Adaptation under the Rio Conventions and national policy frameworks

Given the magnitude of the climate change problem and the differing adaptive capacities and vulnerabilities of countries, coordinated action is crucial between international, regional, national and local-level initiatives to identify adaptation options and to provide adequate resources to imple-ment them.

At the international level, the Rio Conventions – the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD; see Annex 16) – provide for such a multi-level approach to addressing adaptation to climate change in their activities. These conventions are crucial for adaptation because they address global environmental problems and provide re-sources for the developing countries to enable them to address these prob-lems.

The three conventions are interlinked as they address similar issues.

Biodiversity contributes to the provision of many ecosystem services, which climate change and desertification can adversely affect, leading to biodiversity loss. Biodiversity loss in turn reduces ecosystem services.

Conserving biodiversity is thus an adaptation option that can positively reduce the adverse impacts of climate change and desertification on small-holder agriculture. In turn, smallsmall-holders depend on natural resources (in-cluding biodiversity) for their livelihoods. Combating desertification in drylands, for example through improving soil organic content, can restore the productive potential of drylands and protect climate through seques-tering soil carbon. Charcoal production which is a widespread coping and adaptation strategy of smallholder farmers destroys forests, ultimately leading to ecosystem degradation and loss of biodiversity.

The planning instruments of the conventions (see Annex 16) also address similar activities. Soil conservation and reforestation, improved water management for use in agricultural production to deal with dry spells and maintain production in the dry seasons; support for monitoring and early

warning systems, promoting activities that contribute to livelihood and food security, harmonization of environmental and public policies; pro-moting environmental mainstreaming (UNFCCC-JLG 2009).

The recognition of these overlaps, potential synergies as well as trade-offs between these Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) (cf.

UNFCCC 2005b) led to increased coordination aimed at improving effi-ciency and effectiveness through exploiting synergies and reducing trade-offs. A Joint Liaison Group (JLG) between the secretariats of the CBD, UNCCD and UNFCCC was established in 2001 with the aim of enhancing coordination between the three Conventions, including cooperation on adaptation. Together with the CBD Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on biodiversity and adaptation to climate change, and the UNCCD’s Group of Experts, these groups address the synergies and ap-proach adaptation to climate change as a cross-cutting issue since activities that promote adaptation to climate change also contribute to conservation, sustainable land management and biodiversity. Among the three foci (cli-mate change, desertification, and biodiversity conservation), cli(cli-mate change currently receives more attention and offers a key to undertake activities that would also address desertification and biodiversity conser-vation.

The inclusion of the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the Kyoto protocol also highlighted the environmental linkages between the three conventions, while certain Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects offer a means of achieving biodiversity con-servation and sustainable land management, which are also goals of the CBD and the UNCCD (Yamin / Depledge 2004). However, depending on how the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM is implemented, trade-offs with biodiver-sity plans of the CBD might occur. For example, large-scale planting of fast growing exotic species to increase carbon sinks may destroy tradi-tional forest ecosystems and lead to biodiversity loss (Velasquez 2000).

The foregoing highlights a close relationship between agriculture and the Rio Conventions. While agriculture depends on natural resources and ecosystem services, it also affects the state of natural resources and the ecosystem services they can offer. Degraded soils imply low soil fertility and low yields. Lack of or reduced agro-biodiversity reduces the resilience of agricultural systems to various risks, prominent among them reduced

various climatic hazards like droughts, floods or frosts or increased vari-ability and shift in seasons not only affect biodiversity. Through changes in ecosystems and biological resources climate change may also lead to the extinction of various biological species and to desertification (SCBD 2003; Boko et al. 2007). The above interactions between biodiversity, climate, desertification, agriculture and development can translate into reducing or increasing agricultural production. For the predominantly poor smallholder farmers in Africa, maintaining biodiversity and avoiding soil degradation can therefore forestall food and livelihood insecurity.

The dominance of agricultural projects in the National Communications (NC) and the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) sub-mitted to the UNFCCC, as well as the attention the sector receives in the Technology Needs Assessments (TNA), the UNCCD National Action Programmes (NAPs) and the CBD National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) (Annex 16) reflects the importance of agriculture in the economy and thus also for adaptation. Agriculture, food security and sustainable management of natural resources feature prominently in the proposed projects of the NAPAs (for example Chad, Niger 2006, Burundi 2007, Benin 2008, Central African Republic 2008, Cape Verde 2007, Eritrea 2007). Capacity building for adaptation and improving early warning systems are also high on the criteria listings of the NAPAs (see for example RoK 2002; UTC 2006; URT 2007).

