locatelli 2008 facing an uncertain future

7/31/2019 Locatelli 2008 Facing an Uncertain Future

1/97

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is one of the 15 centres

supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

F O R E S T P E R S P E C T I V E S

Bruno Locatelli

Markku Kanninen

Maria Brockhaus

Carol J. Pierce Colfer

Daniel Murdiyarso

Heru Santoso

Facing an uncertain futureHow forests and people can adapt

to climate change

CIFORs Forest Perspectives promote discussion and

debate on key forest issues. Download electronic copies

at www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications.

FACINGANUNCERTAINFUTURE

Locatelli,B.|Kanninen,M.|Brockhaus,M.|Co

lfer,C.J.P.|Murdiyarso,D.|Santoso,H.

Te most prominent international responses to climate change ocus

on mitigation (reducing the accumulation o greenhouse gases) rather

than adaptation (reducing the vulnerability o society and ecosystems).

However, with climate change now inevitable, adaptation is gaining

importance in the policy arena, and is an integral part o ongoing

negotiations towards an international ramework.

Tis report presents the case or adaptation or tropical orests (reducing

the impacts o climate change on orests and their ecosystem services)

and tropical orests or adaptation (using orests to help local people and

society in general to adapt to inevitable changes).

Policies in the orest, climate change and other sectors need to address

these issues and be integrated with each othersuch a cross-sectoral

approach is essential i the benets derived in one area are not to be lost

or counteracted in another. Moreover, the institutions involved in p olicydevelopment and implementation need themselves to be fexible and able

to learn in the context o dynamic human and environmental systems.

And all this needs to be done at all levels rom the local community to

the national government and international institutions.

Te report includes an appendix covering climate scenarios, concepts,

and international policies and unds.

CIFOR

www.cifor.cgiar.org


2/97

Bruno Locatelli

Markku Kanninen

Maria Brockhaus

Carol J. Pierce Colfer

Daniel Murdiyarso

Heru Santoso

Facing an uncertain utureHow orests and people can adaptto climate change

Contributors

Peter Cronkleton, Ganga Ram Dahal, Houria Djoudi,

Kristen Evans, Fobissie Kalame, Hermann Kambire,

Rodel Lasco, Moira Moeliono, Raffaele Vignola

FOREST PERSPECTIVES NO. 5


3/97

Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Coler, C.J.P., Murdiyarso, D. and Santoso, H. 2008

Facing an uncertain uture: How orests and people can adapt to climate change. Forest

Perspectives no. 5. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Photos: Bruno Locatelli

Printed by Drukarnia Poznanska, Poznan

86p.

ISBN 978-979-1412-75-9

Published by

Center or International Forestry Research

Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede,

Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia

Tel.: +62 (251) 8622-622; Fax: +62 (251) 8622-100

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: http://www.cior.cgiar.org

by CIFOR

All rights reserved.

Published in 2008

Center or International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

CIFOR advances human wellbeing, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting

research to inorm policies and practices that aect orests in developing countries.

CIFOR is one o 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR). CIFORs headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has oces in

Asia, Arica and South America. CIFOR works in over 30 countries worldwide and haslinks with researchers in 50 international, regional and national organisations.


4/97

Preace v

Acknowledgements vii

Summary ix

1. Introduction 1

2. Adaptation or tropical orests 3

2.1. Vulnerability o tropical orests to climate change 3

2.2. Dening orest adaptation 7

2.3. Implementing orest adaptation 13

3. Tropical orests or adaptation 21

3.1. Ecosystem services and human wellbeing 21

3.2. Tropical orests or the adaptation o society 26

3.3. Mainstreaming tropical orests into adaptation policies 30

4. Conclusions 43

Appendix: Understanding adaptation 45

A.1. Climate change scenarios in the tropics 45

A.2. Concepts o vulnerability 50

A.3. What is adaptation? 57

A.4. International policies and unds 63

Reerences 69

Contents


5/97

iv

Boxes

1. Planning or climate change in the Amazon 12

2. National Policy Learning Group in Nepal 17

3. Shared learning 18

4. Future scenarios: learning together how to plan and prepare orthe uture 19

5. Vulnerability o carbon storage and the links between adaptationand mitigation 25

6. Principles and criteria or assessing the vulnerability o coupledhumanenvironment systems 29

7. Aorestation and reorestation policies and adaptation toclimate change in West Arica 32

8. Mainstreaming orest into adaptation and development policies inThe Philippines 36

9. A policy research ramework on actors, decision making andpolicy networks 39

10. Hydropower, orests and adaptation in Costa Rica: supportingadaptive decision making processes 40

11. The role o science in coordinating and supporting adaptive processesin West Arica 41

12. The ATEAM ramework or assessing vulnerabilities 53

13. Vulnerable countries 54

14. An eight step approach or assessing vulnerabilities 57

15. The Adaptation Policy Framework 61

16. Costs and benets o adaptation 62

17. UNFCCC adaptation unds 65

Figures

1. Components o the exposure and sensitivity o orest ecosystems 4

2. Examples o measures or orest adaptation 10

3. Examples o ecosystem services and their links to human wellbeing 22

4. Ecosystem services and their links to vulnerability to climate change 27

5. Annual anomalies o global land-surace air temperature, 1850

to 2005, relative to the 19611990 mean or CRUTEM3 46

6. Multimodel mean changes in surace air temperatureand precipitation or boreal winter and summer 47

7. The components o vulnerability 53

8. Various conceptualisations o impact and adaptation 55

Tables

1. Examples o adaptation measures or managed orests 11

2. Examples o relevant ecosystem services or vulnerable sectors 28

3. Climate change trends in three continents, according to IPCC 494. Categories o vulnerability actors 52

5. Types o adaptation 59


6/97

Preace

Te science o climate change has come a long way since the Earth Summit in

Rio de Janeiro (1992) and the adoption o the Kyoto Protocol (1997). We now

recognise that some degree o climate change is inevitable, and even the best

case scenario is going to have major impacts on global weather patterns and,

consequently, peoples livesespecially the poor. Mitigation o climate changeis no longer enough. We have to adapt to the impending changes as they arise;

or, better still, anticipate those changes by having adaptation strategies in place.

Climate change adaptation is one o the our building blocks o the Bali Action

Plan.

Forests are a vital part o any global eort to address climate change. o date,

however, orests have been mostly considered in the context o mitigation

through reorestation, aorestation, and more recently, avoided deorestation

and orest degradation. Yet with over a billion people dependent (in one way

or another) on orests or their livelihood, orests can also play a crucial role

in adaptation.

Forests provide many millions o people with raw materials in the orm o ood,

uel and materials or shelter. And they provide ecosystem servicessuch as

water regulation, erosion control and carbon storageto billions more. We

need orests to continue providing these raw materials and ecosystem services

into the uture, and in the ace o climate change.


7/97

vi

In this report, the authors present the case or a dual agenda to enhance the

role o orests in adaptation: assisting orests to weather the coming storm o

climate change, and managing orests in ways that enable orest-dependent

peoples and society in general to cope with the coming changes. Tey term

these approaches adaptation or orests and orests or adaptation.

Tese approaches pose dicult challenges, requiring new policies and

institutions inside and outside the orestry sector narrowly dened.

But mainstreaming adaptation into orest management strategies, and

mainstreaming orests into adaptation strategies, are objectives that cannot

wait. Both are needed i orests are to meet their potential or increasing

their own and societys resilience to the changes in climate that are already

underway.

Frances Seymour

Director General, CIFOR


8/97

Te authors are grateul to their colleagues and peers who reviewed earlier

dras o this report: Ian Burton, Tea Dickinson and Manuel Guariguata.

Tis document has been produced with the nancial assistance o the European

Union (EuropeAid/ENV/2004-81719). Te contents o this document can

under no circumstances be regarded as refecting the position o the EuropeanUnion.

Figure 5 is reproduced rom Figure 3.1, page 242, in renberth et al. (2007)

with permission rom IPCC.

Figure 6 is reproduced rom Figure 10.9, page 767, in Meehl et al. (2007) with

permission rom IPCC.

