Ecosystem services in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action

Abstract

The extent to which ecosystem services have been considered in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and the proposed adaptation projects is assessed. By August 2010, 44 least developed countries had prepared their NAPAs in response to climate change. The NAPAs constitute a starting point for planning adaptation nationally and sub-nationally, but need to be evaluated and improved as new knowledge emerges. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is an emerging approach that recognizes that ecosystem services play an important role in reducing people's vulnerability to climate change. The importance of ecosystem services is acknowledged in more than 50% of the NAPAs. Approximately 22% of the proposed projects include ecosystem activities for social well-being or adaptation, with most of them in support of other adaptation measures (e.g. infrastructure). These projects deal mainly with regulating services (soil rehabilitation, erosion control and water regulation) and provisioning services (food, fibre and fuel wood). They also have the potential to promote integrative and cross-sectoral adaptation, as many of them consider multiple ecosystem services and beneficiary sectors. However, more technical, political and financial support is needed to foster the role of ecosystem services in adaptation.Keywords: adaptation; ecosystem-based adaptation; ecosystem services; least-developed countries; National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) La mesure dans laquelle les services écosystémiques ont été considérés dans les programmes d'action nationaux d'adaptation (PANA) et les projets d'adaptation proposés est évaluée. En août 2010, 44 des pays les moins avancés avaient préparé leurs PANA, en réponse au changement climatique. Les PANA constituent un point de départ pour la planification de l'adaptation à l'échelle nationale et sous-nationale, mais doivent être évaluées et améliorées en fonction de l'évolution des connaissances. L'adaptation fondée sur les écosystèmes (EbA) est une approche émergente qui reconnaît que les services écosystémiques jouent un rôle important dans la réduction de la vulnérabilité des populations au changement climatique. L'importance des services écosystémiques est reconnu dans plus de 50% des PANA. Environ 22% des projets proposés comprennent des activités écosystémiques liées au bien-être social ou à l'adaptation, et la plupart d'entre eux proposent d'autres mesures d'adaptation (par exemple dans l'infrastructure). Ces projets portent principalement sur les services de régulation (réhabilitation des sols, lutte contre l'érosion et régulation de l'eau) et les services d'approvisionnement (alimentation, fibres et bois de chauffage). Ces projets ont le potentiel de promouvoir une adaptation intégrée et transversale, car beaucoup d'entre eux couvrent les multiples services écosystémiques et secteurs bénéficiaires. Cependant, un soutien plus technique, politique et financier est nécessaire pour favoriser le rôle des services écosystémiques dans l'adaptation.

Landscape diversity and associated coping strategies during food shortage periods: evidence from the Sudano-Sahelian region of Burkina Faso

“…The importance of forest resources in rural communities is particularly significant during food shortage periods (Fisher et al 2010;Pramova et al 2012b;Vinceti et al 2008). Despite this evidence, forest resources are not adequately considered in the poverty alleviation policies of most developing countries (Oksanen and Mersmann 2003), including those in sub-Saharan Africa (McConnell 2008) and are rarely included in adaptation plans and projects (Pramova et al 2012a). The poor are the most affected by food insecurity due to climate variability, particularly in the Sudano-Sahelian area.…”

Prospect theory, mitigation and adaptation to climate change

“…In general, three broad strategies are available -retreat, accommodate and protect, whereby the latter may be divided into soft and hard protection. By date, it seems that most decision makers prefer hard protection (Meyer et al 2012;Regierungskommission Klimaschutz 2012), although alternative and complementary options are repeatedly advocated by many scholars from different disciplines (Adger et al 2005;Kundzewicz 2002;Pramova et al 2012). Possible explanations for this discrepancy include reasons from the political economy sphere (building structural protection brings an immediate and local economic stimulus), or non-internalisation of external effects of some soft protection measures (environmental benefits of wetlands may be ignored in the costbenefit evaluation).…”

Mitigation - adaptation synergies

“…3,6 On the other hand, if an adaptation project includes activities that contribute to climate change mitigation, it may be able to benefit from the carbon funding and capacity building inherent in international instruments such as REDD+. 3,4 Furthermore, donors may favor adaptation projects that also have global mitigation benefits. 3 Adaptation and mitigation need each other …”