1. Global Climate Change Alliance: Informing the International Climate Debate From forests to sustainable land management: creating synergies between adaptation and mitigation Peter Wehrheim, Head of Unit, Climate Finance and Deforestation, DG CLIMA

2. Content: State of Play: Testing REDD+ at scale 2015-2020 What about adaptation in REDD+? Looking forward: incentivizing sustainable land management post 2020

3. Forests, forest people … and forest carbon face risks By 2050 (i.e. +/- one forest generation), Earth might well be 2°C warmer, yet it will need to produce 60%-100% more calories for human consumption, with less fossil fuels, fewer energy-intensive chemicals and more frequent climate extremes, especially in the tropics. Forward looking land management is needed. Large scale forest dieback could be expected as soon as 2025 due to anthropogenic climate change, triggering more emissions (negative carbon feedback) and harmful repercussions for water, energy, food, biodiversity, soils, commodity markets and livelihoods. Fire prevention, climate smart landscapes, and adaptative management of forest cover (promoting diversity in tree species and stand structure) are key to contain climate change rate and magnitude in viable ranges.

4. The REDD+ concept REDD+: developed countries provide financial support to developing ones for demonstrated reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as measured against a pre-defined “reference level”. Issues under negotiation include the following: the establishment of forest (emission) reference levels; modalities for national forest monitoring systems; modalities for REDD+ monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV); Barriers to more speedy implementation: Delays in the finalisation of the REDD+ “methodological package” Uncertainty of data on e.g. forest cover, forest carbon stocks Poor institutional framework e.g. with regard to forest governance, land use planning and management, land tenure security

5. ODA REDD+, within and outside the UNFCCC process Bali AP Post 2020 Climate regime: Role of the land sector? ADP KP: LULUCF LCA: REDD+ Review Protocol with legal force Phase 1 Readiness Phase 2 Capacity Building & Demonstration Phase 3 Full Implementation 2007201120152020 CDM A/R WB's BioCF WB's FCPF Readiness UNREDD WB's FCPF Carbon Fund FIP EU REDD GCF Markets ?

6. Yet REDD+ is primarily a mitigation mechanism in the making National REDD+ level Strategy MRV Reference Lvl Safeguards/NCB Fund(s)? Registry/Buffers? COP Guidance International Climate Finance Public/Private Market/Non Market? Mitigation/ Joint M&A? Technical Assessment + International Consultation and Analysis Bilateral or multilateral delivery institutions, including GEF and GCF Global Info Hub Results Based Payments i.e. €/tCO 2 Info

7. Questions remain on REDD+ fate, from "sellers" and "buyers": From possible REDD+ contributors From possible REDD+ recipients Are REDD+ Emission Reductions (ER) real (uncertainty on data), lasting (risk of reversals) ? Aren't forest emissions not merely displaced (risk of leakage)? Does REDD+ money trigger lasting/transformational changes, is it effective and efficient compared to other mitigation options? How much REDD+ money will be available? How long and for how much carbon? How will decisions be made: how/when will "results" be assessed and paid for? Will LDCs and "forest guardians" (i.e. high forest / low deforestation countries) benefit as well?

8. REDD+ presents both new risks and new opportunities for adaptation in forests and crops RISKSOPPORTUNITIES CIFOR study shows conditions imposed by early REDD+ projects had major, possibly negative "implications for livelihood activities, which may ultimately affect food security and income in the village", thus increasing the risk of project abandonment, reversal of previously credited emission reductions and maladaptation. Mixed cropping, new and improved crop varieties, agro-ecology and agroforestry. New income-generating activities ranging from forest monitoring to better collection and marketing of forest fruits, to beekeeping, fish farming and mushroom growing. Better information, planning, training, financing and participative governance in land activities. Private sector involvment (greener supply chains, improved resilience, etc)

9. REDD+ recognizes the role and importance of Adaptation as one of the "Non Carbon Benefits (NCB)" Since Cancun (2010)Since Durban (2011) "National REDD+ strategies should address the drivers of deforestation, land tenure, forest governance, gender considerations, social and environmental safeguards and the effective participation of relevant stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities" "The COP recognizes REDD+ activities can promote poverty alleviation, biodiversity benefits, ecosystem resilience and the linkages between adaptation and mitigation" … but does not include any mechanism to assess and incentivize them (yet?).