Acknowledgements


9/97


10/97

Te most prominent international responses to climate change ocus on

mitigation (reducing the accumulation o greenhouse gases) rather than

adaptation (reducing the vulnerability o societies and ecosystems). However,

with some degree o climate change now recognised as inevitable, adaptation

is gaining importance in the policy arena. Moreover, it is one o the ourbuilding blocks o the 2-year Bali Action Planongoing negotiations towards

an international ramework to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

Tis report presents the case or adaptation or orests (reducing the impacts

o climate change on orests and their ecosystem services) and orests or

adaptation (using orests to help local people and society in general to adapt to

inevitable changes). Linking adaptation and tropical orests are a new rontier:

adaptation is a new arena or tropical oresters, and tropical orests are a new

arena or adaptation specialists. ropical orest management now needs to be

adapted in a way that will smooth the transition through climate change. Te

goal may be to maintain important ecosystems or specieswhere adaptation

measures will aim at resisting the eects o climate change. Alternatively, the

goal may be to maintain the ecosystem services provided by the orestwhere

adaptation measures will aim at helping the orest to evolve so that it does

the same job in the new climate. Te huge diversity o tropical orests and

local situations means that a vast array o adaptation measures is required,

Summary


11/97

x

rom which the most appropriate ones can be selected or each situation.

Moreover, because the extent o uture climate change is unknown, more than

one measure is advisable in each case and implementation must be fexible to

the changing situation.

Policies in the orest, climate change and other sectors need to address these

issues and be integrated with each othersuch a cross-sectoral approach is

essential i the benets derived in one area are not to be lost or counteracted

in another. o date, tropical orests have been given a minor role in adaptation

strategies, even in most o the National Adaptation Programmes o Action.

Moreover, the institutions involved in policy development and implementation

themselves need to change, to be in a position to enorce the new policies, and

to become fexible and able to learn in the context o dynamic human and

environmental systems. And all this needs to be done at all levels rom the local

community to the national government and the international community

again the emphasis is on integration, without which actions at dierent scales

risk cancelling each other out.

Te report looks at the two aspects in turnadaptation or tropical orests,

and tropical orests or adaptationand includes an appendix on climate

scenarios, concepts, and international policies and unds.


12/97

In 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report o the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) presented incontrovertible evidence that the global

climate is changing because o human activities. Since the rst IPCC report

published in 1990, scientic knowledge has been growing and policy responses

have been implemented at international, national and local levels. In the most

prominent international responses to climate change, the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC; established in 1992)and the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the ocus is put on mitigationreducing

the accumulation o greenhouse gases in the atmosphererather than on

adaptationreducing the vulnerability o society and ecosystems to climate

change.

However, adaptation is gaining importance in the climate change policy

arena, as actors realise that climate change cannot be totally avoided and

mitigation policies will take time beore being eective (because o the inertia

o economic, atmosphere and climate systems). In December 2007, the United

Nations Conerence on Climate Change (Bali) ended with the adoption o the

Bali Action Plan, a 2-year plan or negotiating a new climate treaty. Adaptation

is one o the our building blocks o the negotiation. Te outcomes o the

negotiation will shape a uture international ramework supporting adaptation

activities in developing countries.

Te role o tropical orests in mitigating climate change, through carbon

storage, has been recognised and incorporated in international agreements andpolicy instruments. Te contribution o tropical aorestation and reorestation

Introduction1


13/97

2 | Facing an uncertain future

activities is already acknowledged in the Clean Development Mechanism

(CDM) o the Kyoto Protocol, many carbon markets reward tropical orestry

activities, and the inclusion o avoided tropical deorestation in a uture

international agreement is being discussed. While tropical orests are an

important component o mitigation science and policy, their role in adaptationis rapidly gaining signicance. Linking adaptation and tropical orests is a

new rontier or science and policy: adaptation is a new rontier or tropical

oresters, and tropical orests are a new rontier or adaptation specialists.

Te links between adaptation and tropical orests are two old. First, as tropical

orests are vulnerable to climate change, those managing or conserving them

will have to adapt their management to uture conditions. People living in

orests are highly dependent on orest goods and services, and are vulnerable

to orest changes both socially and economically. Even i local stakeholders

know more in some ways about their orests than anyone else does, the

unprecedented rates o climate change may jeopardise their capacity to adapt

to new conditions. Capacity building and scientic knowledge are needed to

understand the vulnerability o orests and local people, and to design and

implement adaptation measures.

Second, tropical orests deliver ecosystem services that are vital or people

beyond the orest worldwide. As these ecosystem services contribute toreducing the vulnerability o society to climate change, the conservation or

management o tropical orests should be included in adaptation policies. Te

institutional links between tropical orests and other sectors should be created

or reinorced by using an intersectoral approach to adaptation.

Tis report aims to demonstrate that: (1) tropical orests need to adapt or

be adapted, because they are vulnerable to climate change; and (2) tropical

orests are needed oradaptation, because they can help to decrease humanvulnerability to climate change. First, we argue that adaptation measures

should be dened and implemented or reducing the vulnerability o orests

to climate change (Chapter 2). Ten, we argue that orests should be included

in adaptation policy or their contribution to reducing societal vulnerability

(Chapter 3). At the end o the report, an appendix presents general inormation

about climate change, the concepts o vulnerability and adaptation, and the

international policies and unds related to adaptation.


14/97

3

ropical orests are vulnerable to climate change and adaptation is needed to

reduce their vulnerability. In this chapter, the vulnerability o tropical orests is

introduced in section 2.1, possible adaptation options are presented in section

2.2, and the implementation o orest adaptation is discussed in section 2.3.

2.1 Vulnerability o tropical orests to climate change

Te Fourth Assessment Report o the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (Parry et al. 2007) indicates that i global average temperature

increases by more than 1.52.5, there are projected to be major changes

in local climates, in terms o mean and range o temperature, precipitation

(rainall) and extreme events (see Appendix). Te changes in climate andcarbon dioxide concentration will aect the structure and unction o

ecosystems, species ecological interactions, and species geographical ranges,

with consequences or biodiversity (Malcolm et al. 2006) and ecosystem

services. Many ecosystems, including tropical orests, are likely to be aected

this century by an unprecedented combination o climate change, associated

disturbances (e.g., fooding, drought, wildre, insects), and other global change

drivers (e.g., land use change, pollution, overexploitation o resources).

Adaptation or tropical orests2


15/97


Te eects o a changing climate on ecological systems have already been

observed at various levels o ecological organisation rom organisms to

ecosystems. Observations include changes in structure and unctioning,

carbon and nitrogen cycling, species distributions, population size, timing

o reproduction or migration, and length o growing season (Corlett andLarankie 1998; Gitayet al. 2002; Root et al. 2003; Clark 2007). Tese studies

suggest that global change may be a current and uture conservation threat,

and emphasise the need or considering climate change in conservation,

management or restoration o tropical orests. Additional threats will emerge

as the climate continues to change, especially as it interacts with other stresses

such as habitat ragmentation (McCarty 2001; Brooket al. 2008).

Potential impacts

Te potential impacts o climate change on tropical orests are a unction o

exposure and sensitivity (see denitions o these concepts in Appendix, Figure

7). ropical orests are exposed to dierent actors o climate change and

variability, as well as other drivers such as land use change or pollution that

exacerbate the impacts o climate change (see Figure 1). Sensitivity reers to the

degree to which a system will respond to a change in climate, either positively

or negatively. Among the parameters o sensitivity are changes in disturbance

regimes that are aected by climate and land use practices (Murdiyarso andLebel 2007). For example, El Nio-induced droughts have increased the

incidence o re in humid tropical orests (Barlow and Peres 2004).

Figure 1. Components o the exposure and sensitivity o orest

ecosystems (ater Johnston and Williamson 2007).

