Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality: Promoting Implementation and Sustainable Financing for FLR

Rio PavilionParis, 1st December 2015

Victor Castillo, Scientific Affairs Officer-in-Charge, KMST, UNCCD

Outline

• Scope of the challenge• UNCCD/GM: FLR for

LDN• Sustainable FLR

financing

Up to 2 billion hectares of deforested and degraded land

* Source : GPFLR

Estimated average restoration cost per ha: 2,390 USD (TEEB, 2009)Source: Discussion Paper on FLR financing (FAO and GM)

Scope of the Challenge

b

Scope of the Challenge

“An active process that brings people together to identify, negotiate and implement practices that restore an agreed optimal balance of the ecological, social and economic benefits of forests and trees within a broader pattern of land uses.” (GPFLR)

Most common definition of Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR)

Scope of the Challenge

Balancing ecological functions with human development needs (how to deal with multi-functionality of degraded landscapes)

Enhancing resilience

Continuous learning process

Engaging multiple stakeholders

FLR is a process involving multiple stakeholders

Key principles of Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR)

Scope of the Challenge

The Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR)

Bonn Challenge (2011) and New York Declaration on Forests (2014)

CBD’s Aichi Biodiversity Targets (5, 11 and 15) and FERI

Land Degradation Neutrality (SDG target 15.3)

UNFCCC’s REDD and REDD+ portfolio

FAO’s Forest and Landscape Restoration Mechanism (FLRM)

Landscapes for People, Food and Nature (LPFN)

Multiple initiatives on Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR)

GM/UNCCD & FLR

LDN = SLM + FLR

•Strengthen implementation of NAP/UNCCD and IIF/SLM

•Achieve LDN at country level

•Upscale SLM and FLR activities

•Support global and regional restoration initiatives (Great

Green Wall in Sahara and Sahel Initiative, TerrAfrica…)

•Innovative country level financial mechanisms for LDN,

including FLR

UNCCD/GM - Major Initiatives connected to FLR

UNFCCCUNFCCC

Forest and Landscape

Restoration

20x2020x20

Bonn Challenge/GPFLR

Bonn Challenge/GPFLR

CBDCBD

UNFF/CPF

UNFF/CPF

GGWSSI/TerrAfricaGGWSSI/TerrAfrica

CACILMCACILM

UNCCD

Sustainable financing for FLR

• Planning the budget for restoration

• Introducing public expenditure reviews for FLR

• Integrating FLR in national accounting

• Greening fiscal policy and state investment

• Adapting ODA channels to FLR

1. Mainstreaming FLR in State budgets

Sustainable financing for FLR

• Developing/reforming national environmental or forests funds

• Building public incentive schemes for PES mechanisms

• Supporting self-sustaining local approaches

2. Setting up appropriate financing mechanisms for FLR

Sustainable financing for FLR

• Promoting voluntary commitments for FLR through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies

• Support the work of private impact funds

• Promoting layered funds

3. Engaging the private sector

Sustainable financing for FLR

• Developing marketplaces for FLR

• Generating and compiling data on FLR costs and benefits

• Reducing the risk of FLR investments

4. Attracting investors to FLR

Sustainable financing for FLR

• National and regional alliances

• International partnerships

• Local alliances

5. Building alliances and partnerships

Key messages: Forests and Landscape Forum, 13-15 Oct

• Coordination of restoration efforts -both at intra-agency level and across agencies-, and building effective partnerships for implementation, are critical steps if we are to make impact on the ground.

• The needs and interests of local communities must be at the center of land restoration efforts.

Key messages: Forests and Landscape Forum, 13-15 Oct

• Mitigating investment risks, providing clear information about the cost/benefits of restoration actions, and facilitating marketplaces to match supply and demand for restoration investments, are prerequisites for attracting stronger private sector engagement in land restoration.

• An enabling environment for land restoration efforts can be achieved by supporting capacity building at the technical and institutional levels, and adequate governance and policy frameworks.

Thank you!

Victor Castillo, Scientific Affairs Officer-in-Charge, KMST, UNCCD

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

Land matters for climate mitigation

Why, how much and what does it mean for

Paris?Alexander Erlewein

18 November 2015

Subject

Outline

1. Land & climate: contribution to the problem

2. Land & climate: contribution to the solution

3. The role of soil carbon

4. How to estimate mitigation potentials?

5. The climate benefits of LDN

6. INDCs and the emissions gap

7. Conclusion: is land the missing piece of the climate puzzle?

Subject

1. Land & climate: contribution to the problem• The land sector (aka AFOLU) contributes ~ 25% (10-12

GtCO2e/yr) to anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC 2014)

• AFOLU emissions originate

~ 50% from agricultural production

~ 50% from LUC and forestry

• AFOLU emissions are the major source of GHG emissions in many developing countries where fossil fuel use is limited

THIS MEANS:

• Without AFOLU there will be no effective climate

agreement

• Leaving AFOLU out = leaving developing countries out

Subject

2. Land & climate: contribution to the solution• AFOLU is unique: the only sector that allows for

• emission reductions AND

• natural carbon sequestration in soils and biomass

• AFOLU mitigation potential: 7.2–10.6 GtCO2e/yr in 2030 (IPCC 2014)

Has this large potential been used so far? Only marginally!

