Climate Change was established to provide biodiversity relevant information to the UNFCCC through the provision of scientific and technical advice and assessment on the integration of conservation into climate change mitigation and adaptation activities (World Bank 2009). Coordinated policies will facilitate the development of more cost-effective plans and strategies, ensuring benefits are shared across different stakeholder groups (see Box 20 for examples of policy integration in Africa). This step is crucial in a resource-efficient economy that needs to address short- and long-term challenges (TEEB 2009). In the climate change context, these challenges are inherent to continuous changes and uncertainties (i.e. nature of climate change and future impacts on social and ecological systems), therefore planning needs to consider and enable strategies that evolve in a dynamic landscape. For instance, plans can consider desired future conditions, but will need to account for shifts, intermediate conditions of change, new information on possible climate futures and related effects, and unexpected events (Mawdsley et al. 2009). Provisions for updates and revisions could serve as a mechanism for incorporating these variables into the planning process. For EbA this approach would enable combining strategies into different EbA pathways that respond to evolving planning horizons and contexts of decision-making. Governance approaches that would enable this process will be discussed in the next section. Box 20. Policy Integration and Strategic Planning as Mechanisms to Build Capacity The AU/NEAP Environment Action Plan The African ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN) established in 1985 is the main policy forum that provides the continent with the opportunity to address its common environmental problems. The AU/NEPAD Environment Action Plan has been prepared under the leadership of AMCEN, in close cooperation with the secretariat of NEPAD and the African Union (AU), as well as with the support of UNEP and the GEF. The overall objective of this Action Plan is to complement relevant African processes, including the work programme of the revitalized AMCEN, with a view of improving environmental conditions in Africa. It will also build Africa’s capacity to implement regional and international environmental agreements and to effectively address the African environmental challenges in the overall context of the implementation of the AU/NEPAD African Action Plan (AU/NEPAD 2009). The UNDP/UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative The UNDP/UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme in Africa aims at mainstreaming environment into national development processes for poverty reduction and pro-poor economic growth. Each PEI-supported country programme has been initiated to meet country-level demand and is tailored to specific national policy processes that account for (UNDP/UNEP 2007):

The development or revision of national planning processes such as poverty reduction strategies papers (PRSPs) and national development plans and their budgets;

Sectoral policies and strategies, including Agriculture, Water, and other natural resource related sectors;

Initiatives and policies to combat the effects of Climate Change.

50

The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) The PPCR is a World Bank programme that will be implemented in vulnerable countries to demonstrate ways of integrating climate risk and resilience into core development planning. The PPCR is country-led and enables pilot countries to transform country-specific plans and investment programs to address climate risks and vulnerabilities. For most of the eight selected pilot countries, improved management of ecosystems and natural resources are important components of building resilience and reducing vulnerability in targeted sectors. Countries where the PPCR is implemented in Africa are Mozambique and Zambia (World Bank 2009). Market-based Mechanisms: PES Market-based mechanisms can support investment in innovative strategies aimed at enhancing ecological services of natural capital for adaptation while maximizing returns in ecological, social and economic terms (TEEB 2009). For example, payments for ecosystem services (PES)9 can create incentives and reward efforts for maintaining or enhancing ecological services. PES are highly flexible and can be established by different actors and at different scales. PES schemes can be local (e.g. water provisioning), regional (e.g. protecting species migration pathways), up to global (e.g. REDD-Plus proposals for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, Box 21). Box 21. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation At an international scale, one of the most significant PES opportunities is REDD, which is being negotiated as part of the post-2012 climate change regime under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Recent proposals for ‘REDD-Plus’ would offer incentives for forest conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancement of existing forest carbon stocks. Deforestation is estimated to account for up to 17% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore, an agreement on REDD could make a significant contribution to global climate change mitigation. But not only that, given the important role that forest ecosystems play in adaptation, as well as in biodiversity provision, the implementation of REDD could have synergistic outcomes (i.e. improved carbon storage capacity, forest ecosystems resilience to future changes, enhancement of essential ecological services and functions that facilitate adaptation of human societies, decline in habitat destruction and landscape fragmentation, decrease in biodiversity loss) if designed and implemented with due consideration to the wide range of values of nature. Targeting REDD activities at areas that combine high carbon stocks and high biodiversity (e.g. tropical forests) can potentially maximise these synergies. A REDD-Plus mechanism could have additional synergies restoring ecosystems and managing the matrix (e.g. through afforestation ad reforestation activities) to enhance ecological services and permeability at landscapes scales. Considering the multiple possible benefits of REDD and the opportunity costs involved in its implementation, it could be argued that the more synergies are pursued, the more competitive this scheme will be. Opportunity costs will largely depend on land-use. Pilot actions are necessary as the basis to generate a knowledge base and better understanding on the multiple benefits of REDD and other proposed international PES schemes of locally provided ecosystem services with global benefits, such as nitrogen deposition, bioprospecting, water and rainfall regulation, and global cultural services provided by species and natural areas. TEEB 2009

9 The overarching principle of PES is to ensure that people who benefit from a particular ecosystem service compensate those who provide the service, giving the latter group an incentive to continue doing so.

51

Given that economies and livelihoods depend on ecosystem services, this approach has benefits across scales and sectors. By aligning ecosystem stewardship with financial and economic incentives to inflict certain norms of practice, PES creates emerging opportunities with revenue flows with the potential of contributing to poverty reduction (e.g. through direct payments, or creation of new employment opportunities, see Box 22), improving conservation (e.g. maintaining healthy ecosystems or protecting biodiversity), and building adaptive capacity (e.g. increasing ecological services that are essential for the security of vulnerable livelihoods or sectors) (Nkem et al. 2007). Box 22. PES Schemes that Support Employment PES schemes can be designed to create or support employment related to the provision of ecosystem services. The type and quantity of jobs depends on the nature and scale of the scheme. A large-scale example of job creation under PES is the Working for Water (WfW) public works programme in South Africa, which protects water resources by eliminating the spread of invasive plants. WfW has more than 300 projects in all nine South African provinces and it has employed around 20,000 people per year, 52% of them women. The scheme consists of a ‘landowner entity’ (the municipal government) contracting workers to manage public land sustainably and thus maintain the multiple ecosystem services that support productive potential of land, biodiversity and hydrological functioning in the area (TEEB 2009). Market-based mechanisms like PES change the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity management as they give economic value to ecological services (Values are estimated using different valuation methods, see section 1.3). Dangers exist in applying PES schemes that seek to maximize the provision of only one specific ecosystem service and without consideration of future changes. Not accounting for dynamic climate-induced effects and the interplay among ecosystems and between social and ecological systems could lead to possible trade-offs and mal-adaptation in the future. Instead, careful preparation has to ensure that PES schemes enhance the provision of multiple ecosystem services, recognizing inter-linkages between ecosystems and manifold benefits across spatial and temporal scales (even in the face of climate-induced effects). Consideration of the context in which PES is applied is fundamental, including institutional and legal needs. More detail on the governance context necessary to an effective implementation will be provided in the next section. Green Investment Market dynamics and consumer preferences are changing towards more eco-friendly services and products. Supply and demand sides are conforming to social transformations that recognize the value of natural capital, stimulating the adoption of cleaner production processes, new designs and ideas, and more efficient use of the end-products. These transformations respond to the realization of possible ecosystem thresholds and tipping-points, scarcity of natural resources, and awareness of the benefits of enhancing natural capital for the present, but also for the future. These benefits are mostly related to human security (i.e. food, energy, water, and social security) and development processes (i.e. human well-being, and economic growth), although they also relate to cultural values. Green investment that enhances ecological functions and services can promote mechanisms that support initiatives that target market niches at different scales. These include: bio-commerce (e.g. organic production, fair trade, eco-tourism); certification and

52

labeling schemes (e.g. ecologically certified production, sustainable management of forests, see Box 23); corporate social responsibility (e.g. private and public businesses monitoring compliance with ethical standards and international norms); green public procurement (e.g. contracting entities that take environmental issues into account when tendering for goods or services); among others.

Box 23. Certified Wood in Africa In Africa, wood from certified sources has increased over the past 3 years from 2.6 million ha in 2007 to 5.6 ha in 2009. However, this represents only a small percentage of the total forest area, reaching only 0.9% in 2009 (UNECE/FAO 2009).

Finance flows targeting green investment are growing. Socially responsible investment (SRI), conservation funds, and carbon funds (see Box 24) are good examples. In addition to traditional investment criteria, SRI decisions are based on non-traditional investment criteria that include environmental, social, and corporate governance issues, such as climate change and human rights, that can affect the performance of investment portfolios and are therefore considered. Assets in socially responsible investment reached US$1.6 trillions in the EU in 2008, and US$2.7 million in emergent markets in 2006, and are expected to continue growing steady. Probably the fastest growing investment market is in carbon funds, which are estimated to reach US$ 323 billion by 2010. In addition, the market for renewable energy is estimated to reach US$ 2.25 trillions by 2020 (CIF 2006, Point Carbon 2007, WEC, 2007). To complement these financial flows, a new green development mechanism (GDM) is under development. This mechanism will aim at stimulating demand for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, mobilizing new and sustained financial support for reducing environmental degradation (Mullan and Swanson 2009). Box 24. Forest and Carbon Funds Funding Conservation: the Congo Basin Fund (CBFP 2008) The Congo Basin Forest (CBF) covers some 2.1 million km2, with about 63 million people dependent on its resources. Moreover, the forests contain unique biodiversity and serve as an economic resource for eleven different countries, and as a vital ecosystem for the entire world, with its role in regulating atmospheric oxygen and carbon. Despite their importance, Congo Basin forests are currently disappearing at the rate of 0.6% a year, and logging, shifting agriculture, population growth and the oil and mining industries are all adding pressure. If action is not taken now it is estimated that by 2040 over 2/3 of the Congo Basin forests will have been destroyed and countless species will be driven to extinction (CBFP 2008). To counter-act negative trends in the forest resources, the Congo Basin Forest Fund was launched in June 2008. Under the chairmanship of Wangari Maathai and Paul Martin, and with a Secretariat in the African Development Bank, the Fund will support innovative and transformational approaches geared to: (i) developing the capacity of people and institutions in the countries of the Congo Basin to enable them manage their forests; (ii) helping local communities find livelihoods that are consistent with the conservation of forests; and (iii) reducing the rate of deforestation through new financial mechanisms and appropriate models. The overall goal of the CBF is to alleviate poverty and address climate change through reducing the rate of deforestation. The CBF will support projects that complement particular aspects of the Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC) Convergence Plan, and will work closely with Central African governments, regional institutions, COMIFAC, ECCAS, Congo Basin technical partners, international donors, NGOs and

53

private sector. Despite it is not defined yet, it is proposed that the CBF operates over a period of 10 years until 2018. CDM and BioCarbon Fund (World Bank 2009a) Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) projects in Africa, have a large potential for carbon financing, particularly in this continent that has not seen a large number of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects being developed. To date, only eight forestry projects worldwide have been registered under the CDM. Great potential also exist under the World Bank BioCarbon Fund. This fund is an initiative with public and private contributions. It purchases emission reductions from afforestation and reforestation projects under the CDM, as well as from land-use sector projects outside the CDM, such as projects that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and increase carbon sequestration in soils through improved agriculture practices. To date, three LULUCF projects are registered in the BioCarbon Fund. Forestry and agriculture in Africa are areas with great potential for carbon projects and a win-win opportunity for EbA and climate mitigation. Some examples in Africa are highlighted hereafter:

Uganda: Clean Development Mechanisms Through Refforestation The first African project to undertake reforestation to help reduce carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (first one to be registered under the Clean Development Mechanism) is the Nile Basin Reforestation Project, undertaken by Uganda’s National Forestry Authority in association with local community organizations. The project in the Rwoho Central Forest Reserve will generate up to 700 local jobs and receive revenues from the World Bank BioCarbon Fund for planting pine and mixed native tree species on degraded grasslands. It is designed to deliver co-benefits for livelihoods, climate adaptation, and biodiversity (through reduced pressure on the country’s remaining native forests). Kenya: Green Belt Movement This project is reforesting 4,000 ha of degraded public and private land in the Aberdare Range and Mount Kenya watersheds. Although many of these forests are officially protected as a reserve, illegal logging and cultivation threaten them. Reforesting bare slopes will reduce the erosion process, protect water sources, and regulate water flows. The project involves local communities and provides them with the technology and knowledge to reforest and manage more sustainably these lands. Communities are organized into Community Forest Associations (CFAs) that are in charge of developing management plans. The long-term goal is to maintain ecosystem services and local benefits. The idea is to use the re‐grown forest in a sustainable manner for a variety of products, including fuel wood, charcoal, timber, medicinal, among other uses. Moreover, planting trees around the reserve forests is expected to enhance the buffer zone and reduce pressure on the remaining natural forests. With support from the BioCarbon Fund the project is expected to sequester around 0.1 Mt CO2e by 2012 and 0.38 Mt CO2e by 2017. Mali and Niger: Avoiding Land Degradation For the past 30 years the loss of natural vegetation in Mali and Niger reduced resilience of the arid zone ecosystems to recurrent droughts. As a consequence, local people are facing famine, poverty, and migration. In an already drought‐afflicted region, additional climatic stresses are expected to be detrimental to food security and development. Improved management of natural resources and indigenous vegetation can help to build resilience against climate change and contribute to more sustainable livelihoods. The World Bank, through the BioCarbon fund, is financing reforestation of over 23,000 ha of Acacia senegalensis, a species native to the African Sahel, on communal degraded land throughout Mali and Niger. Plantation of this native species will restore habitat for native fauna and is projected to sequester approximately 0.3 Mt CO2e by 2017 and 0.8 Mt CO2e by 2035 in Mali, and 0.24 Mt CO2e by 2012 and around 0.82 Mt CO2e by 2017 in Niger. The project will greatly aid the local communities by rehabilitating degraded land, improving soil fertility, creating jobs, and increasing their incomes through sales of high quality Arabic gum, and payments from Credit Emission Reductions (CERs). Madagascar: Supporting Biological Corridors The Ankeniheny‐Mantadia‐Zahamena Corridor Restoration and Conservation Carbon Project is an innovative initiative to conserve and restore the threatened humid forests of Madagascar. The project is

54

promoting natural regeneration and ecological restoration of around 3,020 hectares on degraded land along the buffer zone of two national parks: the Analamazaotra Special Reserve and Mantadia National Park complex. Through the creation of a protected area for sustainable use, the project aims to protect an area of 425,000 ha, reducing GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The reforestation component of the project is expected to sequester around 0.12 Mt CO2e by 2012 and around 0.35 Mt CO2e by 2017 (Kyoto compliant), while the avoided deforestation component could reduce as much as 4 Mt CO2e by 2017 (non‐Kyoto compliant). World Bank 2009, Carbon Finance Unit http://wbcarbonfinance.org/

Means and Adaptive Processes that Enable EbA Given that knowledge about the complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems is incomplete, dynamic climate-induced effects on socio-ecological systems are uncertain, and understanding of the interplay and feedbacks between social and ecological systems is in its infancy, EbA should follow an adaptive process with different means to enable learning and reflecting from policy and strategies, adjusting EbA pathways along the way. This learning process involves building knowledge among diverse groups of stakeholders of how to respond to environmental feedback (Olsson et al. 2004). This includes understanding better the dynamics between ecosystems to enhance their functions and services, but also the social processes that enable this outcome. For this reason, the institutional and organizational landscape should be approached as carefully as the ecological, in order to support the features that contribute to the resilience of socio-ecological systems (Berkes et al. 2003). Such systems of governance have the potential to enhance adaptive capacity to deal with uncertainty and change compounded by different stressors, including climate change (Folke et al. 2003). Moreover, learning and actively adapting ecosystem management strategies reduces the risk of entering into unsustainable EbA pathways. Resilient socio-ecological systems reinforce this process, by providing a buffer that protects the landscape system from the effects of strategies that are based on incomplete knowledge (Olsson et al. 2004). Principles and approaches To enable sustainable EbA pathways, there are different principles and approaches that need to be considered. These are mainly related to principles that pertain to adaptive governance, knowledge co-generation, benefit sharing and equity, economic valuation, business management, social responsibility and justice, and sustainable development. Approaches to EbA will probably evolve and change over time as further understanding on EbA is gained. Some of the main principles and approaches that would be essential to sustainable EbA pathways involve:

Learning on what values mean and how to estimate most of them, while acknowledging for changes according to space, time and use, and accounting for spirituality, quality of life and inter-generational equity;

55

Introducing modern business effective and efficient management approaches: marketing (market segmentation, targeting and positioning), financial and management accounting (business and budget plans, cost-benefit analysis), operation management (e.g. performance objectives), change management (e.g. risk assessment based on traditional and non-traditional criteria), organizational behavior (e.g. group dynamics), and strategy (e.g. scenario analysis and planning);

Recognizing that strategies to enhance ecological services for adaptation deal with inseparable components of a complex network of structures and functions at different spatial and temporal scales;

Using relevant and best available information combining different information sources and streams (e.g. relevant scientific data, local experience, monitoring outputs, etc).

Building knowledge and understanding of ecosystem dynamics and interactions (feedbacks) between ecological and social systems, expanding the knowledge of structures to knowledge of processes that sustain the social–ecological capacity to respond to change (Berkes and others 2003).

Integrating robust pathways based on a flexible combination of management strategies tailored to specific areas, decision contexts, planning horizons, future threats, and stakeholder groups and institutions interacting at different levels.

Adopting an iterative process of learning-by-doing where knowledge will be generated and institutional/organizational arrangements will evolve through a dynamic and self-organized process of testing, reflecting and revising strategies and actions. This process combines the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive management (e.g., Holling 1978) with the linkage characteristic of cooperative management (e.g. Jentoft 2000) with the co-generation characteristic of collaborative management (e.g. Buck et al. 2001) (cited in Olsson et al. 2004).

Promoting the development of bridging organizations and agents, new institutions or change within existing institutional arrangements and social networks that enable adaptive processes;

Applying appropriate use of innovation, technology and collaboration to co-generate and share of knowledge through social networks, which connect institutions and organizations across levels and scales.

Generating knowledge in a collaborative effort that complements and refines the practice and combination of strategies under diverse EbA pathways and becomes part of the organizational and institutional evolving arrangements.

Research Capacity, Knowledge Sharing, and Social Learning Building adaptive capacity for EbA requires orchestrating a number of processes that facilitate improving multi-disciplinary research capacity, monitoring relationships and feedbacks, generating and sharing new information and knowledge, and integrating new understanding into practices. Despite research in disciplines relevant to EbA is large; it is fragmented and not always well coordinated. In addition, there are several ‘unknowns (see section 1.4) that are source of uncertainty in EbA pathways. Further research to better understand these

56

‘unknowns’ and more efforts to integrate work advanced in different disciplines would help predicting and evaluating better possible EbA outcomes, expanding the capacity to adapt and readjust strategies and pathways (Carpenter et al. 2009). In order to learn from action and observation, monitoring systems would need to be enhanced and better integrated into planning processes. Monitoring provides information that could help modifying strategies and plans, increasing the effectiveness of the process (Mawdlsey et al. 2008, The Heinz Center 2008). Monitoring can also help understanding better the dynamics between ecosystems and the interactions between social and ecological systems, building evidence on which to modify decisions and actions (following adaptive management approaches). In addition to providing this information, monitoring systems can also be used to track the effects of climate change on wildlife and ecosystems complementing modeling outputs in identifying possible future management challenges relevant to the scale of observation (The Heinz Center 2008). While challenges to improve monitoring systems are likely to be high (requiring large investment costs, or new legislation, regulations or tools and methods), it is essential in increasing the ability to respond to change and shape institutions and management practices (Olsson et al. 2004). Particularly in times of global rapid change, systems that collect, analyze and interpret relevant information are essential means to more sustainable pathways (Mawdsley et al. 2008). A constructive approach to improve monitoring systems is to involve local users/beneficiaries of ecosystem services in the process. This practice may enhance incentives to learn about local ecosystem dynamics and increase the probability of managing complex systems. Over time, users can become important players in providing early warnings of environmental change, and probably prevent critical thresholds in a diversity of ecosystems. Another important approach is monitoring at several levels. Combining monitoring systems at the local, landscape, and regional scales may provide a richer set of information on ecosystem dynamics and socio-ecological feedbacks for improved management (Olsson et al. 2004). Information obtained from monitoring processes serves to complement and/or refine other relevant information streams necessary to take informed decisions on EbA pathways. The Malawi principles of the Biodiversity Convention highlights that the ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous information. Different streams of information can be combined by using different sources of information such as own experiences based on occasional and systematic observations, scientific data (e.g. climate projections, impact data), monitoring outputs, published books or articles of scientific studies, surveys, and media (Olsson et al. 2004, The Heinz Center 2008). Information can cover different scales and temporal scales, the kind of information to be used largely depends on the questions and decision-contexts that will define its relevance. Analysis, interpretation, and use of information in iterative processes of learning will lead to the generation of knowledge. This process is facilitated by policy-science dialogues, learning-by-doing, information sharing through improved information flows, institutional

57

memory, among others (Olsson et al. 2004, Nkem et al. 2007). Generation of knowledge on processes that sustain the social–ecological capacity to respond to change can reduce the risk of pursuing strategies that can be counter-productive to EbA. By providing new insights and helping managing better uncertainty, new knowledge helps taking more robust decisions to manage socio-ecological complexity. Managing knowledge systems to improve information and knowledge flows involves creating links within and between organizations and actors connected in partnerships, forums, and social networks at different scales (Box 25). Knowledge shared in this information-intensive cross-scale context will evolve within the rules and dynamics of the network, influenced by factors such as power dynamics, informal and formal rules and institutions, functional groups of social memory, specialization, experience, belief systems, etc. (Folke et al 2003, Olsson et al. 2004). This process will stimulate learning and co-generation of new knowledge and ideas, contributing to the creation of feedback loops at different scales directing the complex inter-linked socio–ecological system into sustainable pathways (Folke et al. 2003, Berkes et al. 2003).

Box 25. Example of a Partnership to Share Information and Responsibilities on Forests in Central Africa The Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) aims to promote the sustainable management of the Congo Basins' forests and wildlife by improving communication, cooperation, and collaboration among all the partners. The partnership forum does not intend to create new institutions, but through transparency and information sharing it seeks to assist partners and their associates to work in a coordinated way for a common purpose. CBFP 2008

Generating knowledge pertaining processes relevant to EbA (e.g. sustainable management of ecosystem dynamics) is an ongoing learning process that takes time to develop because it needs to respond to environmental feedback and it requires collective thinking and action at different scales. Means that can accelerate this process require innovative and technological approaches to engage and motivate users into easy ways of sharing knowledge and collaborate. These would bring together diverse interest groups with a common overall objective that could learn from each other and co-produce information and knowledge using interactive learning systems (e.g. knowledge management systems, platforms, forums, etc). This process would not only facilitate information and knowledge flow and generation, but would also develop further social networks to up-scale this process. Technology and Innovation Technology and innovation are key to growth, competitiveness and thus social well-being in the 21st century. The Bali Action Plan emphasizes the critical importance of innovation and technology development and transfer to support climate adaptation. Moreover, technology innovation, commercialization and transfer have the potential to support adaptation processes, while at the same time capturing economic value ‘at home’ through entrepreneurship, job creation and new venture development. As such, innovation and technology play a crucial role in shaping possible futures and addressing global challenges. Aligning the generation of new knowledge, the development of

58

technologies, and the promotion of innovation can have synergistic benefits that reconcile adaptation, conservation, and development processes. Information and technology can serve as means to accelerate the development and deployment and transfer of emerging technologies for adaptation applicable to one or multiple sectors. The scope of these vary and can include environmental protection services, building efficiency and design, early warning systems, flood control, resilient farming practices, and more (InfoDev 2009). In order to reduce negative ecological impact, or enhance ecological processes, these technologies need to generate products or services that provide superior performance at lower cost and use natural capital in a sustainable way. Technology deployment and transfer do not only depend on technological means and financial investment, but also on the decision context, systems of thought, belief and knowledge that will determine the capacity of a society to innovate and adopt this approach to find solutions or support decisions for adaptation. To allow for flexible systems and reduce possible barriers to technological innovation, entrepreneurial capacities need to be reinforced; inter-firms partnerships need to be supported; linkages between the public and the private sectors need to be strengthened; and communities of knowledge need to be promoted that grow and capitalise on the innovation capacity and capability of diverse actors from research, business and entrepreneurship realms. These processes are fundamental if the capacity of a society to innovate for adaption is to be enhanced in an even more knowledge-intensive economy facing rapid global changes. Box 26 below provides an example of how technological innovation is being promoted in the context of Africa.

Box 26. Mobile Applications Lab: An Example of Technical Innovation in Africa Creating Sustainable Businesses in the Knowledge Economy is a €11.9 million program supported by the government of Finland, Nokia, and infoDev to encourage innovation and competitiveness among SMEs in the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and innovative, technology-driven business models in developing countries, particularly in the agribusiness sector. The program also employs the use of the mobile communications platform to grow content, services and applications. The mobile applications lab project is part of the programme and is being implemented in Africa. In the first phase of the mobile apps lab project, partners will establish a regional mobile applications laboratory in Africa, whit the idea of encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship in this emerging field. The services offered will include training and accreditation, certification, a competition for ideas, replication and scaling up of successful ideas, mentoring of developers and acting as a repository for knowledge of application case studies. The lab will be complemented by a program on mobile social networking to help identifying promising new applications. After two group discussions in Uganda and South Africa, a third discussion will be hosted by iHub, Nairobi’s latest innovation centre, to bring together mobile applications developers, mobile operators, and others, for brainstorming on how best to create the lab.