Exposure Sensitivity

Climate change and variabilityIncrease in temperature

Changes in precipitationChanges in seasonal patternsHurricanes and stormsIncrease in CO

2levels

Sea level riseOther driversLand use changeLandscape ragmentationResource exploitationPollution

Changes in disturbance regimese.g., res, pests and disease

Changes in tree level processese.g., productivity

Changes in species distributionChanges in site conditions

e.g., soil conditionChanges in stand structure

e.g., density, height


16/97

Adaptation for tropical forests | 5

Tropical rainforests. Studies o changes in tropical orest regions since the last

glacial maximum show the sensitivity o species composition and ecology to

climate changes (Hughen et al. 2004). Several studies have predicted impacts o

climate change on tropical rainorests. In the humid tropics o north Queensland

(Australia), signicant shis in the extent and distribution o tropical orestsare likely, because several orest types are highly sensitive to a 1 warming and

most types are sensitive to changes in precipitation (Hilbert et al. 2001). Te

decline in rainall in the Amazon Basin predicted by some climate models,

and the intensication o the Indian monsoon will have large-scale eects on

availability o water or tropical orests (Bazzaz 1998). For the Amazon, several

studies predict a die back o the orest and large-scale substitution by savannah

(Cox et al. 2004; Nepstad et al. 2008). Te sensitivity o tropical rainorests to

climate is increased by interactions with ongoing extensive ragmentation. In

the Amazon, the interactions between agricultural expansion, orest res and

climate change could accelerate the degradation process (Nepstad et al. 2008).

However, some impacts o climate change on tropical rainorests remain

uncertain (Granger Morgan et al. 2001; Wright 2005).

Tropical cloud forests. ropical cloud orests are an important subset o

tropical rainorests rom a climate change perspective. Even small-scale shis

in temperature and precipitation are expected to have serious consequences

or tropical orests on high mountains; indeed, changes in climate have alreadycaused species extinctions (Pounds et al. 1999). ropical cloud orests are

especially sensitive because they are in areas with steep gradients and highly

specic climatic conditions (Foster 2002). Atmospheric warming is raising the

altitude o cloud cover that provides tropical cloud orest species with moisture

via prolonged immersion in clouds (Pounds et al. 1999). Te habitat or these

species will shi up the mountains as they ollow the retreating cloud base,

orcing them into smaller and smaller areas (Hansen et al. 2003). Te extreme

sensitivity o the microclimates o tropical cloud orests to climate changemakes a good case or using these habitats as a listening post or detecting

climate change (Loope and Giambelluca 1998). In the highland rainorests o

Monteverde, Costa Rica, the liing o the cloud base associated with increased

ocean temperatures has been linked to the disappearance o 20 species o rog

(Pounds et al. 1999). In East Maui, Hawaii, the steep microclimatic gradients

in montane tropical orests combined with increases in interannual variability

in precipitation and hurricanes are expected to produce a situation where

endemic biota will likely be displaced by non-native plants and animals (Loope

and Giambelluca 1998; Hansen et al. 2003).


17/97


Tropical dry forests. Ecosystems in semi-arid areas are very sensitive to changes

in rainall, which can aect vegetation productivity and plant survival (Hulme

2005). Studies conducted in anzania and Costa Rica show that tropical dry

orests may be particularly sensitive to lie zone1 shis under climate change

(Mwakiwamba and Mwakasonda 2001; Enquist 2002). ropical dry orestsare likely to be aected most by drought and re. A slight decrease in annual

precipitation is expected to make tropical dry orests subject to greater risk

rom orest res in the immediate uture. Prolonging the dry seasons would

enhance desiccation, making the orest system more exposed and sensitive to

res. However, increased re occurrence can eventually lead to a decrease o

res due to the reduction o uelbeds over time (Goldammer and Price 1998;

Hansen et al. 2003). According to Miles et al. (2006), Latin American tropical

dry orests will be more aected than those in Arica or Asia.

Mangroves. Mangroves have also been identied as among the orest types

most threatened by climate change. Te principal threat to mangroves comes

rom sea level rise and the associated changes in sediment dynamics, erosion

and salinity. Sea level rise is expected to take place at about twice the rate at

which sediment build-up (necessary or the mangroves survival) will occur

and so cause the sinking o many deltas. Furthermore, erosion will reduce the

size o mangroves: cli erosion on the seaward edge that undercuts mangrove

roots, sheet erosion across the swamp surace, and loss o tidal creek banks(Hansen et al. 2003). Mangroves may be aected by other atmospheric changes

as well, including temperature, carbon dioxide rise, and storms. Drying out o

mangroves would be highly damaging, or example, droughts in Senegal and

Gambia have aected mangroves (Dudley 1998).

Forest adaptive capacity

Te adaptive capacity o orests remains uncertain (Julius and West 2008).ropical orests are more complex ecosystems than agricultural ones, which

probably gives them greater resilience to small changes in their environment.

ropical orests are generally able to withstand some levels o climatic stress,

especially intact orests (Malhi et al. 2008). However, many scientists are

concerned that the adaptive capacity o orests will not be sucient to adapt to

unprecedented rates o climate change (Gitayet al. 2002).

1 In this context, lie zones may be considered as the biological and geographical specics

o the habitat in which an organism lives. Under climate change, these are prone to move; orexample, a habitat o specic vegetation may be hundreds o kilometres away aer a 2 raise in

global mean temperature.


18/97


We need a better understanding o the actors that enhance or limit the adaptive

capacity o orests (Julius and West 2008), including the role o the landscape

around a orest plot, as landscape connectivity may acilitate ecosystem

adaptation and the adaptive capacity can be reduced by stresses outside the

orest.

Species can adapt to climate change through phenotypic plasticity

(acclimatisation), adaptive evolution, or migration to suitable sites (Markham

1996; Bawa and Dayanandan 1998). Without these options, species will decline

and ultimately become extinct (Noss 2001). Evidence rom coupled climate

and vegetation models suggests that global warming may require migration

rates much aster than those observed during postglacial times and hence

has the potential to reduce biodiversity by selecting or highly mobile and

opportunistic species (Malcolm et al. 2002; Pearson 2006).

It has been reported that species richness and diversity in a orest ecosystem can

contribute to resistance and resilience, the most compelling explanation being

the redundancy provided by multispecies membership in critical unctional

groups (Walker 1992, 1995; Peterson et al. 1998). Diversity o unctional

groups, in addition to diversity o species within groups, also appears to

promote ecological resistance (Noss 2001).

2.2. Defning orest adaptation

The need or exible and diversifed approaches

As tropical orests are vulnerable to climate change, current management

or conservation practices should integrate climate change threats and aim

at reducing vulnerabilities. Dening technical adaptation measures or

orest is not straightorward, because adaptation measures depend on avariety o contextual actors (e.g., orest types, management goals, climatic

threats, and non-climatic pressures). In addition, even though modelling has

been used to study the vulnerability o tropical orests to climate change,

the uncertainties inherent to ecosystem models and climate scenarios may

hinder their use by orest managers or policy makers (Millar et al. 2007). For

instance, uture trends in precipitation are still unclear at local and regional

scales, especially or the tropics. In many situations, models that cannot help

determine uture impacts will help envision possible directions o change. In

terms o orest vulnerabilities, the main gap in our knowledge relates to the


19/97


processes explaining the adaptive capacity o species: phenotypic plasticity,

adaptive evolution, and migration (Noss 2001; Midgleyet al. 2007).

Te uncertainties about uture climate and orest vulnerability mean that we

need fexible and diverse approaches. Depending on the local context, theseapproaches should combine various measures selected rom an adaptation

toolbox (Millar et al. 2007). Te selection o measures depends on the

uncertainties associated with the uture o climate and orests. Where some

dimensions o the uture are reliably known, the choice can be specically

targeted to the projected uture scenario. However, in most cases, the high

degree o uncertainty will justiy the selection a portolio o measures to

reduce the risk associated with choosing one inadequate measure.

Te selection o adaptation measures also depends on the variables that the

society considers o interest. For instance, depending on whether adaptation

aims at conserving some high-value species or conserving hydrological

ecosystem services, adaptation measures should be selected or either

conserving the key species or acilitating the transition o the ecosystem

towards another state in which vegetation structure allows the supply o

hydrological ecosystem services. Tere may be many synergies between

dierent goals, but sometimes there need to be tradeos. Aer dening the

predicted likely eects o climate change and desired end state, decisionmakers should select measures and evaluate them, taking into consideration

the uncertainties. Te implementation o the measures should then be

associated with monitoring and learning to enable ongoing and ex post

evaluations and fexibility in management to the lessons learnt (Spittlehouse

and Stewart 2003; Millar et al. 2007).