Through promoting synergies, the conventions improve the way adapta-tion is addressed. From the outset, the preparaadapta-tion and implementaadapta-tion of the NAPAs built on the UNCCD NAPs, the CBD NBSAPs and on na-tional sectoral policies through the Decision 28/CP.7 of the UNFCCC seventh COP in 2001. As such, "synergy with other MEAs was a criterion for prioritizing identified adaptation measures" (UNFCCC 2005b, 4). At the national levels, this synergy was accounted for in the participation of the UNCCD and the CBD focal points in the NAPA process, for example through membership in the NAPA country team (UNFCCC 2005b). In some countries, this integration was enhanced by the fact that the same ministry (for example the Ministry of Environment) manages all three MEAs.

Lessons and Challenges to exploiting the full potentials of the Rio Conventions

Although the Conventions support adaptation in various ways, various limitations to their full potential remain. These include, at the international level, the need for "enhanced cooperation, strengthening of planning and reporting processes, outreach and awareness-raising activities, as well as collaboration on scientific matters" (Djoghlaf 2009a, 2). At the national levels, the lack of information and awareness about the gravity and impact of biodiversity loss and climate change pose a barrier to mainstream bio-diversity and climate change effectively into development strategies and processes (cf. SCBD 2009; Djoghlaf 2009b, c).

The potential barriers to the implementation of the NAPA-projects is the present lack of basic development – as manifested by poor health, limited knowledge, education and skills, endemic poverty, poor infrastructure, weak institutions and institutional capacity (cf. Republic of Malawi 2006, 5 ff; Government of Sierra Leone 2007, 17 ff.; Republic of Sudan 2007, 8 ff.; URT 2007, 20 ff.). The implications are that if these underlying core problems are not addressed, the success / sustainability of the NAPA pro-jects are likely to be compromised. This also emphasises the importance of development interventions in infrastructure which should underpin adap-tation to climate change. Further, the means and ways to ensure the main-streaming of NAPA projects in national development plans and strategies are not yet clear in many countries (Osman-Elasha / Downing 2007).

Despite the foregoing limitations, the Rio Conventions contribute to build-ing the adaptive capacities (a component of resilience) of developbuild-ing countries and in particular, the Least Developed Countries (LDC) to en-able them to address climate change:

1. Through their establishments and their instruments, the UNFCCC NCs, NAPAs and TNAs; the CBD NBSAPs and the UNCCD NAPs provide international reference frameworks for national governments to address and mainstream climate change into national policies and programmes. In that way, they build the adaptive capacity (a feature of resilience) of the developing countries.

2. Through providing funding for the preparation of the national plan-ning instruments (see Box 13), they made it possible for developing

3. The planning instruments were elaborated at different degrees of consultations with various stakeholders, from local to national levels.

They thus contributed to network building and feedbacks between the various involved actors. The participatory process that followed brought with it not only the challenges of building consensus among the various stakeholders but also the benefits of considering various opinions (cf. Burundi 2007).

4. By providing expertise (for example the LDC expert group) in the elaboration of the NAPAs, the UNFCCC improved the capacities of LDC professionals to address the climate change problem. Because it involved consultation of various stakeholders, it provided those par-ticipating in the elaboration of the NAPAs the opportunity for learn-ing. The NAPA-process offered the LDCs, many of which are African, the possibilities to practice adaptation planning. Many of the countries’ personnel who participated gained additional expertise (learning effect) on adaptation planning (Osman-Elasha / Downing 2007).

5. Through its bottom-up approach and the wide consultations, the NAPA-process provides an example of an inclusive policy formula-tion process to emulate (although, in some cases not all stakeholder categories were consulted due to limited funds).

6. Through meeting the costs of adaptation (see Box 13) by having mechanisms that provide funding for the implementation of adapta-tion projects and other activities to meet the convenadapta-tions goals, in both developing and in particular in the LDCs, the Rio Conventions actively support adaptation to climate change. In that way, they con-tribute to building the resilience of the communities and countries where the projects are implemented.