Adaptive Governance and Socio-institutional Change In conditions of high uncertainty and rapid change, decision-making can be enhanced by adopting an adaptive governance approach. This involves an iterative process that facilitates flexibly adjusting decisions, plans and actions to the changing environmental and social contexts that consider, considering the complex dynamics between ecosystems

59

and interactions of socio-ecological systems (UNEP-WCMC 2010). A robust way of starting the learning process under this approach in the context of EbA is to build on ‘no-regret’ actions that would lead to multiple benefits in ecological, social, and economic terms under different possible futures (PA 2009). These pilot actions would help creating experience to learn from. The next step would be using this evidence-based knowledge to continue with the dynamic learning and adaptive process (see sections above). This approach and flexible mechanisms (see previous section) that would enable preparation and adjustment of decisions and plans form the basis of an adaptive governance system for EbA. A governance system based on the approach described above needs to account for several context-specific factors that may influence EbA outcomes, including endowment to livelihoods capitals (i.e. financial, human, natural, social and physical), economic wealth, productive assets, research and technological capacity, information and skills, infrastructure, institutions, legal frameworks, equity, among others (Nkem et al. 2007). Implementation of adaptation strategies is bounded by these factors and to large extent will depend on willingness to change practices, opportunity and transaction costs, resource tenure and rights, awareness, cultural traditions, and behavioral change. Creating an enabling governance environment for adaptation will require a combination of education and awareness raising, research and development, innovation and technology, information and knowledge sharing, social learning, political will, and socio-institutional change (Adepetu and Berthe 2007). Moreover, adaptive governance for EbA would require closer links and collaboration between actors and organizations at different governance levels, integration of policies, better coordination of sectoral plans, and assimilation of the ecosystem-based approach into planning processes (Carpenter et al. 2009). These processes in concert with a decentralization of local governance of natural capital could facilitate the development of more efficient and cost-effective EbA strategies for adaptive management of different pathways across scales, while ensuring benefits are fairly shared across relevant groups (i.e. equity and accountability) (Elasha et al. 2006, TEEB 2009). Governance and planning of EbA pathways across multiple levels will trigger social and institutional reorganization, particularly in face of rapid change. In this context, bridging organizations will evolve to bring together a range of actors and formal and informal institutions with a diversity of knowledge (Olsson et al. 2004, Nkem et al. 2007). Such organizations will stimulate the development of interactive spaces (i.e. physical or virtual) where actors and social networks will coalesce around common interests and share and produce collective ideas and knowledge that will enhance the process of social learning. Better understanding and new configurations of EbA pathways stemming from this process and through the implementation, evaluation and adjusting of EbA strategies will lead to the development of new institutions and/or organizational change within existing institutional arrangements and social networks (Olsson et al. 2004): A landscape of flexible institutions and organizations and complementary social features and conditions that facilitate adaptive processes across spatial and temporal scales.

60

4. Costs of Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Africa This chapter discusses the challenges of assessing the costs of EbA and presents rough estimates for Africa-wide EbA using both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. It concludes by exploring the costs of possible EbA pathways for two different planning horizons. The chapter focuses only on adaptation based on terrestrial ecosystems, as coastal and marine ecosystems are covered in a separate study.

4.1 Challenges in Assessing EbA Costs EbA costs relate to expenditure associated with actions taken to avoid or minimize the negative effects of climate change using an ecosystem-based approach. It is based on the premise that autonomous adaptation of natural ecosystems and biodiversity will not be enough to withstand future impacts and therefore human planned adaptation is indispensable to maintain/enhance the natural capital, ecological processes and ecosystem services necessary for climate adaptation of socio-ecological systems. It is complicated to estimate the costs of EbA for several reasons. One reason is the uncertainty associated with the direct and indirect costs of climate change effects (e.g. direct costs of increased natural disasters, indirect costs for development, as climate impacts can become obstacles in the achievement of the MDGs and other development processes). Without knowing with certainty the expected damage, it is difficult to calculate the level that could be avoided by adaptation. Most impacts are projected to increase non-linearly with climate change, and adaptation costs to increase correspondingly (Parry et al. 2009). As a result, the economic costs of climate change and the additional costs and benefits of adaptation are uncertain. In this context, it is helpful to analyze costs of adapting to varying amounts of impact, thus providing a choice range for preparedness to pay and the residual impact that adaptation is not likely prevent, thus indicating residual damage costs that need to be anticipated (Parry et al. 2009). As a step in this direction, previous studies for AdaptCost (2009) estimated, using a global integrated economic assessment model (PAGE)10, that the economic costs of climate change in Africa could equal an annual GDP loss of 1.5 – 3% by 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario. The costs could rise rapidly beyond this time, reaching almost 10% of GDP lost by 2100. Assuming only a 2°C rise (450 ppm scenario), the PAGE model estimates that the economic costs of climate change in Africa (without adaptation) would fall down to around 1% of GDP by 2030. Under both scenarios, the model results showed that adaptation is likely to reduce the costs of climate change by around one third: the remaining economic costs being residual damages. This indicates that the larger the climate change impact, the larger the residual damage after adaptation and demonstrates the need for mitigation as well as adaptation to reduce down the economic costs of climate change in Africa. Given the uncertainty in future projections, it is more robust to estimate costs of actions that can facilitate adaptation considering multiple possible futures, recognizing: 1) synergies with mitigation; 2) the limits to adaptation (e.g. impacts that cannot be avoided even if unlimited funding is available due to, for example, lack of technology); and 3) the boundaries of willingness to 10 The PAGE model assumes you can adapt to market impacts, but it does not include non-market impact analysis.

61

pay for adaptation (e.g. priority actions that are economically feasible, budget constraints, national and global visions). Another challenge that complicates the assessment of EbA costs is valuing “soft” measures (Parry et al. 2009). While it is easier to estimate the costs of structural measures like infrastructure to avoid soil erosion in water catchment areas, it is more difficult to assess behavioral change and organizational capacity that lead to a decrease of deforestation and introduction of more sustainable production practices. EbA combines both measures, but relies heavily on “soft” adaptation measures through flexible mechanisms. It also depends largely on the adaptive capacity of socio-ecological systems, which in turn depends on interactions and feedbacks between social and biophysical systems that are not well understood yet (see “unknowns” in section 1.3). Moreover, the benefits of EbA also depend on the services they provide and the value given to them. Although valuation methods exist, efforts to value multiple services of ecosystems for a range of users at different scales are still in their infancy, and work to integrate these results into economic assessments for planning processes is only starting (see section 1.2). All this adds to the complexity of estimating EbA costs and benefits. An additional challenge is the close interaction between ecosystems and other sectors. Is probably easier to cost adaptation actions that focus on preserving the existence of ecosystems and biodiversity (e.g. setting or expanding the network of protected areas) than actions that enhance ecosystem services that facilitate adaptation (e.g management of the wider landscape matrix, ecosystem-based protection). The latter is more complicated because it can incur in double counting, as land-use change or sectoral adaptation strategies can interact synergistically or antagonistically with natural ecosystems and have effects on ecological processes that enable or prevent ecosystem services (Berry 2007, Parry et al. 2009). This interaction can decrease or add to the costs of EbA. Bringing cross-sectoral interactions and non-climatic pressures on ecosystems into the picture will most likely mean that requirements of EbA pathways will be greater than estimated by only considering possible climate futures. Recognizing the above complexities and uncertainties is important when costing ecosystem-based adaptation. However, the challenges are not a reason for inaction; on the contrary, their acknowledgment leads to more robust decisions that can be improved through iterative processes of learning and refinement over time (see second part of section 3.3). EbA pathways can be continuously re-shaped and combined to address multiple futures accounting for uncertainties and limits to adaptation. An integrated approach working at landscape level reduces the possibilities of double counting when assessing EbA costs, because it recognizes possible overlaps between different strategies and cross-sectoral interaction. Under this approach, it is also important to account for current financial deficits, sensitivities and vulnerabilities of socio-ecological systems, as these need to be addressed as the first step (the basis) to build adaptive capacity. With this in mind, this chapter intends to explore cost estimates for EbA based on a top-down and a bottom-up approach. The top-down approach calculates continental costs for safeguarding future investments based on an ecosystem-approach (i.e. financial flows on

62

protection and conservation) that can prevent or minimize climate change impacts on socio-ecological systems (PA 2009). The second one is based on the costs of specific adaptation measures implemented at sub-regional or continental level. It also considers local initiatives with the potential to be replicated across the continent. Both approaches provide rough estimates within limitations, which will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

4.2 “Top-Down”: Financial Flow Estimates This section will first describe briefly the limitations of this approach for costing EbA, and then will explore some estimates for Africa based on figures produced and used in different global studies.

4.2.1 Limitations Financial flow analysis is used as a top-down approach to estimate the costs associated with avoiding adverse impacts from climate change using an ecosystem-based approach (i.e. focusing mainly on investment required for enhancing protection and management of protected areas and expanding conservation practices). Several studies have adopted this approach to estimate global financial investment needed for adaptation in general. However, not all studies have dealt with ecosystems in the same way. While some only mention natural ecosystems without being explicit about how they incorporate them into their costing of adaptation, others explore global estimates that could provide a basis for further research. For instance, when examining climatic risks, the World Bank study (2006) mentions services provided by ecosystems. The Stern Review (2006) refers to natural ecosystems in its chapter on adaptation, and the UNDP report (2007) refers to vulnerability of ecosystems. The Oxfam report (2007) mentions impacts on natural resources and ecosystems recognizing the need to protect ecosystems in order to enhance their resilience to future climate change. The UNFCCC report (2007) is the only one among these studies that not only mentions natural ecosystems, but also incorporates them into their financial analysis for adaptation (Parry et al. 2009). Nevertheless, the final cost estimates for ecosystems were not included in the headline figures, as their estimates were not specific to additional investment required to address future climate change. UNFCCC global estimates for adaptation focusing on terrestrial ecosystems are mainly based on James et al. (2001) figures and show annual increases in expenditure that range from $12 billion (under a mitigation scenario) to $21.5 billion/year (under a business as usual scenario) when only considering the expansion of protected areas (a core reserve system) as the adaptation measure (Berry 2007). These estimates show costs required to bring the network of protected areas to a minimum standard as the first step to providing necessary adaptation to climate change. The costing is based on the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) suggestion that at least 10% of the land of each nation or ecosystem should be set aside for conservation. Estimates under a ‘mitigation scenario’ and a ‘business-as-usual scenario’ include survey and purchase costs of new land, recurrent management costs, and compensation costs for lost opportunities (James et al. 2001). Moreover, based on the assumption that only one third of the global conservation budget is spent on reserves and that this will continue into the future (based on UNEP 1992 and

63

James et al. 2001 figures), Berry (2007) estimated that additional expenditure of $36 billion (mitigation) to $64.5 billion (BAU) would be needed for adaptation to climate change. These estimates do not address climate change specifically, but instead relate to conservation goals and good practice linked to accelerated sustainable development. Considering that enhancing and protecting a core reserve system (under BAU, 10% under strict protection and 5% in multiple use reserves) may be insufficient to ensure long-term conservation and ecological processes given climate change, James et al. (2001) estimated costs for conservation within a wider matrix. These calculations were also adopted by the UNFCCC study. James et al. (2001) estimated an additional $290 billion for conservation (without any adjustment for climate change or scenario) based on extrapolation of figures for conservation within the agriculture sector and global estimates from Agenda 21 for conservation outside the agriculture sector. Adding these costs to the conservation estimates based on the assumptions suggested by Berry (2007), global adaptation costs with focus on terrestrial ecosystem would rise up to $326 billion (mitigation) and $355.5 billion (BAU) additional annual costs. Again, these figures do not represent additional expenditure to address future climate impacts, and therefore cannot be classified as addressing climate deficit. However, it is recognized that they enhance future resilience. Similar to the UNFCCC study (2007), this study uses James et al. (2001) figures to estimate financial flows for climate adaptation in Africa focusing on conservation of terrestrial ecosystems within and outside the network of protected areas. Costs of adaptation within the wider matrix are also based on figures generated by economic studies in South Africa (bottom-up extrapolation). Before providing an analysis of financial flow estimates for the continent, it is important to highlight the following limitations of this approach (Parry et al. 2009, Trivedi et al. 2009, Lee and Jetz 2008, Berry 2007, UNFCCC 2007):

1. This approach focuses mainly on the network of protected areas, which form only part of the range of EbA options described in this study and can be considered a static rather than a dynamic strategy to facilitate adaptation to global shifts. Thus, the consideration of a wider matrix is crucial.