Categories o adaptation measures or orestsVarious authors have proposed adaptation measures or orests (e.g., Noss

2001; Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003; Hansen et al. 2003; Millar et al. 2007;

Fischlin et al. 2007; Guariguata et al. 2008; Ogden and Innes 2008). Most

measures have been dened or temperate or boreal orests, but can be

extrapolated to tropical orests even though some may be dicult to apply

there (because they are generally less intensively managed and host a higher

diversity o trees than boreal and temperate areas).


20/97


Following Smithers and Smit (1997), we distinguish between two broad

categories o adaptation measures or orests, depending on their intended

outcomes or eects. Te rst category is adaptation measures aimed at

buering a system rom perturbations, by increasing its resistance and

resilience to change. Resistance is the ability o a system to resist externalperturbations (Bodin and Wiman 2007), while resilience is the ability o a

system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as

to still retain essentially the same unction, structure, identity, and eedbacks

(Walker et al. 2004). According to Millar et al. (2007), buering measures that

try to conserve orests in their current or past state are not a panacea and may

be eective only over a short term. With increasing changes in environmental

conditions, such eorts may eventually ail. Because o these risks and their

associated costs, such measures should be applied preerentially to high-value

orests (e.g., those hosting high priority endangered species or providing

important goods or local communities) or to orests with low sensitivity to

climate change (Millar et al. 2007). Tese measures are also relevant or short-

term management objectives, or example, a orest plantation close to harvest.

In the second category, the objective is to acilitate a shi or an evolution o the

system towards a new state that meets altered conditions (Smithers and Smit

1997). In contrast to the rst category, the objective is not to resist changes, but

to ease and manage natural adaptation processes (Millar et al. 2007). However,as in the rst category, the resilience o the ecosystem is key in this process,

not necessarily to keep the ecosystem in the same state aer a disturbance, but

to help it evolve in a way that maintains its unction, structure and identity

(desired by the manager or the society), such as storing a similar amount o

carbon, regulating water quality or producing goods or local communities.

Examples o adaptation measures or orestsSome measures or increasing orest resistance and resilience (see Figure 2, le)

ocus on preventing perturbations, such as re (managing uel, suppressing or

controlling res), preventing the entry o or removing invasive species, and

controlling insects and diseases (applying phytosanitary treatments). Another

option or buering systems rom perturbations is to actively manage the

ecosystem aer a perturbation; or instance, avouring the establishment o

prioritised species in a restoration plan.


21/97


Rather than suppressing re and carrying out prescribed burning, Barlow andPeres (2004) propose two strategies or re control in humid tropical orests:

reducing orest fammability (e.g., orest management should avoidincreasing

understorey uel load and reducing understorey humidity) and preventing re

rom reaching fammable orests (e.g., with rebreaks, education, legislation

and nancial incentives).

Measures to buer orests rom perturbations may be very costly and beyond

the economic means o most tropical countries (Barlow and Peres 2004).

Moreover, some measures may have negative environmental impacts (e.g.,

herbicides) or not be sustainable. Fire control may be counterproductive in

the long term when climate is changing (Hulme 2005).

o acilitate a shi or evolution o the ecosystem (see Figure 2, right), one

measure is to enhance landscape connectivity and reduce ragmentation.

Connectivity between habitats increases the ability o species to migrate.

Corridors established in the direction o the climate gradient could help

species to adapt to climate change (Noss 2001). Another measure consistso dening high priority areas or conservation under scenarios o climate

Figure 2. Examples o measures or orest adaptation.

Institutional measures or orest adaptation

Increasing awareness Reducing socioeconomic pressures on orestsCreating knowledge

Managing at large scale Building partnerships

Technical measures or orest adaptation

Measures or buering

systems rom perturbations

Preventing re (rebreak, re

suppression, etc.)Managing invasive species, insectsand diseases (removal o invasive,herbicides, prevention o migrationo invasive species, phytosanitarytreatments)Managing post-disturbance phases(revegetation, restoration)

Measures or acilitating shits andevolution towards new states

Enhancing landscape connectivity

(corridors, buers, etc.)Conserving biodiversity hotspotsand ecosystems acrossenvironmental gradientsConserving or enhancing geneticdiversity in natural orestsModiying orest plantationmanagement (species and genotypeselection, species mixes, thinningand harvest, age structure, etc.)Maintaining natural disturbanceregimesAssisting migration

Measures orboth objectives

Reducing otherpressures

Complementarymeasures

MonitoringConservationex situ


22/97


change. Because o the uncertainties about the vulnerabilities o dierent

orests, a good strategy is to conserve a large spectrum o orestsor instance,

ecosystems across environmental gradients or biodiversity hotspotsor their

value and their possible higher resilience (Noss 2001). Landscape connectivity

also plays a role in genetic diversity.

As genetic diversity is a key element or understanding ecosystem adaptive

capacity, some authors propose measures or maintaining or enhancing

it in managed orests (see able 1 rom Guariguata et al. 2008). For orest

plantations, the array o technical measures is wide, as these ecosystems are

generally intensively managed and the management can be modied to adapt

to climate change. For instance, the selection o species and genotypes can be

adapted to uture climates, while a mix o species and uneven age structure can

increase resistance or resilience, or harvesting can be anticipated or reducing

risks (Guariguata et al. 2008).

Table 1. Examples o adaptation measures or managed orests (ater

Guariguata et al. 2008)

Forest management

type

Adaptation measures

Measures or acilitating adaptive

capacity

Other sylvicultural measures

Natural orestmanagement based on

selective logging

Maximise juvenile andreproductive population sizes

Maintain interpopulation

movement o pollen and/or

seeds (by minimising harvesting

impacts on orest structure

and by maximising landscape

connectivity)

Maximise genetic variation o

planted seedlings when enriching

logging gapsUse o translocated material in

enrichment planting

Intensiy liana removalMinimise levels o slash

through reduced impact

logging

Widen buer strips/rebreaks

Tree plantation Plant a range o genotypes and

let nature take its course

Implement appropriate species

selection (particularly in

transitional zones)

Use seed sources adapted to

expected uture conditions

Use stable genotypes that tend

to perorm acceptably in a range

o environments

Plant mixtures o species

and implement appropriate

species selection

Widen buer strips/rebreaks


23/97


Some authors argue that natural disturbance regimes (e.g., res) should be

maintained because several re suppression programmes have caused the

decline o endangered plant species (Noss 2001; Hansen et al. 2003). However,

it is also recognised that res set by human agency are a threat or many

ecosystems, especially in the tropics. A right balance must be ound betweensuppressing re, letting natural res burn, and using prescribed burning or

reducing the risk o high-intensity res. Te assisted migration o plant species

to areas where climate is projected to become suitable is also a controversial

measure,2 because o the potential risk that human-aided translocation o

species introduces invasive species (Mueller and Hellmann 2008).3

Some adaptation measures can contribute to both buering the system rom

perturbations and acilitating shis (see Figure 2, centre); or instance, reducing

other pressures such as habitat destruction, ragmentation and degradation

(Noss 2001; Hansen et al. 2003; Malhi et al. 2008). As a threat, climate change

is adding to other stresses, some o which are currently more pressing than the

climate. I these other threats are not addressed, adaptation may be irrelevant

or may look like a purely academic question (Markham 1996). Reducing other

threats will also increase ecosystem resilience and acilitate shis (see Box 1).

2 Populations o plants (including trees) may migrate hundreds or thousands o metres a year

through seed dispersal.3 ranslocated species may behave as invasives in their new habitat.

Box 1. Planning or climate change in the Amazon

The possibility that climate change could enhance drought in the Amazon

is a major concern. Malhi et al. (2008) propose several key elements o a

development, conservation and adaptation plan to increase the resilience

o the Amazon socioecological system: (1) keeping deorestation below

a threshold; (2) controlling re use through education and regulation; (3)

maintaining broad corridors or species migration; (4) conserving river

corridors as humid reugia and or migration; (5) keeping the core northwest

Amazon largely intact.

Malhi et al. (2008) discuss the governance and nancial issues associated

with this plan, as well as the roles o protected areas, indigenous people,

smallholders and agroindustries, and governments.


24/97


Other measures are complementary to those listed above. For instance,

monitoring is vital to allow ongoing adjustments in adaptation strategies

(Fischlin et al. 2007). At a dierent level, conservation ex situ has been cited

as an adaptation measure by some authors. Even though it does not reer to

the adaptation o the ecosystem itsel, it may help conserve genetic diversitythreatened with extinction. Collections could allow reintroduction o species

in the uture (Hansen et al. 2003).