7. The UNFCCC NAPAs give the LDCs the advantage of having al-ready prepared proposals that can be presented to other development partners like NGOs, bilateral and multilateral donors for funding.

8. The Convention instruments provide a basis for mainstreaming cli-mate change adaptation, desertification and biodiversity conservation into national development policies.

9. The synergies between these environmental concerns have led to harmonising legal frameworks for all the MEAs (for example Uganda NAP). This can improve the efficiency of adaptation projects.

Box 8: Mechanisms for funding adaptation to climate change in developing countries

Funding adaptation to climate change in developing countries is mainly through two sets of mechanisms. The official development assistance (ODA), which focuses on activities to reduce poverty and the dedicated multilateral adaptation funds that focus on climate change adaptation.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is designated to operate the financial mechanisms for the Rio Conventions. Besides funding activi-ties aimed at combating desertification and biodiversity conservation, the GEF also funds adaptation measures or related activities through the following funding mechanisms established under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol:

1. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund finances the

"incremental" costs of producing "global environmental benefits."

2. The Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) funds support activities complementary to those funded by the GEF trust fund,

3. The LDC Fund (LDCF) supports the preparation and implementa-tion of the NAPAs and other components of the LDC work pro-gram. To date, financial support has been provided for the prepara-tion of 44 NAPAs and two global support projects. The total costs of these activities are around US$ 12 million.

4. The Adaptation Fund established under the Kyoto Protocol receives 2 percent of the Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) issued for projects of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and funds from other sources. The Adaptation Fund will finance concrete adaptation projects in developing countries. Contrary to the other funds, the Adaptation Fund is supervised and managed by the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides secretariat services to the AFB while the World Bank serves as trustee of the Adaptation Fund on an interim basis.

According to the UNFCCC these interim institutional arrangements will be reviewed in 2011.

Sources: Mace 2005; McGray et al. 2007; UNFCCC 2009b – FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/11/Add.2.; Horstmann 2008;

http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_

mechanism/adaptation_fund/items/3659.php (accessed 11 Sept. 2009)

While some level of harmonisation may have been achieved, a more im-portant goal is the actual planning and implementation of the conventions action plans at the national and local level. Thus synergy in implementa-tion is crucial and this requires close cooperaimplementa-tion among the MEA naimplementa-tional focal points. Where this is inexistent, promoting synergy among MEAs during the NAPA implementation phase is important (UNFCCC 2005b).

This would also require explicitly providing funds for the implementation of identified synergies.

Although, international and national policies provide the framing condi-tions for adaptation, actual services offered, whether by the government or the private sector, also shape the framing conditions for adaptation in smallholder agriculture. In the following the contributions of various ser-vices in enhancing the adaptation of smallholder agriculture to climate change are analysed.

Participatory approach is critical in elaborating projects but some of the prioritized projects beg for more explanation in their reporting. For exam-ple, what is the weight given to the problem of diffusion of technology in such cases like the development of drought resistant crops and seed varie-ties? Did the crop scientists participate in the NAPA process? How well could the farmers articulate their aversion to growing drought resistant seeds that are generally known for lower yields in the NAPA process and their reasons for this aversion? Developing drought resistant crops and seed varieties as an adaptation measure is well and just, but what lessons from past developments of drought resistant crops are we taking along with us as we develop these new seeds? That is the critical point that needs to be addressed in such adaptation projects. It also sends confusing mes-sages considering that ICRISAT and CIMMYT (two research institutions that work on the major grains of the drylands) suggest that drought-toler-ant varieties are already developed and only need to be diffused. Such prioritized projects and the way they are presented hint that we may not be learning from past mistakes. It may also be that the proponents plan to do so but this information is not explicit in the reporting format of the NAPA documentations.

Finally, a fundamental question that needs to be posed is this: Can the three conventions not be adequately addressed at the national level within a common framework of action programmes at that level? Instead of hav-ing NAPA, NAPs and NBSAPs, will it not be enough to have one action

programme instead of spending resources to ensure that the synergies are addressed? The process has been piecemeal: first the NBSAPs, then the NAPs, and then the NAPAs. Then, along the way, one realises there are synergies that need to be addressed. A more viable way would be to take the synergies as the departure point and address these environmental problems together in one national action plan.