2. Expanding the network of protected areas can be considered rather a conservation plan than a climate adaptation strategy. Actions to reach the IUCN’s 10% goal will most likely be implemented even in the absence of climate change.

3. There is lack of evidence that enhancing a core reserve system and increasing conservation in the wider matrix will be sufficient to avoid climate change impacts, and no information on the possible shortfalls is available.

4. This approach does not account for synergistic or antagonistic cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation actions or other stressors affecting natural ecosystems, which means that EbA requirements many be greater than estimated using this analysis (e.g. additional costs to reduce other non-climatic threats).

5. Conflict between conservation and development will increase in areas that are not necessarily within the reserve system, which means that conservation costs in the wider-matrix may be even greater than estimated, particularly if conflicts are

64

exacerbated by climate change. Costs of managing the wider matrix may also increase if urban ecosystems were considered.

6. Estimates for managing the wider matrix do not account for issues related to political boundaries and coordination among countries, which could add to the costs of managing the wider matrix landscape.

7. This approach does not explicitly consider the effects of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity, and therefore it does not estimate the additional costs needed to address climate change impacts specifically, and therefore cannot be classified as addressing adaptation deficit. Instead, it estimates costs needed to enhance the protection of ecosystems and the conservation of natural capital in the wider matrix, which relate to good practice linked to accelerated sustainable development. If disruption of ecosystems and biodiversity due to climate change would be considered explicitly, it is possible that EbA cost estimates for the reserve network and wider matrix would be higher.

Despite these limitations, this approach provides rough estimates that are useful indications and a basis for further research on the costs of EbA.

4.2.2 Africa-wide Estimates Enhancing the Reserve System Africa has a wide net of protected areas (PAs). According to UNEP-WCMC (2006), Africa has about 26% of the terrestrial protected areas (considering PAs assigned by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) to categories I-V, plus those terrestrial protected areas that are not). Total extent of protected areas is equivalent to 1.1 million km2 for Middle East and North Africa, and 2.5 million km2 for Sub-Saharan Africa, or around 3.67 million km2 for Africa-wide. James et al. (1999) estimated global expenditures for protected areas based on extrapolation of figures from a World Conservation Monitoring Centre survey and grey literature. The study calculated expenditures for Middle East and North Africa of US$41/km2 and for Sub-Saharan Africa of US$118/km2 (in 1996 dollars). Assuming these rates were maintained into the future, Africa spent in 2006 a total of US$ 346.5 million on protected areas. In order to estimate the cost of climate adaptation, the UNFCCC study (2007) used James et al. (2001) figures to calculate investment required for terrestrial ecosystems given a scenario (1) and a scenario (2). Both scenarios focus on resource requirements to attain the IUCN’s 10% conservation goal11. Scenario 1 assumes that the protected area in each region might be increased to reach the 10% goal while maintaining the current proportions of protected areas in each IUCN category. Scenario 2 assumes the network of more strictly protected areas (IUCN categories I, II, and III) might be increased to 10% in each region without expanding existing category IV-VI areas, giving a stronger overall level of protection. Applying these assumptions, scenario 2 would require more square kilometers to be added to the reserve system. James et al. (2001) estimated that over 30 11 To achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by expanding PAs in order to set aside at least 10% of the land area of each nation or ecosystem for conservation by 2010.

65

years Africa would expand its network of protected areas adding an area of 0.88 million km2 under scenario 1, and of 2.72 million km2 under scenario 2. Thus, costs for scenario 2 (referred to as business-as-usual scenario by the UNFCCC study) are most likely going to be higher. Estimates for both scenarios relate to current vulnerability and do not address specifically future climate change. Costs for enhancing the network of protected areas (i.e. expanding the network and improving management for effective protection and conservation) under both scenarios were estimated considering funding required over 30 years. This funding accounted for enhancing management of existing reserves, survey and purchase costs for an ecologically representative expansion, management budgets for new reserves, and compensation for opportunity costs (i.e. in Africa this refers to the cost of lost access to resources or development opportunities) (James et al. 2001). Under scenario (1), additional annual expenditures for Middle East and North Africa reach up to US$676 millions and for Sub-Saharan Africa up to US$3.1 billion (1996 dollars), a total annual increase of US$3.8 billion for Africa-wide. Under the scenario (2), annual funding requirements would increase reaching up to US$1.5 billion for Middle East and North Africa, and US$4 billion for Sub-Saharan Africa, a total annual increase of US$5.5 billion to improve the core reserve system in the entire continent. Comparing UNEP (1992) and James et al. (2001) cost estimates for conservation, Berry (2007) assessed that approximately a third of the global spend on conservation is on reserves. Assuming this ratio in the global conservation budget will continue into the future, it could be argued that an additional annual expenditure of US$11.4 billion is needed for improving conservation of terrestrial ecosystems in Africa under scenario (1), and a US$16.6 billion annual increase under scenario (2). Again, these estimates address current vulnerability rather than marginal expenditure increases for future climate change; nevertheless, they relate to essential steps needed for future resilience. Off-Reserve Conservation: Managing the Wider Matrix Even an ecological network of reserves with adequate financing will be insufficient to maintain ecological and evolutionary processes fundamental for adaptation to climate change. These processes typically take place over larger scales (James et al. 2001). Moreover, areas outside formal reserves generally contain a significant portion of biodiversity and act as important migration pathways. As such, they play an essential role in the ability to adequately conserve biodiversity in the face of climate change (Scholes 2006). On this basis, it is necessary to create conditions in the wider non-protected matrix, which is largely human-dominated, that enable connectivity between the reserves and reduce edge effects on vulnerable (mostly small) protected areas. Conservation practices in land-uses such as agriculture, forest, freshwater, and urban ecosystems are essential to create the above conditions within the wider matrix, allowing for a dynamic landscape with patch edges that enable ecological processes and species flux at multiple scales (Scholes 2006). Two studies have attempted to estimate the costs associated to this end and will be used hereafter as a basis to estimate the costs of managing the wider matrix in Africa. The first one (James et al. 2001) provides global

66

figures based on UK estimates for protecting biodiversity within the agriculture sector, and estimates from Agenda 21 (United Nations 1992) for global conservation expenditure on forests and freshwater ecosystems. The second study (Scholes 2006) provides figures based on South African cost estimates that consider opportunity costs in farming activities based on: net margins from common farming practices on high, medium and low valued land, administration costs (management and monitoring), plus alien species removal and fire management. Marine and coastal ecosystems will not be considered in this calculation, as they are addressed by another AdaptCost study. Conservation expenditure on urban ecosystems will also not be accounted for in estimates for matrix management, although it is important to include these ecosystems in further analysis given current and future urbanization processes in Africa. Using the methodology and assumptions of the first study (James et al. 2001), matrix management costs for Africa are calculated as follows. James et al. (2001) assumed that global agriculture remediation costs around US$240 billion per year. This number was obtained by extrapolating costs in the UK ($2.4 billion per year) for the entire world based on the UK’s percentage of global cereal production (1%). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010), Africa was responsible for 5% of the global cereal production in 2008. Based on the above assumption, it could be argued that introducing conservation practices into agriculture in Africa would cost around US$12 billion per year. In addition, James et al. (2001) used figures from Agenda 21 that assess global conservation needs at US$34 billion for forests, and US$1 billion for freshwater ecosystems. According to the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO 2005), Africa contains 16% of the total forest area worldwide and 17% of the global area of inland water bodies. On this basis and using Agenda 21 figures, it could be assumed that conservation needs in Africa require US$5.44 billion for forests, and US$0.17 billion for freshwater ecosystems. This suggests a total of US$17.6 billion per year for the management of the wider matrix in Africa downscaling James et al. (2001) figures. The second study uses an opportunity cost-based approach to estimate matrix management cost for Africa. The opportunity cost is accounted as the net margin of different production activities. Scholes (2006) estimated average net margins from two land uses: wheat production in lowland (44 $/ha) and grazing in mountain area (6 US$/ha). These net margins adopt a “worst case” scenario, as they assume that conservation practices require total non-cropping. In practice, however, many matrix management options do not need total non-cropping and instead can have benefits from conservation-based land use (e.g. for ecotourism). For this case however, it is assumed that part of the farmland becomes a private reserve area managed by the farmer (see economic rationale for this approach in Box 27). In addition to net margins, administration costs used by Scholes (2006) are based on figures that estimate management costs at 18$/ha. As part of the Global Land Cover Characteristics (GLCC) project, Loveland et al. (2000) estimated that the total area comprised of cropland/natural vegetation mosaics12 in Africa is around 231.5 million hectares and the total cropland area is 214 million hectares. Assuming both areas are going to be part of the matrix and 12 Cropland/natural vegetation mosaics are lands with a mosaic of croplands, forests, shrublands, and grasslands in which no one component comprises more than 60% of the landscape.

67

using figures provided by Scholes (2006), it could be argued that a total of US$19.2 billion per year would be needed to manage the wider matrix in Africa.

Box 27. Cost-Effective Matrix Management The economic modeling used in Scholes study (2006) in South Africa found that the cost of expanding the reserve network was inversely related to the size of conservation areas. Per hectare costs decrease rapidly as protected area size increases, because larger areas benefit from a umber of factors such as economies of scale in management, more inaccessible area, less disturbance from edge effects, and better ability to be ecologically self-sustaining (Gascon et al. 2000, Balmford et al. 2003). Therefore small protected areas generally cost more to manage per unit area. In most circumstances, managing biodiversity and applying conservation practices in farmlands outside of the reserve area (i.e. matrix management) was found to be a more economically viable option than expansion of the reserve network. The exception to this is when land has the potential for high value crops such as grapes. In this case, placing the land in a reserve may be more economically viable provided that the area is relatively large. In all other situations a contractual relationship where the farmer is paid not to farm and is compensated at the opportunity cost of the lost production was found to be a more economically viable option than establishing a formal reserve (Scholes 2006).

Differences between the above estimates stem from the use of different figures and assumptions. While the first study includes freshwater systems and forests, and uses UK estimates for the costs of agriculture remediation (UK agricultural system being one of the most intensive in the world), the second study does not consider freshwater systems or forest, and uses net margins from agriculture only in medium and low value land (wheat and grazing). If in the second study the opportunity cost would include net margins from non-cropping in high value land (e.g. production of high value crops like grapes, see Scholes et al. 2006) the costs would be substantially higher. Despite both estimates for the management of a wider matrix in Africa being very crude, they provide a useful range of cost estimates (US$17.6 – 19.2 billion a year) that could serve as the basis for more detailed assessments that reflect a full range of opportunity costs, at more disaggregated level within the African context. Both estimates are calculated without accounting specifically for future climate impacts, therefore they do not represent additional investment required to address future climate change, but rather investment to reduce current vulnerability, though they contribute to the basis to enhance future resilience. “Top-Down” Rough Estimates Cost estimates for enhancing a core reserve system and managing the wider matrix in Africa are additional to the current expenditure on conservation in the continent. Although they have limitations (see section 4.2.1), they provide rough estimates for addressing current vulnerability to climate variability and relate to good practices linked to accelerated development needed to build adaptive capacity in Africa. Under a scenario of stricter overall level of protection of ecosystems and biodiversity (scenario 2 and wider matrix management), the sum of above estimates total an annual increase in expenditure that ranges between US$ 35.8 – 42.2 billion for an Africa-wide programme that comprises a representative and well-managed reserve system at its core and conservation measures taken throughout the wider landscape matrix. Assuming a combination of scenario 1 and the wider matrix, these cost estimates would lower to US$ 30.6 – 37 billion annually.

68

The estimated annual requirement may seem large if compared to gross national product of African countries. However, these costs may be justified when valuing benefits of implementing these actions. The question is rather how to adopt mechanisms that would enable the adoption of these strategies (see section 3.3) with the support of adaptive processes and international funds, and how to estimate the additional investment requirements that address future climate risks. It is important to note that countries in Africa already face a deficit in financial flows currently required for protection and conservation. According to James et al. (2001), Middle East and North Africa presented a shortfall in funding of US$188/km2 and Sub-Saharan Africa of US$122/km2 million in 1999. To reach the level of funding required for an effective management of the current reserve system (without accounting for expansion), Africa would need to invest US$869.6 million annually (including current expenditure and shortfall). Future global changes, including climate change, will escalate this deficit at a very rapid rate and losses will most likely be larger than if preventive strategies had been implemented on time to minimize or avoid future impacts (Berry 2007). Clearly, a substantial increase in funding will be needed to address not only the current conservation shortfall, but also fulfill the additional requirements to address current vulnerability (improve governance and coordination, enhance management of the wider matrix with an effective reserve system at its core), and enhance future socio-ecological resilience to climate change. This section focused on assessing costs based on a financial flow analysis. While this approach is useful to estimate aggregate figures, it does not consider particularities of sub-regions in Africa or specific projects and measures that are relevant to EbA and could be scaled up. To fill this gap, the next section provides a bottom-up assessment considering specific strategies that are relevant to EbA in Africa.