• So far land-based mitigation focused on forests (REDD+, CDM af/reforestation etc.)

• The mitigation potential of other ecosystems, land restoration and agriculture has not been systematically tapped so far

Subject

Source: IPCC 2014: 849

Subject

3. The role of soil carbon

1st SPI Science-Policy Brief “Pivotal soil carbon”

Why pivotal?

Because soil organic carbon (SOC) provides many benefits at the same time, it

•…mitigates climate change by storing carbon: soils are the second largest carbon store

•…increases soil fertility and productivity, thus, enhancing food security

•…increases soil moisture

•…supports climate adaptation by making soils less vulnerable to climate shocks

Meaningful cross-cutting indicator

Subject

3. The role of soil carbon

• Top soils lost between 25 - 75% of their organic carbon due to land use

• this lost carbon can be restored partially: potential sequestration of 1.5 – 4 GtCO2e/yr (IPCC 2007)

• Theoretically, small increases of SOC could offset all anthropogenic GHG emissions (“4 per 1000”)

• Sequestration rates are highly ecosystem specific

• SLM practices ~ 1 tCO2e/ha/yr

• Restoration of degraded land ~ 3 tCO2e/ha/yr

• Restoration of organic soils (rewetting peatlands) up to 50 tCO2e/ha/yr

Limitations

• Carbon saturation (after ~20 years)

• Risk of carbon release (non-permanency)

Subject

4. How to estimate mitigation potentials?• IPCC guidelines on GHG inventories in the AFOLU sector

(2006)

• Tiered-approach: default values vs. detailed values

• Default values for estimating the mitigation potential of specific land use and management changes

• Standard time horizon: 20 years

• Emission calculators are based on IPCC default values

• EX-Ante Carbon balance tool (EX-ACT) by FAO

• Carbon Benefits Project by GEF

• Several others

Subject

5. The climate benefits of LDN

What is the mitigation potential of restoring 12 million ha?

• Annual mitigation 0.33 GtCO2e/yr (for 20 years until soils are saturated)

• Restoring 12 m ha annually over 10 years (2020-2030) = 120m ha

• Annual mitigation in 2030 = 3.33 GtCO2e/yr

Subject

6. INDCs and the emissions gap

• Target of new climate deal: limit global warming to 2°C

• 137 countries submitted INDCs

• INDCs vary in terms of different target types (absolute or relative, unconditional or conditional), coverage (whole economy or specific sectors) and baselines

• Cumulative emission reduction of all INDCs: ~ 5 GtCO2e/yr in 2030

• Most countries include the land sector in INDCs (with a clear focus on forestry though)

• BUT: only few countries have specific and quantitative targets for the land sector

Subject

6. INDCs and the emissions gap

• Emissions gap: the difference between the level of GHG emissions, consistent with meeting the 2°C target and the emissions reductions that governments have committed to in their current policies

• Overall emissions gap to be closed: 18 GtCO2e/yr in 2030

• INDCs: 5 Gt

• Remaining gap: 13 Gt

• Additional contribution through 12m ha annual restoration (LDN): 3.3 Gt

• LDN could close the remaining gap by ~25%

• In other words: LDN contribution equals 2/3 of all INDC contribution

Subject

6. INDCs and the emissions gap

Subject

7. Conclusion: is land the missing piece of the climate puzzle?• One of them. Land-based mitigation is not a panacea but

does make a significant difference

• Land-based mitigation continues to under-perform: many forms of land-based mitigation (apart from forestry) are not systematically used

• Land-based mitigation almost always comes with considerable co-benefits (food security, biodiversity, adaptation etc.): taking into account “the full package of benefits” makes land-based activities particularly attractive

• AFOLU accounting is challenging but possible (with high uncertainties): improved accounting methods are key

Subject

7. Conclusion: Possible entry points to further promote land-based mitigation in the climate arena

• INDCs are set, but will need to be complemented by additional climate pledges

• Countries will have to transform vague INDCs in NDCs and concrete climate policies. Countries will have to specify climate action

• The new climate agreement might contain a provision to update reduction targets every 5 years

Highlighting and quantifying the climate benefits of LDN is key to improve the land sector´s recognition in climate politics and ensure access to climate funds