10. There is a large overlap between risk reduction strategies and adaptation 1.Lower uncertainty on the actual volume and causes of emission reductions (  good forest/drivers information, addressing national drivers, institutional capacity, accountability, securing land rights, preventing conflicts) 2.Lower risk of risk of reversal (  resilience and sustainability, i.e. improving livelihoods, governance, ES services and biodiversity) 3.Lower risk of leakage (  food/energy security, international drivers, broad participation)

11. Conclusions Urgent need to scale up performance based payments and to test policy approaches for REDD+ in order to generate lessons for 2020-2030-2050 Sustainable land management provides opportunities for mitigation, adaptation, livelihood and biodiversity benefits. It can and should benefit more from REDD+ results based payments Factoring risks into REDD+ incentives would modify the allocation of REDD+ Results Based Payments, improve REDD+ credibility and create larger financing opportunities for mitigation and adaptation in the land-use sectors

12. Questions Country experience on promoting synergies between adaptation, mitigation in the fields of forestry and sustainable land management: What are the challenges? How is the country addressing them? What have been the results to date? Could REDD+ help or hinder efforts? Recommendations to (EU) climate change negotiators and the international development community to make climate change actions more effective: E.g. Could REDD+, and agriculture help bridging the divide between the global mitigation and adaptation agendas? Contact: Michael.Bucki@ec.europa.eu; or Peter.Wehrheim@ec.europa.euMichael.Bucki@ec.europa.eu Peter.Wehrheim@ec.europa.eu

13. "Country System" Country Law 1 Country Law 2 Country Institution Country Instrument REDD+, NCB, Risks & Safeguards Adaptation in forests Adaptation in agriculture Assessing risks, building trust, learning from FLEGT: the legality matrix

14. Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering could tweak REDD+ Results Based Payments towards sustainability Emission Reductions Carbon Buffer(s) Results Based Payments Results Based Payments Cancel Emission Reductions Cancel Emission Reductions RA

15. REDD+ recognizes the role and importance of Adaptation as one of the "Non Carbon Benefits (NCB)" Since Cancun (2010)Since Durban (2011) "National REDD+ strategies should address the drivers of deforestation, land tenure, forest governance, gender considerations, social and environmental safeguards and the effective participation of relevant stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities" "The COP recognizes REDD+ activities can promote poverty alleviation, biodiversity benefits, ecosystem resilience and the linkages between adaptation and mitigation" … but does not include any mechanism to assess and incentivize them (yet?).

16. There is a large overlap between risk reduction strategies and adaptation 1.Lower uncertainty on the actual volume and causes of emission reductions (  good forest/drivers information, addressing national drivers, institutional capacity, accountability, securing land rights, preventing conflicts) 2.Lower risk of risk of reversal (  resilience and sustainability, i.e. improving livelihoods, governance, ES services and biodiversity) 3.Lower risk of leakage (  food/energy security, international drivers, broad participation)

17. "Country System" Country Law 1 Country Law 2 Country Institution Country Instrument REDD+, NCB, Risks & Safeguards Adaptation in forests Adaptation in agriculture Assessing risks, building trust, learning from FLEGT: the legality matrix

18. Country-driven Risk Assessments (RA) and buffering could tweak REDD+ RBP towards sustainability Emission Reductions Carbon Buffer(s) Results Based Payments Results Based Payments Cancel ER Cancel ER RA

19. Conclusions Urgent need to scale up action, participation and performance based payments and to test policy approaches for REDD+ in order to generate lessons for 2020-2030-2050 Sustainable land management provides opportunities for mitigation, adaptation, livelihood and biodiversity benefits. It can and should benefit more from REDD+ results based payments (RBP) Factoring risks in REDD+ incentives would modify the allocation of REDD+ RBP to countries and stakeholders, while improving REDD+ credibility and creating larger financing opportunities for mitigation and adaptation in the land-use sectors

20. Questions Country experience on promoting synergies between adaptation, mitigation and rural development: What are the challenges? How is the country addressing them? What have been the results to date? Could REDD+ help or hinder efforts? Recommendations to (EU) climate change negotiators and the international development community to make climate change actions more effective: E.g. Could REDD+, and agriculture help bridging the divide between the global mitigation and adaptation agendas? Contact: Peter.Wehrheim@ec.europa.eu