4.3 “Bottom-Up”: EbA Strategies This section estimates costs for Ecosystem-based Adaptation based on specific measures, projects, and initiatives that are in line with this approach. While some of the initiatives explored in this section are already planned or under implementation in Africa, some initiatives are only potentialities. Most of these initiatives relate to good practices that contribute to building adaptive capacity in Africa to cope with current stresses. Although they help enhancing future resilience, additional investment will be required to up-scale and optimize strategies that can address future climate risks. With this in mind, cost estimates obtained in this bottom-up analysis will be combined with top-down aggregated estimates to present costs of possible EbA pathways relevant to different planning horizons in the next section.

4.3.1 Limitations In contrast to top-down financial flows analysis an assessment of specific EbA options implemented on the ground helps account for more details and context-specific situations, such as (Ojea et al. 2009):

69

Identifying precisely where adaptation actions are needed (vulnerable groups and areas);

Linking adaptation options to specific impacts and decision-contexts; Assessing the positive or negative direction of the impacts and adaptation

effectiveness on each area; Valuing the costs of specific and feasible adaptation requirements.

Nevertheless, there are limitations with this approach that complicate its applicability in making Africa-wide estimates. The main issue with a bottom-up approach is that although a number of options exist that could be applied individually or in combination in a dynamic landscape of EbA pathways, they have not been tested for effectiveness in practice (Berry 2007, Parry et al. 2009). Furthermore, many of the options are very context-specific and therefore it is difficult to do an extrapolation of these results to calculate EbA costs at continental level (Parry et al. 2009, Ojea et al. 2009). In addition, many of these strategies overlap and address multiple stresses, so it is difficult to estimate costs and benefits without facing double-counting issues. This section focuses on current African initiatives relevant to EbA at the local, sub-regional, and continental levels. Given the issues mentioned above, these initiatives will be presented on an individual basis. Some extrapolation has been done when sensible, however these results have to be used with extreme caution, as they are only rough estimates that need further and more detailed assessment. Costs associated to local initiatives that could be applicable to EbA in Africa but that are difficult to extrapolate are presented in Table 3 below. Examples in Table 3 have been selected by ecosystems. Cost estimates for conservation of protected areas or expansion of the reserve system are also relevant to EbA but are not presented in the table below, as these are mentioned in the top-down analysis. Table 3. Relevant Costs Estimates for Ecosystem-based Adaptation Strategies Effort and context

Type of action Ecosystem Costs US$/ha/year Study

Restoration of Masoala Corridors in Madagascar

Tree and plant nurseries, plantation, and forest maintenance

Tropical forests 60 - 1700 Holloway et al. 2009

Restoration of rainforest corridors, Andasibe area, Madagascar

Sourcing and planting trees

Tropical forests 770 - 1690 Holloway and Tingle 2009

Conservation of migration corridors by the Wildlife Foundation in Kenya

Securing migration corridors on private land through conservation leases

Rainforest 10 Ferraro and Kiss 2002

70

Catchment rehabilitation, Working for Water, South Africa

Clearing of invasive species in catchment areas

Woodland and shrub-land in mountain catchments and riparian zones

270 - 950 Turpie et al. 2008

Restoration of wetlands, Denmark

Restoration through hydrological manipulation

Freshwater wetlands

1,300 Hoffman 2007

Restoration of little Tennessee River, North Carolina

Establishment of a riparian buffer with and without fencing cost

Riparian zones 3,100 US$/km without 9,900 US$/km with fencing

Holmes et al. 2004

Mangrove restoration

Replanting mangrove trees and other restoration measures

Mangroves 8,240 – 12,550 Barbier 2007

Gene banking, South Africa

Collection, DNA extraction and genetic fingerprinting, capital and operational costs for gene baking

Various US$180/species for collection US$22/specimen for DNA extraction US$30/fingerprint, US$ 26,600 capital and operational costs

Scholes 2006

Nature tourism maintenance in South Africa

Fees to cover management costs

--- 7.5 Turpie and Siegfried 1996

Maintenance of Gorilla tourism in Rwanda

Permits for Gorilla viewing to cover management

Rainforest 86 Djoh and van der Whal 2001

Payment for ecosystem services from forest conservation

PES to conserve multiple ecosystem services provided by forests

Cloud forests 40 Muñoz-Piña et al. 2007

Source: Velarde 2004, Scholes 2006, TEEB 2009 Some of the estimates related to restoration costs indicated in Table 3 above have been compiled by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2009) study. The TEEB estimated cost ranges for different restoration efforts from an analysis of 96 studies that estimate restoration costs. This analysis considered the degree of degradation, the goals and specific circumstances in which restoration is carried out, and the methods used. Figure 12 below illustrates the cost ranges for restoring different ecosystems obtained by the TEEB (2009).

71

Fig. 12. Cost Ranges of Restoring Different Ecosystems (Eur/ha) based on a Series of Case Studies Source: TEEB 2009 Finally, given the diversity of EbA strategies and overlaps among them and between them and other sectoral adaptation strategies, it is important to adopt an integrated approach that accounts for the antagonistic and synergistic interactions. Hence the idea of integrating the strategies within a dynamic landscape to allow for a more holistic approach, better coordination of actions, and adaptive management that improves effectiveness and efficiency in the process.

4.3.2 Current Initiatives The following initiatives address mainly current vulnerability to multiple stresses, including climate variability and extremes. They are all in line with the EbA approach, and while not all of them relate specifically to climate change, they contribute to the basis for building adaptive capacity for future resilience. Initiatives based on Terrestrial Ecosystems in the African NAPAs National Adaptation Programmes of Action provide country-level estimates of adaptation costs. By March 2010 a total of 44 NAPAs were made available to the UNFCCC Secretariat. Of these NAPAs, 31 (70%) are from African countries. Almost all African NAPAs identify projects based on terrestrial ecosystems as priority projects for climate adaptation. These projects relate to land management, enhancement of forest ecosystems, management and/or restoration of wetlands/lakes, protection of natural sites, buffer zones, capacity building and knowledge generation on ecosystem

72

management, among others. This category does not include water resources management, sustainable agriculture practices, coastal zones and marine ecosystems. A list of NAPA projects based on terrestrial ecosystems is provided in Annex 1. The total costs of these projects sum up to a total of US$ 86.3 million over the next five years for 23 African countries. If this total sum is used to estimate costs per capita and per capita costs are extrapolated to the continental level (including non least developed countries, LDCs), a total of $266.9 million would be required only to fulfill urgent EbA needs established through NAPAs which respond to current priorities, but not necessarily future threats. The AU/NEPAD African Action Plan The revised AU/NEPAD African Action Pan (AAP) 2010-2015 is aligned with broad development priorities and organized in nine sectors that include policy objectives, programmes and projects. The AU/NEPAD sector of “Environment and Climate Change and Tourism” includes strategies aimed at addressing the region’s environmental challenges within the context of sustainable development and poverty alleviation. The AU/NEPAD Environment Action plan and the Sub-Regional Environment Action Plans provide a policy context for the specific programmes and projects under the Environment and Climate Change and Tourism sector. One of the priorities identified in this action plan is the implementation of global environmental conventions, primarily though their domestication at sub-regional and national levels, so that they can be best integrated into planning processes (AU-NEPAD 2008). The programmes and projects within this sector are at different stages of development, ranging from stage 1 (Project Identification) to stage 2 (Needs Assessment), stage 3 (Project Structuring and Promotion), and stage 4 (Implementation and Operations). To date, the sector “Environment and Climate Change and Tourism” under the AU/NEPAD African Action Plan 2010-2015 has 1 pilot priority study under development and 2 priority programmes and projects under implementation (AU-NEPAD 2009). Preliminary budget for continental/sub-regional programmes considered under this sector include (AU-NEPAD 2008):

Congo Basin Convergence Plan on Forests (US$ 20 million) Genetic Resources (GN) and Non-Timber Forest Products (NFTP) (US$ 5

million) Africa Wide Human and Resource Capacity Building Programme for Adaptation

and Mitigation (Including the AU/NEPAD High Level Panel on Climate Change) (US$ 10 million)

Climate for Development in Africa (ClimDevAfrica) (US$ 900 million) The Poverty Environment Initiative The Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme in Africa was formed by the merger of several country poverty-environment mainstreaming programmes initiated under the UNDP PEI, funded by the European Commission (EC) and UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), and several country programmes initiated by UNEP, with funding from the Governments of Belgium and Norway. Since 2005, the PEI has been managed jointly by UNDP and UNEP (UNDP-UNEP 2007).

73

At the core of the PEI is a coherent and programmatic approach to mainstreaming environment into national development processes for poverty reduction and pro-poor growth to achieve the MDGs and combat the effects of climate change. Each PEI-supported country programme has been initiated to meet country-level demand and is tailored to specific national policy processes. The Initiative follows three phases, each of one incurs in the following “typical costs” (UNDP-UNEP 2007):

Preparatory phase: Finding entry points and making the case (relevant to 2012 planning horizon) – US$ 80,000/country

Phase 1: Meeting the implementation challenge, raising awareness and building partnerships, reaching national consensus and commitment (relevant to 2012 planning horizon) – US$ 750,000/country

Phase 2: Integrating environment into national development processes, conducting preliminary assessments, understanding the institutional and policy context and the poverty-environment linkages (relevant to 2020 planning horizon) – US$ 500,000/country

The UNDP/UNEP PEI Africa programme is currently active with programmes at different implementation phases in nine countries: Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda (UNDP-UNEP 2007). Assuming this initiative would cover all African countries and the “typical costs” would continue into the future, the total costs for the preparatory phase would equal US$ 4.24 million, for phase 1 almost US$ 40 million, and for the second phase US$ 26.5 million, adding to a total of US$ 70.5 million. Assuming nine countries would be mostly covered by the PEI by 2012, the additional funding required for mainstreaming environment into national development processes to reduce poverty and address climate change in the rest of African countries would equal US$ 58.53 million based on approaches and figures suggested by this initiative. The Great Green Wall The Great Green Wall initiative was incepted at the highest political level in Africa as a response to combined effects of degradation of the natural rural environment and climate-related risks (i.e. drought). This initiative was adopted at the Summit of Heads of States and Governments (Syrte, Libya, July 2005) as a CEN-SAD (Community of Sahel-Saharan States) priority programme. The African Union officially adopted the Great Green Wall initiative in December 2006 in Abuja, Nigeria as one of the pillars of a rural strategy that reconciles development and environment (OSS 2008). The Great Green Wall Initiative for the Sahel and Sahara intends to strengthen the implementation of existing continental frameworks and plans addressing the menaces of land degradation and desertification in the margin of the Sahara desert. The Great Green Wall has not been conceived as a wall made up of trees planted across the Sahara to protect human settlements and infrastructure, but rather as a set of cross-sectoral actions and interventions aimed at the conservation and protection of natural resources with a view to achieving sustainable development and protection against advancing desertification and climate-related risks in the sub-region (OSS 2008). The Great Green

74

Wall initiative will be carried out in two phases (Africa Union 2008):

an initial two-year phase for the preparation and initiation of the sub-regional integration for the implementation of the initiative. This phase will include establishing the current state of affairs, the identification of areas where countries in the CEN-SAD space can complement each other, the definition of actions that would qualify a project as ‘great green wall’ project, the definition and implementation of pilot projects, setting up the institutional arrangements for implementation and initiating a knowledge sharing process.

the second phase is spread over a longer period of sub-phases of ten years with

provision for interim reviews of progress. Every succeeding phase builds on the review outcomes to plan activities for the next ten-year period. Overall, the completion of the programme could target 30 years consolidating regional integration of the countries within the green wall, valorizing regional potentials and implementing the structural projects that have been identified and prepared during the first phase.

The African Union Commission and the CEN-SAD Secretariat will provide overall oversight and coordination for the implementation of the Initiative. For this purpose, they will liaise with the relevant Regional Economic Communities (i.e. ECOWAS, IGAD and MAU). The budget evaluated for the first phase is about US$ 2.7 million. The first ten years of the second phase have been estimated at US$ 636.3 million. This sub-phase would include promoting sustainable and integrated land, forest, and water management in the belt area, putting in place an effective communication strategy, establishing an effective operational institutional framework, creating an enabling policy and legal environment, building capacity, and establishing an effective coordination, monitoring and evaluation system.