In parallel to technical measures, institutional measures must be developed,

such as increasing awareness within the orest communities and the orest

sector about adaptation to climate change (Spittlehouse 2005; see also

section 2.3).

2.3. Implementing orest adaptation

Building on the local

Te complexities and uncertainties related to orests and climate change

adaptation are magnied by enormous geographical and human variation.

Tere are powerul orces and traditions that discourage attention to local

variationsuch attention is typically seen as too complex, too dicult, too

costly and impractical. Yet the importance, indeed the necessity, to attend tolocal variation has become increasingly obvious (e.g., Agrawal 2008). It is now

time to bite the bullet and make the institutional changes needed to allow us

to build on the local, rather than trying to make broad-scale plans that will

inevitably ail in most localities.

o successully address climate change adaptation in any o the worlds

populated orests, a number o institutional changes will be needed. Macqueen

and Vermeulen (2006), or instance, point to the need or increasing localownership and access to orest resources; developing local monitoring and

analysis o climate change impacts, and building institutional responsibility

or adaptation strategies, among others. Agrawal (2008) emphasises the

importance o assessing and strengthening local institutions, developing locally

appropriate solutions and linking actors at various scales. Most undamentally,

managers at all levels will need to use any existing mechanisms that allow

people in particular settings to adapt their own systems more eectively as

their conditions change.


25/97


Learning rom previous experiences

Implementing orest adaptation should not start rom scratch, but be built on

experiences o building adaptive and collaborative management, recognising

the need or links and mutual support among levels.

Researchers in various contexts have been experimenting, since the 1990s,

with approaches that emphasise adaptation and collaboration. A large body

o literature is relevant or implementing orest adaptation at local scales

or example, CIFORs ACM (Adaptive Collaborative Management) series

(see below), Bucket al. (2001), ompkins and Adger (2004), Armitage et al.

(2008). Tese approaches were developed partly because, in the late 1990s,

the researchers had a growing sense that the processes involved in improving

sustainability and human wellbeing needed to be studied and improved, rather

than simply documenting the obvious ailures in those realms. Tis concern is

even more pressing now than it was at that time.

The Adaptive Collaborative Management approach

Te ACM approach, as a good example, is built on three prongs, all o which

will be crucial in adapting to climate change. Tese three prongs build on

the ollowing observations (each ollowed by the kinds o actions needed to

address them):

Te need to understand the views o the many stakeholders typically1.

interested in orests and their management. ools have been developed

to identiy the relevant people and to ashion orums in which they can

communicate more eectively with each other, as they deal with change.

Te need to have better mechanisms or learning rom experience.2.

Researchers have worked with groups o people to successully analyse,

plan, monitor and alter coursecrucial abilities as the climate changes.

Te need to address the inequitable distribution o power in todays orests3.

(and into the uture). Action researchers have worked with marginalised

and dominant groups, women and men at various scales, to level the playing

eld, in an attempt to address the needs o those who currently have crucial

(and probably growing) needs, but little voice in the management o local

orests and other decisions aecting their wellbeing.

ypically, trained local acilitators have played central roles. Such acilitators use

participatory action research to work with local community groups (and morerecently, with local governments) to strengthen local analytical capabilities


26/97


and adaptive capacity, as well as a variety o other skills, such as collective

action, negotiation, networking and confict management. In other cases,

researchers and acilitators have worked with broader scale actors, such as the

timber industry, conservation projects, regional and national governments,

to strengthen support or the local actions and expand the impacts o localeorts. Dierent approaches are described in Coler (2005), CIFOR (2008)

and Pund et al. (2008).

Monitoring is likely to be critical in global eorts to address climate change

adaptation. Early work by Prabhu and his associates (e.g., Prabhu and Coler

1996; Prabhu et al. 1998) demonstrated the possibility and practicality o

developing and adapting sets o criteria and indicators (C&I) or monitoring

orest management and human wellbeing in specic local contexts. Such

monitoring is central to the capacity to adapt to change while moving towards

a shared vision o a desirable uture. Such tools have proven useul at all levels,

rom communities to international processes, though their suitability in any

context needs assessment and, i deemed useul, adaptation to local conditions.

Examples o community-level testing o C&I and participatory monitoring are

given in McDougall (2002), Hartanto et al. (2003), Guijt (2007) and Evans and

Guariguata (2008).

Understanding diverse situations

Mechanisms that maintain links and eedback rom diverse local contexts to

key decision makers are vital to ensure the continuing relevance and positive

eects o policy interventions. One option, used in the Landscape Mosaics

project (Pund et al. 2008), is to select villages associated with orests o

dierent quality and remoteness, to maximise the understanding o possible

ecological and socioeconomic determinants. Another option could be to select

communities along a likely climate change trajectory, or example, along ahumidity gradient where drier or wetter conditions are likely to expand. For

example, the intention could be to learn how the existing human systems are

adapted to climate variability in the driest areas and share such understanding

with people in places likely to ace similar drier conditions in the uture. Still

another option is to examine the systems o dierent ethnic groups (e.g.,

Dounias and Coler 2008), which oen have totally dierent human systems

even within the same ecological niche, or describe and work with dierent

management and goals across gender lines (Shea et al. 2005).


27/97


Another approach involves linking particular communities with district-level

government actors, as was done in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia (Komarudin

et al. 2008) or underway in Landscape Mosaics sites in Guinea, anzania,

Cameroon, Lao PDR, Indonesia and Madagascar (Pund et al. 2008). Te

use o multistakeholder orums can serve a similar unction o maximisingcommunication and collaboration among levels and actors (e.g., Yuliani et al.

2008a, b).

Tese models build on the ACM approach described above, conducting

participatory action research at both community and district government

levels. Shared concerns are then identied between the two levels, and

collaboration is encouraged as both villagers and ocials struggle with

addressing the shared goals.

Linking local and national scales

Te need or linking local and national scales has justied the development

o learning mechanisms that oster exchanges o inormation between the

dierent scales. An example is the National Policy Learning Group approach,

used in Indonesia and Nepal or bringing together government and non-

government actors who are genuinely committed to addressing national

problems (see Box 2). o date, ACM acilitators have played leadership roles

in these groups, inculcating a systematic learning approach within the groups.

Climate change issues are perect problems or such groups to address,

which should ideally maintain close links with the community level (whether

through shared trials, requent eld trips, direct community involvement, or

other mechanisms).

Another broad-scale approach is shared learning workshops (see Box 3).

Tese bring together individuals rom all levels and various settings to share

what has worked in their respective localities. Such workshops have been

quite successul in providing a mechanism or districts in Indonesia (newly

empowered aer the 2001 decentralisation law) to learn rom each others

successes and ailures. Another approach or developing scenarios o the

uture with stakeholders is described in Box 4. Tese approaches can also

contribute to climate change adaptation.


28/97


Box 2. National Policy Learning Group in Nepal

(by Ganga Ram Dahal)

In order to establish linkage between policy research and implementation,

the National Policy Learning Group (NPLG) Nepal was initiated in 2005

as an outcome o CIFOR-led action research on Adaptive Collaborative

Management (ACM). Although it is a loose network o multiple stakeholders

representing government, NGOs and civil society groups, there has already

been impact on the ground in terms o transorming research ndings into

action. One example is the ormulation o government policy to give more

authority to the local community in the development o enterprises based

on non-timber orest products (NTFPs). This policy was ormulated on the

basis o the ndings and recommendation o policy research undertaken

in Nepal. Organising a periodic meeting o the network members provides

space or shared learning on the one hand, and creates an environment or

synergy on common agendas (e.g., pro-poor policy development, climate

change and environmental issues) on the other. Other signicant issues o

common interest in the orestry sector in Nepal include community orestry,

transborder illegal timber transportation, tenure reorm, and equity, all o

which are regularly discussed by this group.

Rights and Resources Initiative (another action research in Nepal, 20062008)

used this network to increase members participation in research and their

use o research ndings in practice. The research has been looking at the

impacts o orest tenure reorm on livelihoods, income, orest condition and

equity (known by the acronym, LIFE).