4.3.3 Potentialities: Up-scaling Agroforestry Efforts Agroforestry systems have the potential to bring not only economic and environmental benefits to farmers, but also to increase resilience to climate variability and extremes. This can be achieved through a combination of mechanisms and processes that enable improving soil conditions and farming systems, such as capacity building, networking, partnerships, payment for ecosystem services, and enterprise development. Based on the experience gained from the Kisumu project (2003 to present), the Lake Victoria Development Programme (2006-2008) and the Lake Victoria Regional Environmental and Sustsinable Agricultural Productvity Programme (2009-2012), SCC-Vi Agroforestry (2009) estimates that the total costs to provide advisory services for agroforestry interventions in terms of administration, capacity building, logistics, and provision of resources is around US$17 per farm household per year. As a result of the positive impacts of interventions in the Lake Victoria region, community service providers looking for collaborations across Kenya and the region are expecting to up-scale actions. Despite agroforestry technologies being applicable in

75

different agro-ecological zones ranging from humid and sub-humid to semi humid and semi arid, scaling-up agroforestry and sustainable agriculture land use (SALM) is complex and requires a number of considerations that include innovation and institutional capacity building. To estimate costs for up-scaling advisory services to the whole of Kenya, SCC-Vi Agroforestry (2009) divided the country into locations and sub-locations. This is based on their experience, which has demonstrated that to ensure sustainability of interventions, one field officer should be in each sub-location for 3 years for an intensive phase and in each location for 3 additional years for an extensive phase. Moreover, SCC-Vi Agroforestry (2009) considered varying adoption rates of agroforestry technologies in relation to agro-ecological zones (AEZ). Many agricultural production systems, technologies and practices vary with AEZs due to specific rainfall patterns and soil characteristics. As their performance is relatively uniform within individual AEZs, AEZs provide a useful spatial framework for up-scaling potential innovations. Based on the assumptions and approaches adopted by SCC-Vi Agroforestry, and using AEZ and rural population data obtained from HarvestChoice 2009 and CIESIN/IFPRI/CIAT GRUMP (2005), costs for advisory services needed to up-scale agroforestry and SALM to Sub-Saharan Africa are estimated at around US$ 869.4 million annually during the intensive period (see Table 4 below). Table 4. Annual Costs for Advisory Services in Different Agro-ecological Zones of Sub-Saharan Africa

AEZ Rural Population

(000s) Sub-locations1 Cost (US$) LOWLAND (<1,200 m) arid 21075 4354 41,779,484.71 semi-arid 114790 23717 227,564,852.89 sub-humid 117032 24180 232,009,478.93 humid 62776 12970 124,449,528.93 HIGHLAND (>1,200 m) semi-arid 26456 5466 52,446,587.19 sub-humind/humid 96406 19919 191,118,919.42 TOTAL SSA 438535 90606 869,368,852.07

Source: AEZ from HarvestChoice 2009 based on WorldClim climate data (2009), IIASA/FAO length of growing period data (Fischer 2009) and SRTM30 elevation data (USGS 2007). Rural population from CIESIN/IFPRI/CIAT GRUMP data (2005). Costs from SCC-Vi Agroforestry (2009). 1 Unit managed by one technical support field officer. Assuming costs for the extensive period are almost 40% of costs needed for the intensive period (proportion based on SCC-Vi Agroforestry figures), it could be argued that the total funds needed to up-scale advisory services for agroforestry and SALM to Sub-Saharan Africa could reach up to US$ 3.6 billion during a six-year period of implementation (average time to ensure sustainability according to SCC-Vi Agroforestry). Although these estimates are crude and more detailed assessment is needed to consider the particularities of each EAZ in each country, they provide a rough idea of the requirements needed for the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices in Sub-Saharan Africa.

76

Despite revenues from investing in agroforestry systems being large, funding requirements can become an obstacle to up-scale these interventions. One mechanism that could be used to support the adoption and up-scaling of agroforestry and SALM practices is carbon financing. Assuming carbon finance revenues at 4 US$/tonne of CO2 (BioCarbon Fund 2009) for 50% of the total cropland area in the above AEZ of Sub-Saharan Africa (183.1 million hectares, HarvestChoice 2009) and a potential of 1.5 tonne of CO2/ha (SCC-Vi Agroforestry 2009), it could be argued that there is a potential annual carbon revenue of US$ 54.9 million that could be used to support this process.

4.4 Estimating EbA Costs According to Planning Horizons Ecosystem-based Adaptation pathways will vary according to planning horizons and contexts, and so will the associated costs. Three principal dimensions need to be considered in planning and costing EbA pathways: planning needs, ecosystems state, and future change. Each one of these dimensions is interconnected and influences each other. Planning needs refers to the horizon shaped by early priorities, interests and decision contexts, and the institutional capacity to reach long-term visions, socio-ecological resilience, and human well-being. Ecosystems state considers the conservation state of ecosystems integrity, ecosystem resilience, hot spot systems and ecosystems with high adaptation value. Future change relates to multiple stressors that can have direct and indirect effects on the landscape, such as climate change, land-use change, population growth, etc. Furthermore, interactions between these three dimensions are considered by: 1) recognizing the dynamics between the social and ecological systems and possible feedbacks (including the effects of ecological degradation); 2) accounting for “autonomous adaptation” of ecosystems to future changes (see section 2) and inter-linkages and feedbacks between bio-physical systems and ecosystem services; and 3) acknowledging that planning needs are influenced by the understanding of observed trends and projections of possible futures. Figure 13 illustrates this conceptual framework.

Fig. 13. Framework for EbA Planning

77

This section focuses on climate change as one of the main future pressures and applies these three dimensions and interactions in the exploration of possible EbA pathways relevant to two different planning horizons (i.e. 2012 and 2030). 1) 2012: requirements relate to enhancing coping capacity to existing impacts while addressing early priorities 2) 2030: requirements relate to building adaptive capacity and tackling future climate risks while enhancing socio-ecological resilience Accounting for the varying requirements of each planning horizon and the high uncertainty involved in long-term planning, it is helpful to consider a series of steps that need to be addressed to facilitate climate adaptation. These steps are reflected in the short analysis of possible EbA pathways and costs for each planning horizon in the sections below, and are comprised in the following four categories:

Assessing vulnerability, monitoring, and focusing on win-win, no regret or low cost measures justified in the short-term by current climate variability and extremes, or based on climate projections but involving minimal costs and low risks.

Improving social protection and building capacity given that basic institutional capacity is lacking in Africa and this is needed as the basis to additional action and investment for climate adaptation. This includes safety nets, expanding the networks of practitioners and research capacity, better information, and co-generation of knowledge.

Piloting adaptation as necessary stepping-stone prior to full and integrated implementation of EbA pathways within the dynamic landscape. Pilot actions promote socio-institutional learning, build capacity, and allow refining future actions, as well as improving efficiency and use of operational resources over time.

Enhancing resilience to future climate risks and the ability to mobilize resources for an uncertain future with possible climate-induced environmental and social tipping-points.

EbA Pathways for 2012 This planning horizon responds to current impacts of climate variability and extremes and is closely related to development and conservation goals. It relates to current targets such as the 2010 Biodiversity Target13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the IUCN’s 10% conservation goal, and negotiations of a Strategic Plan for Conservation beyond 2010. It also links to the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by country leaders as part of the United Nations Millennium Declaration in 2000, and to post-2012 agreements within the UNFCCC.

13 To achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.

78

EbA pathways that are relevant to this planning horizon address early priorities and help coping with current climate variability and extremes. Most likely, this will require accelerating the use of current and new conservation ‘good practices’ that recognize climate-induced changes to species and ecosystems, and dynamics between ecological and social systems. In this sense, a shift from static views of conservation to new and dynamic understandings of changing ecosystems and changing climates will be fundamental (Mawdsley et al. 2009). This planning horizon will also demand implementing integrated strategies that maintain ecological functions at the landscape scale. This in turn, will require building institutional capacity to integrate climate adaptation and environmental considerations into planning processes and coordination of cross-sectoral policies. Strategies combined under EbA pathways relevant to the 2012 horizon will most likely be no-regret actions that will benefit human well-being and conservation even if no large climate change impacts are observed (UNFCCC 2007). Examples of EbA pathways relevant to this planning horizon include: economic instruments to reduce stresses on small protected areas and improve connectivity of the reserve network, reforms to the legal and policy frameworks to improve effectiveness in the management of protected areas, mainstreaming of climate adaptation and environmental policies into planning processes and cross-sectoral policy integration, payment for ecosystem services for integrated management of ecosystems with high buffer capacity, market-based approaches to improve management of forest ecosystems with high adaptation value (e.g. biodiversity hot-spots or ‘water towers’), ecosystems vulnerability assessment and bioclimatic monitoring, assessment of ecosystems with high adaptation value, valuation of multiple ecosystem services at landscape level. Box 24 provides a stylized picture that illustrates some of the EbA pathways relevant to the planning needs of this horizon. EbA Pathways for 2030 This planning horizon relates to a medium-term vision that is consistent with many global estimates for mid 21st century. Planning for 2030 requires investing in pilot actions and strengthening processes that enhance resilience to future climatic risks. This comprises a mosaic of EbA pathways that recognize the benefit of enhancing ecological functions and services to help human societies and ecosystems adapt well to changing conditions and multiple stressors. EbA pathways relevant to this planning horizon acknowledge that climate futures have the potential to irrevocably alter biodiversity and ecosystems in major ways with large implications to human societies (Mawdsley et al. 2009), and seek to achieve significant progress in understanding the “unknowns” (see section 1.4) to reduce uncertainty for more robust decision-making and positive outcomes. This entails generating knowledge through strategic pilot actions that help: testing promising responses and better understanding of trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services; up-scaling and optimizing successful actions; and understanding the dynamic interplay of complex socio-ecological systems to explore pro-active multi-scale processes necessary to prevent and adapt to potential catastrophic thresholds and tipping-points. Some EbA pathways relevant to this planning horizon include: economic instruments and market incentives for

79

restoration and rehabilitation of highly vulnerable ecosystems with high adaptation value, dynamic landscape planning and matrix adaptive management, integration of green infrastructure into sectoral protection planning, regulation for the translocation of species and ex-situ conservation, technological development for the reallocation or replacement of ecosystems in face of social or ecological tipping-points. Box 28 provides a stylized picture to illustrate some of the EbA pathways relevant to this planning horizon. Box 28. EbA Pathways for 2012 and 2030 EbA pathways are explored for two planning horizons that respond to different compositions and interactions of planning needs, ecosystem states, and future changes. Given the high uncertainty involved in long-term planning, EbA pathways relate to a series of steps that facilitate climate adaptation. In the stylized picture below (Figure 14), the steps are divided into four categories (i.e. no regrets, building institutional capacity, pilot actions, ecosystem-based protection) that have been used to plot in a coloured matrix some of the potential EbA pathways identified for 2012 and 2030. The green bottom left area relates to early priorities, no-regret options and capacity building. The mid yellow area corresponds to pilot actions that need testing and refining before up-scaling and full sectoral implementation. The move towards the right red area represents more integrated and extreme responses to possible climate risks, thresholds, and tipping-points. The matrix is based on the concept of ‘adaptation signatures’ used in adaptation cost studies conducted in East Africa by the Stockholm Environment Institute. The legends indicate the type of measure according to the four categories, and the matrix comprises a number of strategies combined into several EbA pathways using flexible mechanisms and adaptive processes (see Box 6 in section 3.1).

Fig. 14. Illustrative Matrix of Ecosystem-based Adaptation Pathways for Different Planning Horizons Note: R=Regulation; PES=Payment for ecosystem services; PI=Integration into planning processes; EI=Economic Instruments; KS=Knowledge Sharing; GI=Green Investment

80

Estimating EbA Costs for 2012 and 2030 The idea of taking a step-approach in outlining EbA pathways for different planning horizons recognizes that not all adaptation decisions are needed now and enables socio-institutional learning, adaptive management, and better understanding over time. This approach recognizes the uncertainty in relation to possible futures, overlaps between EbA pathways, synergistic and antagonistic cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation actions, and multiple stressors affecting natural ecosystems. Moreover, this approach is closely linked to an economic rationale for action, whereas no-regret options can generate benefits at lesser costs than investing in pilot actions and pro-active multi-scale processes necessary to build resilience to potential future thresholds and tipping-points. Based on the premise that current investment in ecosystem management and conservation is unlikely to be sufficient for EbA given the level of projected climate impacts (Berry 2007), this study obtained rough costs estimates for EbA in Africa using a top-down and a bottom-up approach and recognizing limitations in each case (see sections 4.2 and 4.3). Most of the estimates relate to investment required to address current vulnerability to multiple stresses, although some tackle future climate risks. Nevertheless, all contribute to the basis needed to build future resilience. Given that estimates assessed in this study correspond to actions that overlap and combining them could result in double-counting issues, cost estimates for 2012 and 2030 are provided on an individual basis in Table 5 below. The estimates suggest funding needed to support Africa-wide and sub-regional strategies that go in line with EbA pathways outlined for each planning horizon in the above section. Despite these cost estimates provide an idea of the resources needed for EbA in relation to different planning horizons, further research is needed to estimate additional costs that address future climate change specifically. Given the high levels of uncertainty, robust decisions and cost estimates need to adopt a step-approach that allows learning and improving along the way. This goes in hand with more applied research needed to reduce “unknowns” that are source of uncertainty in decisions and planning of EbA. Next chapter will expand on this and provide an outline for future research steps.

81

Table 5. Summary of Cost Estimates for Strategies Relevant to 2012 and 2030 EbA Pathways Scope Africa-wide Actions in line

with EbA Cost Estimates (US$)*

Per annum equivalent

Benefits

Planning Horizon 2012 Current shortfall

Full coverage of conservation expenditure shortfall

869.6 million per year (incl. current spend)

869.6 million Effective management of the current reserve network across all IUCN categories, static conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems

Current vulnerability

Implementation of EbA projects identified in NAPAs

266.9 million 53.4 million Addressing priorities and basic needs. Building adaptive capacity to cope with current climate variability and extremes.

Current and future CC

Preparation phase for a Green Wall in the Sahel-Saharan States

2.7 million for a 2-year period

1.4 million Identifying vulnerable areas, setting up institutional arrangements, designing and initiating pilot projects.

Planning Horizon 2030 Current vulnerability

Expanding a core reserve system for Africa (under scenario 2)

16.9 billion per year (incl. current expenditure)

16.9 billion Increasing overall level of protection of biodiversity and ecosystems within an expanded and effectively managed core reserve system.

Current and future CC

Managing the wider matrix 17.6 – 19.2 billion per year

18.5 billion Increasing connectivity between reserves, allowing for a dynamic landscape with patch edges that enable ecological processes and species flux at multiple scales.

Current and future CC

Up-scaling Agroforestry in Sub-Saharan Africa

3.6 billion for a 6-year period

0.6 billion Economic and environmental benefits to farmers, enhancing ecosystem services that are essential to resilient livelihoods.

Current and future CC

Second phase of the Green Wall implementation in the Sahel-Saharan States

636.3 million for a 10 year period

63.6 million Promoting integrated land management planning, and effective inter-agency coordination, improving communication and improving institutional capacity.

* Note: Costs are based on top-down financial flows analysis and bottom-up extrapolations. Estimates do not include Africa-wide costs for environmental mainstreaming based on the PEI, and investment directed to ClimDev Africa.

82

5. Future Research and Action Needs Ecosystem-based Adaptation is gaining interest among different communities of practice (e.g. conservation, disaster management, adaptation, development, and resilience communities), because it can bring multiple benefits and be a synergistic approach that reconciles different objectives. Over time and through practice, these communities have generated important knowledge relevant to EbA. However, this knowledge is incomplete and fragmented across disciplines. Although current information and knowledge is useful, is insufficient to predict possible EbA outcomes. This study presented several examples that show the need for more research and actions to understand better the ‘unknowns’ (see section 1.4) that are source of uncertainty in EbA decision-making, planning, and costing. This chapter highlights some of the steps required to fill in the gaps and push the knowledge boundaries for effective EbA. Research and action needs:

1) To understand better the value of multiple ecosystem services for human well-being and the benefits of EbA in economic, environmental, and social terms: Developing approaches and methods to assess in quantitative and qualitative

terms the use and non-use value of ecosystem services, particularly when considering ecosystem configurations that deliver diverse services to different users. This process needs to consider that the value of ecosystem services varies according to scale of use and over time.

Developing approaches and methods to measure trade-offs and synergies that

account for interactions among ecosystems and between biophysical and human systems at different temporal and spatial scales.

2) To understand how EbA strategies can be facilitated through different

mechanisms and processes allowing for effective EbA pathways at the landscape level:

Verifying evidence on the relationship between incremental change in

ecosystem services and human well-being and adaptation through monitoring systems, assessment of effectiveness, and pilot actions. This will help developing reference systems and evidence-base knowledge.

Strengthening knowledge sharing systems and social networks that enhance collaboration, dissemination and integration of useful information, tools, and methods, and co-generation of new knowledge.

Exploring innovative approaches and technologies that support decision-

making processes and help up scaling successful pilot actions.

83

3) To learn and generate knowledge on how to effectively enhance ecosystem functions and services for adaptation of socio-ecological systems: Researching the role biodiversity plays in modifying the effects of drivers on

ecosystem services. Explore the effects of species extinctions in the maintenance of ecosystem services and how this is critical for ecosystems functioning, and thus for adaptation. Improve representation of species function for migration within current Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs).

Improving the integration of climate models with different bio-physical and

socio-economic/land-use models to project responses of species and/or ecosystems to climate change across heterogeneous landscapes (including feedbacks such as CO2 fertilization effects). This helps projecting possible macro-level outcomes resulting from a compound of multiple drivers.

Developing approaches and methods to assess and simulate complex

interactions between social and ecological systems across space and time. This helps understanding better the functioning of ecosystems under continuously changing conditions and allows identifying strategies that address current vulnerability and pro-active multi-scale processes necessary to build resilience to potential future thresholds and tipping-points.

Improving models that account for non-linear relationships with complex

feedbacks across spatial extents and time horizons. Simulating non-linear systems can help understanding unexpected behaviors at macro-levels based on micro-level dynamics. Simulating non-linear responses in integrated models that assess the complex interactions of social and ecological systems can help exploring possible EbA outcomes at the landscape level. This can also help predicting possible thresholds and tipping-points and exploring factors that control abrupt changes and threshold probabilities.

The needs outlined here require collaborative research and action supported by new perspectives and novel approaches. Progress in addressing these needs is fundamental to enrich ongoing policy-science dialogues and decisions with significant implications for future resilience to rapid global changes.

84

Bibliography Adepetu, A., Berthe, A. 2007. Vulnerability of rural Sahelian to drought: Options for adaptation. Final

report submitted to Assessments of impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC) Project. Washington DC: International START Secretariat.

Anon. 2000. Nature for People and People for Nature: Policy document for nature, forest and landscape in

the 21st century. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, The Hague, Netherlands Araújo, M.B., Thuiller, W. & Pearson, R.G. 2006. Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and

reptiles in Europe. Journal of Biogeography, 33, 1712–1728. Arnell, N.W., Cannell, M.G.R., Hulme, M., Kovats, R.S., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nichols, R.J., Parry, M.L.,

Livermore, M.T.J., White, A. 2002. The consequences of CO2 stabilisation for the impacts of climate change. Climatic Change 53 (4), 413– 466.

Balmford, A., Gaston, K.J., Blyth, S., James, A., and Kapos, V. 2003. Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences VOL. 100, No 3. Barbier, E. B. 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Economic Policy 22(49): 178-229. Berry, P.M., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Harrison, P.A. & Audsley, E. 2006. Assessing the vulnerability of

agricultural land use and species to climate change and the role of policy in facilitating adaptation. Environmental Science and Policy, 9, 189–204.

Berry, P. 2007. Adaptation options on natural ecosystems. A report to the UNFCCC Secretariat Financial

and Technical Support Division. Oxford: University of Oxford. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (eds.). 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience

for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bolund, P. Hunhammar, S. 1999. Ecosystem Service sin Urban Areas. Ecological Economics 29 (1999)

293–301 Carter, I., Newbury, P. 2004. Reintroduction as a tool for population recovery of farmland birds. Ibis, 146,

221–229. Capra, F. 2002. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. New York: Anchor Books. Carpenter, S., Mooney, H., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R., Diaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.,

Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, E., Perrings, C., Reid, W., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R., Whyte, A. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science (106) 5: 1305-1312.

Chapin, F.S., T.V. Callaghan,Y. Bergeron,M. Fukuda, J.F. Johnstone, G. Juday and S.A. Zimov, 2004.

Global change and the boreal forest: thresholds, shifting states or gradual change? Ambio, 33, 361-365. Colls, A., Ash, N., and N. Ikkala. 2009. Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a natural response to climate change.

Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

85

Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton, 2007: Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Desanker, P.V. 2009. Impact of Climate Change on Life in Africa. Washington DC: WWF Climate Change

Program. Djoh, E., van der Whal, M., 2001. Gorilla-Based Tourism: A Realistic Source of Community Income in

Cameroon? Rural Development Forestry Network (RDFN) paper 25e(iii). London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Elasha, B., Medany, M., Niang-Diop, I., Nyong, T., Tabo, R., Vogel, C. 2006. Background paper on

impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Africa. African Worskhop on Adaptation Implementation of Decision 1/CP.10 of the UNFCCC Convention

Elasha, B. 2006. Environmental strategies to increase human resilience to climate change: Lessons for

Eastern and Northern Africa. Final report submitted to Assessments of impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC) Project. Washington DC: International START Secretariat.

Ferraro, P.J. and Kiss, A. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298, 1718–1719. Fischlin, A., Midgley, G. F., Price, J. T., Leemans, R., Gopal, B., Turley, C., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Dube,

O. P., Tarazona, J., and Velichko, A. A. 2007. Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. Pp. 211-272 in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., and Hanson, C. E., eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Folke, C., Jansson, A°., Larsson, J., Costanza, R. 1997. Ecosystem appropriation of cities. Ambio 26 (3),

167–172. Folke, C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-

ecological systems F. Berkes J. Colding C. Folke Navigating social–ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change Cambridge University Press Cambridge, Cambridge.

Gascon, C., G.B. Williamson, and G.A.B. Fonseca, 2000: Receding forest edges and vanishing reserves.

Science, 288, 1356–1358. Gaston et al. 2003. Rates of species introduction to a remote oceanic island. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 270 (1519): 1091-1098. Gonzalez, P. 2001. Desertification and a shift of forest species in the West African Sahel. Climate Research

17: 217-228. Hannah, L., and Hansen, L. 2005. Designing Landscapes and Seascapes for Change. Pp. 329-341 in Lovejoy, T. E. and Hannah, L. (eds), Climate Change and Biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. xiii + 418 pp. Hansen, L. J., Biringer, J. L., and Hoffman, J. R. 2003. Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building

Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems (on line). URL: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/buyingtime.pdf

86

Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., and Aronson, J. 2006. Ecological Restoration and Global Climate Change. Restoration Ecology 14(2):170-176.

Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Butt, N. & New, M. 2006. Modelling climate change impacts on species’

distributions at the European scale: implications for conservation policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 9, 116–128.

Hendry, A.P., T.J. Farrugia, and M.T. Kinnison. 2008. Human Influences on Rates of Phenotypic Change in Wild Animal Populations. Molecular Ecology 17: 20–29. Hulme, D., Doherty, R. M., Ngara, T., New, M. G., Lister, D. 2001. African Climate Change: 1900 – 2100.

Climate Res.17: 145-168. InfoDev. 2010. First steps towards a mobile applications lab for Africa (on line). URL:

http://www.infodev.org/en/Article.517.html Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.-C. Duplessy, F. Joos,V.Masson-Delmotte, D.O. Olago, B. Otto-

Bliesner,Wm. Richard Pelteir, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D.H. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba and D. Zhang, 2007: Paleoclimate. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin,M.Manning, Z. Chen,M.Marquis, K.B.Averyt,M. Tignor and H.L.Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

James, A., Gaston, K., Balmford, A. 2001. Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? American Institute of

Biological Sciences 51 (1): 43-52 Leemans, R. Eickhout, B. 2004. Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for

different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14, 219-228. Lee, T. M., Jetz, W. 2008. Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275,

1261-1270. Loth, P. 2004. The Return of the Water: Restoring the Waza Logone Floodplain in Cameroon. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. Lovelock, J. 2007. The Revenge of GAIA. New York: Basic Books. Lovett, J. 2007. Climate change and Africa: and ecological perspective. The Global Network journal,

volume 4 (on line). URL: http://www.bgci.org/resources/article/0569/ Maitime, J., Kariuki, P., Mugatha, S., Mariene, L. 2009. Adapting East African ecosystems and productive

systems to climate change. Report for the Economics of Climate Change Adaptation in East Africa (on-line). URL: http://kenya.cceconomics.org/

Mawdsley, J., O’Malley, R., Ojima, D. 2009. A Review of climate change adaptation strategies for wildlife

management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology (23) 5: 1080-1089. Masundire, H. 2008. Towards climate change adaptation. Building adaptive capacity in managing African

transboundary river basins. Chapter 5: The ecosystem approach to climate change adaptation in Africa river basin. Case studies from African practitioners and researchers. Rackwitz: InWEnt- Capacity Building International, Germany

McClean, C., Lovett, J., Hanna, W., Sommer, J., Barthlott, W., Termansen., M., Smith, G., Tokumine, S.,

Taplin, J. 2005. African Plant Diversity and Climate Change. Missouri Botanical Graden Press.