The changed political context in Nepal has urther increased the signicance

o NPLG. The network is now engaged in providing some valid inputs to the

government on the orestry sector reorm process and orest-related policy

ormulation. The politically unbiased, democratic and inclusive nature o the

orum helps to infuence the policy process in Nepal. The network includes the

Federation o Community Forestry Users Nepal (FECOFUN), Nepal Foresters

Association, and some NGOs and bilateral organisations.

Recently, NPLG Nepal has been linked with the global Forest Governance

Learning Group (FGLG), which may urther strengthen its role and eectiveness

in transorming policy into practice.


29/97


All o these approaches are useul and needed. But another important change is

in orderand it is a tall order: the standard operating procedures in governmentorest bureaucracies will need to change. Genuine, meaningul attention to local

human and ecological variation will require two dicult but key changes. First,

the knowledge and potential contribution o rural dwellers will have to be

more widely recognised and allowed to infuence ocial decision making. Tis

means changing ocials attitudes and strengthening eedback mechanisms

within bureaucracies.

Second, greater fexibility and reedom to ail will be needed, particularlyor eld personnel. Genuine capacity to adapt policies as needed requires

the ability to experiment locally; and the greatest learning oen comes rom

ailures. Bureaucratic norms need to change to encourage experimentation

and to accept occasional ailure, in pursuit o desired goals.

Box 3. Shared learning(by Moira Moeliono)

Between 2005 and 2007, CIFOR and PILI (Green Network: A Bridge or

Sustainability, an Indonesian NGO)organised seven workshops with a ocus

on collaborative management o natural resources in protected areas inIndonesia. These workshops adopted the principle o levelling the playing

eld, where every participant was to be teacher and student. The activity

itsel built on similar learning approaches described as action learning,

participatory action research, participatory learning and action, and social

learning. The goal o these workshops evolved rom being a channel or policy

inormation to learning or policy change. We tried to use shared learning

to develop, utilise and share inormation and knowledge. More importantly,

shared learning was meant to encourage learning in and among groups to

oster social change.

The inormal settings, the variety o methods used, the ocus on experience,

and learning arising rom participants experience all made these workshops

very popular. A network was developed through which learning continued

and collaborative eorts emerged.


30/97


Box 4. Future scenarios: learning together how to plan and prepare

or the uture(by Kristen Evans and Peter Cronkleton)

In Bolivia, recent decentralisation and orest devolution reorms have provided

communities with opportunities to gain title to their orests and access more

resources or community development, through local budgeting and planning

processes. However, in the heavily orested area o Pando, local people

both communities and local government ocialshad little experience with

participatory planning methods and were oten at odds over how to manage

these new opportunities together. Communities thought that local ocials

were arrogant and corrupt; local ocials were rustrated at the inability o

the communities to present practical requests and negotiate reasonably.

CIFOR researchers involved in the BMZ Poverty and Decentralization research

project suggested that they experiment with uture scenarios as a method

or planning and preparing or the uture. Future scenarios are workshop-

based activities where people with diverse interests can come together to

anticipate, envision and plan or the uture. The methods stimulate refection

and dialogue among stakeholdersessential elements o participatory

planning and productive collaborationand they create interest in continued

involvement in planning processes (Evans et al. 2008). The methods can also

help participants think about an ideal uture, articulate hopes and desires,

share them in a group setting, and arrive at a consensus about a common

vision (Wollenberg et al. 1999; Evans et al. 2006). In Pando, uture scenarios

workshops were rst carried out in the communities, acilitated by CIFOR

researchers. Community members developed a vision o an ideal uture or

their community and presented it to the local government. Although initially

sceptical, by the second presentation, the mayor saw that the methods

could serve as a mechanism or planning or the uture in a way that was air,

transparent and inclusive. He requested that the methods be used in all o

the communities and then at the municipal level as the ormal participatory

planning process. Local leaders were also trained as acilitators. The resultwas a more productive, air, transparent and democratic municipal planning

process, where community members and local ocials learned how to plan

and prepare or the uture together.


31/97


32/97

Tropical orests or adaptation3

ropical orests provide essential services at dierent scales, rom local

communities to the world, and can contribute to reducing the vulnerability

o society to climate change. Tus, they need to be included in adaptation

policies. Te role o ecosystem services or human wellbeing is introduced in

section 3.1 and the contribution o tropical orests to the adaptation o society

to climate change is detailed in section 3.2. Te insertion o orest in adaptation

policies is discussed in section 3.3.

3.1. Ecosystem services and human wellbeing

The concept o ecosystem services

Te Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) denes ecosystem services

as the benets people obtain rom ecosystems. Tree types o ecosystem

services directly contribute to human wellbeing: provisioning services (also

called ecosystem goods), such as ood and uel wood; regulating services,

such as regulation o water, climate or erosion; and cultural services, such as

recreational, spiritual or religious services. In addition to these three types,

supporting services represent a ourth type o service and include the services

that are necessary or the production o other services; or example, primary

production, nutrient cycling and soil ormation (see Figure 3).


33/97

22 | Facing an uncertain uture

ropical orests cover less than 10% o the worlds land area, but are very

important providers o ecosystem services at various scales, rom local (e.g.,

non-timber orest products, pollination and scenic beauty) to regional (e.g.,

hydrological services) and global (e.g., carbon sequestration). Te biological

richness o tropical orests (5090% o Earths terrestrial species) contributes

to the supply o many ecosystem services (WRI et al. 1992).

ropical orests produce diverse goods or local people, as documented in

Asia (Kusters and Belcher 2004), Arica (Sunderland and Ndoye 2004) and

Latin America (Alexiades and Shanley 2005). Wood is currently an important

economic orest commodity or many tropical countries. Fuel wood is also

important, especially in developing countries where it meets about 15% o

energy demandand more than 90% in 13 countries (Shvidenko et al. 2005).

Non-wood orest products are extremely diverse, rom odder or animals and

ood or people to medicines and cosmetics. Te livelihoods o 250 million to

one billion people depend on these products (Byron and Arnold 1999). Edible

Ecosystem Services Constituents of Wellbeing

Supporting

services

Services

necessary or

the production

o all other

ecosystem

services

Soil

ormation

Nutrient

cyclingPrimary

production

Provision o

habitat

Provisioning servicesProducts obtained rom

ecosystems

Food

Fuel wood

Fibre

Biochemicals

Genetic resources

SecurityPersonal saety

Secure resource

access

Security rom

disasters

Basic material for

lifeAdequate livelihoods

Sucient nutritious

ood

Shelter

Access to goods

HealthStrength

Feeling well

Access to clean air

and water

Good socialrelations

Social cohesion

Mutual respect

Ability to help others

Regulating servicesBenets obtained rom

regulation o ecosystem

processes

Climate regulation

Disease regulation

Water regulation

Water purication

Cultural servicesNonmaterial benets

obtained rom ecosystems:

Spiritual and religious

Recreation and

ecotourism

Aesthetic

Inspirational

Educational

Sense o place

Cultural heritage

Freedom ofchoice and

action

Figure 3. Examples o ecosystem services and their links to human

wellbeing (ater Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).


34/97

Tropical orests or adaptation | 23

orest products are o utmost importance in developing countries; or example,

bushmeat and sh, which are major sources o protein or local people (Nasi

et al. 2008). ropical orests also produce traditional medicines, widely used

locally in developing countries and or the development o modern medicines

(Shvidenko et al. 2005).

Many regulating services are provided by tropical orests. ropical orests play

an important role in regulating the global climate as they store a large amount

o carbon, around 212 Gigatonnes in the vegetation (i.e., 45% o the carbon

stored in the worlds vegetation) and 216 Gt in the soils down to a depth o one

metre (i.e., 11% o the carbon in the worlds soils) (Watson et al. 2000).

Other regulating services are local or regional, such as the purication o

water, the mitigation o foods and drought, detoxication and decomposition

o wastes, generation and renewal o soil, pollination o crops and natural

vegetation, control o agricultural pests, dispersal o seeds, and moderation

o temperature extremes and the orce o winds and waves (Daily 1997). O

particular importance in a context o climate change is the role o orest or

regulating water volumes and quality. Even i orests are not a panacea or all

water-related problems (such as drought in dry areas or large-scale fooding),

their contribution to the conservation o basefow, the reduction o stormfow,

the preservation o water quality, and the reduction o sediment load hasbeen demonstrated in many places (Chomitz and Kumari 1996; Calder 2002;

Bruijnzeel 2004; Bonell and Bruijnzeel 2005; FAO and CIFOR 2005).