87

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Washington DC: Island Press.

Mitchell, R. J., Morecroft, M. D., Acreman, M., Crick, H. Q. P., Frost, M., Harley, M., Maclean, I. M. D.,

Mountford, O., Piper, J., Pontier, H., Rehfisch, M. M., Ross, L. C., Smithers, R. J., Stott, A., Walmsley, C. A., Watts, O., and Wilson, E. 2007. England biodiversity strategy – towards adaptation to climate change (on line). URL: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/ebs-climate-change.pdf

Mumba, M., Sokona, Y., Downing, T. Chanmbwera, M., Watkiss, P. 2009. Economics of Adaptation in

Africa. Briefing. Contribution to the Development of a Comprehensive Framework of African Climate Change Program.

Nkem, J., Santoso, H., Murdiyarso, D., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M. 2007. Using Tropical Forest

Ecosystem Goods and Services for Planning Climate Change Adaptation with Implications for Food Security and Poverty Reduction. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Volume 2, Issue 1.

Nussey, D.H., A.J. Wilson, and J.E. Brommer. 2007. The Evolutionary Ecology of Individual Phenotypic

Plasticity in Wild Populations. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 831−844. Ojea, E., Ghosh, R., Agrawal, B., Joshi, P.K. 2009. The cost of ecosystem adaptation: methodology and

estimates for Indian forests (on line). The Basque Centre for Climate Change, BC3 Working Paper Series. URL: http://www.bc3research.org/working_papers/view.html

Parry, M., Arnell, N., Berry, P., Dodman, D., Fankhauser, S., Hope, C., Kovats, S., Nicholls, R.,

Satterthwaite, D., Tiffin, R., Wheeler, T. 2009. Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates. London: International Institute for Environment and Development and Grantham Institute for Climate Change.

Practical Action Consulting (PA). 2009. The Economic Cost of Climate Change in Africa. Nairobi: Pan-

African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA). Pretty, J. N.; Noble, A. D.; Bossio, D.; Dixon, J.; Hine, R. E.; Penning de Vries, F. W. T. and Morison, J. I.

L. 2006. Resource-Conserving Agriculture increases yields in Developing Countries. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 1114-1119.

Piran, C. L., White, J., Godbold, A., Solan, M., Wiegand, J., Holt, A. 2009. Ecosystem services and policy:

a review of coastal wetland ecosystem services and an efficiency-based framework for implementing the ecosystem approach. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology.

Pollard, S. R.; Kotze, D. C. and Ferrari, G. 2008. Valuation of the livelihood benefits of structural

rehabilitation interventions in the Manalana Wetland. In Kotze, D. C. and Ellery W. N. WET-Outcome Evaluate: An evaluation of the rehabilitation outcomes at six wetland sites in South Africa. WRC Report No. TT 343/08. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

Rey-Benayas, J. M.; Newton, A. C.; Diaz, A. and Bullock, J. M. 2009. Enhancement of Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A meta-analysis. Science Express. Running, W., Mills, S. 2009. Terrestrial Ecosystem Adaptation. Washington D.C.: Resources for the

Future. SCC-Vi Agroforestry. 2009. A case study of SCC-Vi Agroforestry in Kisumu. Report for the Economics of

Climate Change Adaptation in East Africa (on line). URL: http://kenya.cceconomics.org/

88

ScienceDaily. 2008. Monumental Debt-for-Nature Swap Provides $20 Million To Protect Biodiversity In Madagascar (on line). URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612170515.htm

Scholes, R. 2006. Impacts and adaptations to climate change in biodiversity sector in Southern Africa. Final

report submitted to Assessments of impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC) Project. Washington DC: International START Secretariat.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for National and International Policy Makers.

Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature 2009. Final Interim Report (on line). URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm

The Heinz Center. 2008. Strategies for managing the effects of Climate Change on Wildlife and

Ecosystems. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. Trivedi, M. R.; Mitchell, A. W.; Mardas, N.; Parker, C.; Watson, J.E. and Nobre, A.D. 2009. REDD and

PINC: A new policy framework to fund tropical forests as global ‘eco-utilities’. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol 8: Beyond Kyoto: Addressing the Challenges of Climate Change: 012005.

Turpie, J.K., Siegfried, W.R., 1996. The conservationeconomic imperative: securing the future of protected

areas in South Africa. Africa Environment and Wildlife 4 (3), 35– 37. Turpie, J.K.; Marais, C. and Blignaut, J.N. 2008. The working for water programme: Evolution of a

payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65(4): 788- 798.

UNDP-UNEP. 2007. The Poverty-Environment Initiative: Mianstreaming Environment for Poverty

Reduction and Pro-poor Growth. Proposal for up-scaling the PEI. Nairobi:UNEP. UNFCCC. 2007. Investment and financial flows to address climate change. An overview of investment and

financial flow needed for adaptation. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2008. Africa: Atlas of Our Changing Environment.

Nairobi: Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

UNEP-WCMC. 2008. Carbon and biodiversity: a demonstration atlas. Eds. Kapos V., Ravilious C.,

Campbell A., Dickson B., Gibbs H., Hansen M., Lysenko I., Miles L., Price J., Scharlemann J.P.W., Trumper K. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

UNDP–UNEP Poverty-Environment-Initiative. 2008. Making The Economic Case: A Primer on the

Economic Arguments for Mainstreaming Poverty-Environment Linkages into National Development Planning. UNEP and UNDP.

UNEP-WCMC. 2008. Carbon and Biodiversity: A demonstration atlas. Eds. Kapos V., Ravilious C.,

Campbell A., Dickson B., Gibbs H., Hansen M., Lysenko I., Miles L., Price J., Scharlemann J.P.W., Trumper K. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2008. Africa: Atlas of Our Changing Environment.

Nairobi: Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2008. Africa: Atlas of our changing environment (on line).

URL: www.unep.org/dewa/africa/AfricaAtlas

89

UNEP-WCMC. 2010. Framing the Flow: innovative approaches to understand, protect and value ecosystem services across linked habitats. Silvestri, S., Kershaw, F. (eds.) UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK

Velarde, S., Malhi, Y., Moran, D., Wright, J., Hussain, S. 2004. Valuing the impacts of climate change on

protected areas in Africa. Ecological Economics 53: 21-33. Vignola, R., Locatelli, B., Martinez, C., Impach, P. 2009. Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change:

what role for policy-makers, society and scientists? Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 14:691-696 Vos, C., Berry, P., Opdam, P., Baveco, H., Nijhor, B., O’Hanley, J., Bell, C., Kuipers, H. 2008. Adapting

landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. Journal of Applied Ecology 2008 (45): 1722-1731.

Wells, M. 1996. The Economic and Social Contribution of Protected Areas in New South Africa. Land and

Agricultural Policy Centre, Johanesburg, South Africa. World Bank. 2009. Convenient solutions to an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem-based approaches to climate

change. Washington DC: Environmental Department World Bank. World Bank. 2009a. Uganda registers first forestry project in Africa to reduce global warming emissions.

World Bank Press Release (on line). URL: http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/news/uganda-registers-first-forestry-project-africa-reduce-global-

warming-emissions World Bank. 2009b. HIPC At-A-Glance Guide (on line). URL:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTDEBTDEPT/0,,contentMDK:20260411~menuPK:64166739~pagePK:64166689~piPK:64166646~theSitePK:469043,00.html

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2006. Debt-for-Nature Swap Protects Forest in Cameroon (on line). URL:

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0622-wwf2.html

90

Annexes Annex 1. List of NAPA Projects based on Terrestrial Ecosystems Country Total USD Project Burkina Faso 275,000.00 Restoration and management of Oursi pond

700,000.00

Rehabilitation, sustainable management of natural vegetation, and valorisation of Non-timber Forest Products in the Eastern region of Burkina Faso.

810,000.00 Promoting community-based fauna management in the Mouhoun region

Burundi 500,000.00 Erosion control in the region of Mumirwa 200,000.00 Rehabilitation of degraded areas

600,000.00 Safeguarding the most vulnerable natural environments

200,000.00 Protection of buffer zones in Lake Tanganyika floodplain and around the lakes of Bugesera

Central African Republic 250,000.00 Promoting urban and suburban forests

250,000.00 Management of the native vegetation for the restoration of degraded pastoral areas in Bossemptele

250,000.00 Community Participation in the reforestation and forest management in Southeast of Ombella M’Poko

Comoros 500,000.00 Defence and Restoration of degraded soils 580,000.00 Reconstitution of basin slopes

Djibouti 294,000.00 Promoting the fencing of forest areas in Day and Mabla coupled with the introduction of improved stoves

882,000.00 Promoting the regeneration of pastures endogenous to the areas of Doda and Grand Bara

Eritrea 5,050,000.00 Encourage Afforestation and Agroforestry through Community Forestry Initiative

Ethiopia 2,000,000.00 Community based sustainable utilization and management of wet lands in selected parts of Ethiopia

1,000,000.00 Community Based Carbon Sequestration Project in the Rift Valley System of Ethiopia

5,000,000.00 Promotion of on farm and homestead forestry and agro-forestry practices in arid, semi-arid and dry-sub humid parts of Ethiopia

Gambia 1,412,000.00 Expansion of Community Participation in the Management of Forests and Protected Areas

2,753,000.00 Expansion and Intensification of Agro-forestry and Re-forestation Activities

Guinea 600,000.00 Promotion of sylviculture. 1. Support to the development of community and private plantations of cashew

600,000.00 Promotion of sylviculture. 2. Assistance for the implementation of community-based forest management plans

300,000.00 Promoting adaptation-oriented technologies. 3. Dissemination of soil conservation practices

91

150,000.00 Promoting adaptation-oriented technologies. 8. Promotion of wire fencing and hedge planting in Moyenne Guinea

300,000.00 Promotion of fire management techniques and fencing Guinea Bissau 500,000.00 Reforesting of Degraded Areas Project

Lesotho 966,000.00 Management and Reclamation of Degraded and Eroded Land in the Flood Prone Areas (Pilot Project for Western Lowlands)

690,000.00 Conservation and Rehabilitation of Degraded Wetlands in the Mountain Areas of Lesotho

Madagascar 135,000.00 Implementation of erosion control measures through soil conservation techniques and dune stabilization

74,250.00 Reforestation of rural areas with their specific reforestation plans based on locally appropriate species

94,980.00 Promoting the transfer of forest management to local communities (GELOSE, GCF)

Malawi 2,000,000.00

Restoring forests in the Upper, Middle and Lower Shire Valleys catchments to reduce siltation and the associated water flow problems

Mali 2,000,000.00 Low land Improvement 3,000,000.00 Management of brush fire in Mali

1,500,000.00 Intensification of soil conservation actions and composting Mauritania 700,000.00 Substitution of ligneous fuel

1,000,000.00 Participatory reforestation for energy and agro-forestry in agricultural zones

300,000.00 Improvement of knowledge and sustainable management of the forest resources

1,500,000.00 Fixation of shifting dunes threatening the country’s socio-economic infrastructures

Rwanda 1,450,000.00 Lands conservation and protection against erosion and floods at districts level of vulnerable regions to climate change

Sao Tome e Principe 2,915,000.00 Sustainable management of forestall resources

Senegal 11,746,000.00

Implementation of agroforestry in: A) North Region, B) Bassin Arachidier Region , C) South Region: Tambacounda, Kolda, Ziguinchor, D) Niayve Region

Sierra Leone 2,500,000.00 Establishment of new Forest Reserves, Protected Areas and National Parks in Sierra Leone.

5,000,000.00 Management and Protection of Forest Reserves and Catchment areas including Wetlands.

420,000.00 Delineation and Restoration of Vulnerable Habitats And Ecosystems in The Western Area of Sierra Leone

Sudan 2,400,000.00 Environmental conservation and biodiversity restoration in northern Kordoan State as a coping mechanism for rangeland

Tanzania 3,300,000.00 Climate change adaptation through participatory reforestation in Kilimanjaro Mountain

Uganda 5,500,000.00 Community Tree Growing Project 4,700,000.00 Land Degradation Management Project

92

3,000,000.00 Drought Adaptation Project Zambia 1,400,000.00 Management of critical habitats 1,000,000.00 Promote natural regeneration of indigenous forests 1,000,000.00 Eradication of Invasive Alien Species