For many local communities, tropical orests have a spiritual and religious

value, and ecosystem changes can aect cultural identity and social stability

(De Groot and Ramakrishnan 2005; Ramakrishnan 2007). Other services,

such as aesthetic, recreation and heritage, are enjoyed by local people, visitors

and people or whom the ecosystem has a symbolic importance.

Ecosystems and human wellbeing

Ecosystem services infuence all the components o wellbeing presented in

Figure 3 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Ecosystem services

increase the security o people living in the vicinityor example, through the

protective role played by regulating services against natural disasters. Ecosystem

services are directly linked to incomes, ood security and water availability that

are basic materials or lie (Levyet al. 2005). Human health is also linked to


35/97


orests, as many case studies and syntheses have shown (e.g., Coler et al. 2006;

Coler 2008). Social relations also depend on ecosystems, through the ability

to realise aesthetic and recreational activities and express cultural values i they

are linked to some habitats or species (Levyet al. 2005). Ecosystem services

are also linked to reedomthe ability to decide on the kind o lie to lead. Forexample, the degradation o hydrological services or uel wood resources can

increase the time spent by local communities in collecting sources o energy

and water, resulting in less time or education, employment or leisure (Levyet

al. 2005).

Many valuation studies have tried to give an economic value to ecosystem

services, even when they have no market price, using a wide array o methods

(e.g., Costanza et al. 1997; Ludwig 2000; Farber et al. 2002; National Research

Council 2004; Norton and Noonan 2007; Nijkamp et al. 2008). Economic

valuations have been undertaken in order to show the links between ecosystems

and human welare, to identiy important ecosystems, and to guide decision

making regarding ecosystem conservation (Bingham et al. 1995; Pritchard et

al. 2000). Tese studies have shown the high value o ecosystem services at

dierent scales (e.g., Costanza et al. 1997; Pattanayak 2004).

Vulnerability o ecosystem servicesEcosystem services are threatened by various human-induced pressures

other than climate change, such as land use change, landscape ragmentation,

degradation o habitats, overextraction o resources, pollution, nitrogen

deposition and invasive species. Climate change will exacerbate these pressures

over the coming decades (Fischlin et al. 2007). Current climate change trends

will impact species and ecosystems and result in declining ecosystem services

(Leemans and Eickhout 2004). Te loss o ecosystem services will reduce

human wellbeing at all scales.

Increasing degradation o ecosystems is a major concern or sustainable

development (Mler 2008), and this concern will be more pressing in the

uture as human demands on ecosystem services are increasing (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Te links between orests and the alleviation

o poverty should be emphasised in development programmes (Angelsen and

Wunder 2003; Innes and Hickey 2006). Tere is an urgent need to include

ecosystem services in planning and prioritisation or meeting dierent

conservation objectives and ocusing on human wellbeing (Egoh et al.

2007). All institutional levels are aected by the loss o ecosystem services,


36/97


Box 5. Vulnerability o carbon storage and the links between

adaptation and mitigation

The vulnerability o ecosystems to climate change brings important consequences

or the climate system, as ecosystem changes may release carbon into the

atmosphere (ampliying global warming) or remove carbon rom the atmosphere

(reducing global warming). This vegetationclimate eedback has been studiedwidely; however, many uncertainties remain (Canadell et al. 2004). At a global

scale, increasing atmospheric CO2

concentration, combined with longer growing

seasons at high latitudes, could cause an increase in ecosystem productivity, thus

an increase in carbon removal rom the atmosphere. However, the magnitude o

this eect remains uncertain, as nutrient availability may become limiting, and

CO2

has secondary eects on ecosystem water balance and species composition

(Fischlin et al. 2007). In the tropics, ecosystems are currently a net source o

greenhouse gases because o deorestation. Cramer et al. (2004) used climate and

deorestation scenarios and estimated that the impacts o climate change and

deorestation would add between 29 and 129 ppm o CO2 to the atmosphere by2100, deorestation being responsible or the major part o these emissions. For

the tropics, some models show that the Amazon orest could collapse (Cox et al.

2004) or that some tropical orest areas could become a source o carbon resulting

rom a combination o changes in climate and CO2, especially because o drought

stress (Berthelot et al. 2002).

International discussions are underway to include avoided tropical deorestation

under the international climate regime. Reducing emissions rom deorestation

and orest degradation (REDD) in developing countries is an important measure

or climate change mitigation. However, the potential o a REDD mechanism

could be counteracted by the impacts o climate change on orests (Fischlin et al.

2007). This justies exploring options that promote synergies between adaptation

and mitigation (Nabuurs et al. 2007). In addition, REDD activities could aect the

vulnerability o society at a local or regional scale. The conservation o ecosystem

services can be benecial or adaptation, but badly designed REDD activities could

also deprive local people o their main sources o livelihood. Thus, the impacts o

mitigation on adaptation are o major signicance. It appears thereore necessary

to promote synergies between mitigation and adaptation in orestry management

and in the sectors that depend on orest ecosystem services (Murdiyarso et al.2005; Klein et al. 2007; Ravindranath 2007).

rom households, through local communities and local rms, to national

and international organisations (Hein et al. 2006). Because o the role o

ecosystems in the regulation o the global climate, international organisations

are increasingly looking or solutions to reduce deorestation and orest

degradation (see Box 5).


37/97


3.2. Tropical orests or the adaptation o society

Ecosystem services and societal vulnerability to climate

change

In the conceptual ramework or understanding the links between ecosystemservices and human wellbeing (Figure 3), many components o wellbeing

can also be interpreted as dimensions o vulnerability to climate change.

For instance, personal saety and security is clearly related to the human

vulnerability to disasters. Adequate livelihoods and good health may also

determine the sensitivity and adaptive capacity o a population acing a

climate-related threat.

Some criteria oen used in quantitative studies o social vulnerability are relatedto income or wealth, education, health, social capital and networks, saety nets,

or access to water (e.g., Cutter et al. 2003; Sullivan and Meigh 2005; Eakin and

Bojrquez-apia 2008). Tese criteria o sensitivity or adaptive capacity o

households, communities or countries are clearly linked to ecosystem services

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003, 2005).

In addition to these similarities between vulnerability indicators and

constituents o wellbeing, we propose to link ecosystem services and

vulnerability to climate change (see Figure 4), using the components o

vulnerability dened by the IPCC: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive

capacity (see Appendix, Figure 7 or denitions). Ecosystem services may

contribute to reducing exposure, sensitivity or vulnerability o coupled

humanenvironmental systems in various ways.

Te exposure o a system to climate change can be reduced by mitigation

policies, in which the ecosystem service o carbon sequestration has a role

to play (see Box 5). However, local practices o carbon sequestration will nothave a measurable impact on the exposure o the locality to climate change,

as carbon sequestration activities should be conducted at a global scale to

have impacts on mitigation. Local or regional ecosystem services are more

relevant or adaptation. Supporting services contribute to the adaptive

capacity o an ecosystem, because nutrient cycling and primary production

are important components o the unctioning, resistance and resilience o

the ecosystem. Regulating services can decrease the sensitivity o a coupled

humanenvironment system; or example, the water regulation services


38/97


provided by a orest determine the response o a watershed to rainall events.

Te vulnerability o the social system is also linked to provisioning and

cultural services, as nutrition, access to goods, health and social cohesion

contribute to sensitivity and adaptive capacity.

All sectors described as vulnerable to climate change by the IPCC (Parryet al.2007) benet rom diverse ecosystem services (see able 2). Te vulnerability

o these sectors depends on the vulnerability o the ecosystems they rely on.

However, most vulnerability assessments use a sectoral approach, which

overlooks the links between sectors and with ecosystems. We argue that, i

ecosystem services are relevant or a given sector, the vulnerability assessment

should deal with the vulnerabilities o both natural and human systems at

the same time and consider the links between them. wo examples o such

approaches are given below and an application is shown in Box 6.

Figure 4. Ecosystem services and their links to vulnerability to

climate change. See also Figure 3.

Vulnerability o a coupled humanenvironment system

Ecosystem

Services

Components of Vulnerability to Climate Change

(Exposure, Sensitivity, Adaptive Capacity)

Regulating servicesClimate regulation

Supporting services

Provisioning services

Cultural services

Regulating servicesDisease regulation

Water regulation

Water purication

Ecosystem Society

Exposure

(climate change)

Adaptive capacity

o the ecosystem (e.g.,

ability o the ecosystem

to conserve its integrity

in a changing climate)

Ecological sensitivity

(e.g., eects o climate

change on fooding

or the emergence o

diseases)

Societal

sensitivity(e.g., eects

o fooding or

diseases on

society)

Adaptive

capacity o

the society

(e.g., capacityto prevent

damages

rom fooding

or diseases)


39/97


Table 2. Examples o relevant ecosystem services or vulnerable sectors

Ecosystem services Vulnerable sectors

Freshwater

resources

Ecosystems

Food, fbre

and orest

products

Coastal

systems and

lowlying

areas

Industry,

settlement

and

society

Health

Provisioning

Food x x x

Wood, uel wood,

other bres

x x

Biochemicals and

genetic resources

x x x

Regulating

Moderation o foods,

landslides, soil erosion,

orce o wave and wind

x x x x x x

Water purication,

decomposition o

wastes, control o

diseases

x x x x x

Moderation o drought

and temperature

extremes

x x x x x

Pollination o crops and

natural ecosystems,

control o agricultural

pests, dispersal o

seeds

x x x

Regulation o global

climatex x x x x x

Cultural x x

According to IPCC (Parry et al. 2007).

Ecosystems outside the orests providing services.

Energy, transportation, tourism, insurance, etc.

Assessing vulnerability o coupled natural and human systems

Te AEAM project (Advanced errestrial Ecosystem Analysis and Modelling,

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/ateam) developed an approach to assess where

people or sectors may be vulnerable to the loss o ecosystem services, as a

consequence o climate and land use change. Tis approach highlights that the

societal vulnerability to global change also results rom impacts on ecosystems

and the services they provide (Metzger et al. 2005, 2006).

Te Research and Assessment Systems or Sustainability Program (http://

sust.harvard.edu) developed a vulnerability ramework or the assessment ocoupled humanenvironment systems (urner et al. 2003). Some essential


40/97


Box 6. Principles and criteria or assessing the vulnerability o coupled human

environment systems

Vulnerability assessments provide critical inormation or policy makers who need to

prioritise adaptation eorts (Luers et al. 2003). Participative multicriteria assessments areeective in terms o policy impacts as they enable policy makers and local stakeholders to

be engaged in the denition and valuation o criteria (Mendoza and Prabhu 2005).

A general ramework was developed by the TroFCCA project (Tropical Forest and Climate

Change Adaptation, CIFORCATIE, http://www.cior.cgiar.org/trocca) and is currently applied

to diverse ecosystem services in various contexts, such as non-timber orest products

(NTFPs) in West Arica and orest hydrological services in Central America. This ramework is

voluntarily broad, as it must serve as a guide or discussion during its application in specic

cases (see gure).

The conceptual ramework is inspired by the works o Turner et al. (2003) and Metzger et

al. 2005), and emphasises the role o ecosystem services or society. Three main principles

are dened (see circles in the gure). The rst principle (P1) deals with the vulnerability o

ecosystem services to climate change or variability and other threats. It can be described by

criteria related to exposure and sensitivity to climate change or variability, and ecosystemadaptive capacity as a unction o current degradation or other pressures.

The second principle (P2) deals with the human system and its vulnerability to the loss

o ecosystem services. The sensitivity o the system (e.g., dependence on NTFPs or clean

water) and its adaptive capacity (e.g., availability o substitutes or the lost services) can

be used as criteria or P2. External drivers o changes, such as macroeconomic policies or

energy prices, must also be taken into account in characterising this principle.

The third principle (P3) considers the adaptive capacity o the system as a whole. It reers

to the capacity o the human systems to reduce the loss o ecosystem services. Criteria can

reer to the capacity o removing practices that increase pressures on ecosystems and thecapacity to implement orest adaptation.

Vulnerability of a coupled humanenvironment

system to the loss of ecosystem services

SocietyEcosystem

Other Drivers of ChangeClimate Change

Adapt. capacity Adapt. capacityAdaptive Capacity

Management

Ecosystem ServicesSensitivity Sensitivity

P1 P2

P3

Exposure


41/97


elements considered in the ramework are the linkages between human and

biophysical vulnerability, and the complex dynamics o humanenvironment

systems.

As vulnerability assessment should consider the vulnerability o sectors jointlywith the vulnerability o ecosystems they depend on, adaptation policies should

do the same. Te adaptation measures should not be limited to technical

and socioeconomic actions within the sector, but be broadened to consider

ecosystem management as an adaptation option. For example, a hydropower

plant or a drinking water acility acing problems o siltation or water quality

could participate in upstream orest management, instead o investing in

technical ltration or treatment solutions. Te adaptation policy responses

linking orests with other sectors are discussed in the next section.

3.3. Mainstreaming tropical orests into adaptationpolicies

Adaptation policies are needed to acilitate the adaptation o tropical orests

and enhance the role o orests or the adaptation o society. Te mainstreaming

o tropical orests in adaptation policies should ollow these two objectives:

rst, promoting adaptation or tropical orests, by encouraging the adaptivemanagement o orest; and second, promoting tropical orests or adaptation,

by linking orests with the sectors that benet rom orest ecosystem services.

The need or mainstreaming orest adaptation into policies

As highlighted in previous sections, technical and societal adaptation is

needed to reduce the vulnerability o humanenvironment systems to

climate change. Even with the well documented need or adaptation o

orests and people to climate change, there is still a lack o adaptation policy

processes at the national level. Hesitation in the design o adaptation policies

and programmes is oen linked to a lack o inormation, uncertainties

about the exact direction o climate change and a cascade o unknowns.

It is also related to political preerences or short-term economic gains, and

perceived tradeos between the dierent sectors. Treats like climate change

and variability have been insuciently incorporated into national strategies

(Mortimore and Manvell 2006).


42/97


Tere is a strong argument that governancewith its structures, mechanisms

and institutionsis a key determinant o adaptive capacity (Adger et

al. 2004; Brooks et al. 2005), as it sets the rame in which adaptation is

happening or where adaptation is needed. In this context, revised national

development policies and governance structures should enable adaptationat multiple scales. Tereore, we need to mainstream adaptation into

national development policies, programmes and interventions to reduce

the vulnerability o ecological and social systems (Huq et al. 2003; DFID

2006; UNFCCC 2007; see Appendix or a discussion o pros and cons o

mainstreaming adaptation into development).

Place o orests in adaptation policies

Te need or mainstreaming orests into adaptation policies becomes

even more obvious when reviewing the national communications and

action plans or adaptation prepared under the UNFCCC (see Appendix

or an introduction to national communications and adaptation plans

under the UNFCCC), in which the role o orests or adaptation and the

importance o adaptation or orests to reduce vulnerability have not been

well refected (UNFCCC 2008). Forests play a secondary role (i any at all)

in adaptation policies (Kalame et al. in press), despite their importance or

livelihoods and their interlinkages with other sectors. In most cases, orestsand orestry are not a priority in the National Adaptation Programmes o

Action (NAPAs). However, there are examples o adaptation strategies that

do include orestry, such as reduction o climate change hazards through

coastal aorestation in Bangladesh, orest re prevention in Samoa,

catchment conservation with reorestation in Haiti, and several examples

in West Arica (see Box 7).

In the NAPAs and national communications submitted to the UNFCCC, theidentied adaptation needs in the orest sector are related to technical (e.g.,

inormation systems or orest inventories) and societal adaptation (e.g.,

capacity building or community and state bodies). Proposed activities are

oen related to market-based improvementsor example, the development

o non-timber orest products (NFPs)and to the review or setting up o new

orest management and conservation plans. Most national communications

and action plans or adaptation identiy the lack o human and nancial

capacity as a constraint to successul adaptation.

7/31/2019 Locatelli 2008 Facing an Uncertain Fu

locatelli 2008 facing an uncertain future

Documents