Adaptation policies to increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience: potential utility of a multicriteria approach Ariane de Bremond & Nathan L. Engle
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change An International Journal Devoted to Scientific, Engineering, Socio-Economic and Policy Responses to Environmental Change ISSN 1381-2386 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-014-9541-z
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-014-9541-z ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Adaptation policies to increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience: potential utility of a multicriteria approach Ariane de Bremond & Nathan L. Engle
Received: 6 May 2013 / Accepted: 13 January 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Climate change is rapidly undermining terrestrial ecosystem resilience and capacity to continue providing their services to the benefit of humanity and nature. Because of the importance of terrestrial ecosystems to human well-being and supporting services, decision makers throughout the world are busy creating policy responses that secure multiple development and conservation objectives— including that of supporting terrestrial ecosystem resilience in the context of climate change. This article aims to advance analyses on climate policy evaluation and planning in the area of terrestrial ecosystem resilience by discussing adaptation policy options within the ecology-economy-social nexus. The paper evaluates these decisions in the realm of terrestrial ecosystem resilience and evaluates the utility of a set of criteria, indicators, and assessment methods, proposed by a new conceptual multi-criteria framework for pro-development climate policy and planning developed by the United Nations Environment Programme. Potential applications of a multicriteria approach to climate policy vis-à-vis terrestrial ecosystems are then explored through two hypothetical case study examples. The paper closes with a brief discussion of the utility of the multi-criteria approach in the context of other climate policy evaluation approaches, considers lessons learned as a result efforts to evaluate climate policy in the realm of terrestrial ecosystems, and reiterates the role of ecosystem resilience in creating sound policies and actions that support the integration of climate change and development goals. Keywords Climate change adaptation policy . Ecosystem resilience . Multi-criteria analysis . Integrated decision making . Development and climate change
A. de Bremond (*) Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, 2181 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USA e-mail:
[email protected] A. de Bremond Joint Global Change Research Institute, 5825 University Research Court, Suite 3500, College Park, MD 20740, USA N. L. Engle The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
1 Introduction Terrestrial ecosystems are vital to the health of our planet including the maintenance of human well-being – from the regulation of the composition of the atmosphere that determines Earth’s climate (Postel and Richter 2003); to the provision of food, fiber, timber, water and fuel; to the supporting services of soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling; and countless aesthetic and cultural benefits. Humans derive a multitude of benefits, or ecosystem goods and services (EGS), from terrestrial ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). At the same time, human activities are increasingly responsible for the transformation of the land surface, species composition, and biogeochemical cycles at scales that have altered terrestrial ecosystems throughout the planet (Chapin et al. 2012). One area where this human influence is increasingly apparent is with respect to the issue of climate change. Climate and terrestrial ecosystem processes are interactive and take place on multiple scales. Terrestrial ecosystems play a vital role in the global carbon cycle, removing three gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere every year, and are thus critical to climate regulation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). However, emissions from deforestation and degradation transformations remain a significant (18-20 %) source of annual greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere (Parry et al. 2007). While such transformations of terrestrial ecosystems affect their ability to serve a climate regulation role, changes in the global climate are also expected to have widespread negative effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Shifts in terrestrial ecosystem processes carry implications for human-well-being the world over, but communities and regions where livelihoods are closely tied to natural resources are especially vulnerable (Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change 2007). Biodiversity loss, reduced access to clean water, and altered forest and crop productivity and yields will require significant transformations in our resource management systems, but effective stewardship of these life-supporting ecosystems is critical to the successful navigation of the socio-ecological transitions that lie ahead. Terrestrial ecosystems are also influenced by and influence the climate policies and decisions that humans construct in order to manage the problem of climate change. Increasingly, governments and the development community are making efforts to formulate climate policy responses that secure multiple development and conservation objectives— including that of supporting terrestrial ecosystem resilience. Approaches that adequately consider the interactions of climate change, ecosystem, and human development processes can help support policy formulation that improves human capacity to adapt to and mitigate climate change while improving conservation and sustainable management of terrestrial ecosystems and the resources they provide. This article thus provides a structured discussion on increasing terrestrial ecosystem resilience by informing the development and implementation of robust and pro-development climate policies, accounting not only for main ecological properties but also effects of social-economic and institutional factors. We begin by discussing the concept of terrestrial ecosystem resilience as an important conceptual tool for guiding, measuring, and assessing what climate adaptation policies might be available. We then examine several climate adaptation policy options in the realm of terrestrial ecosystem resilience. That is, we consider the ways in which terrestrial ecosystems can be mobilized for adaptation, while differentiating between adaption policies and more classical natural resource management approaches. We also consider how such options and policies ultimately affect terrestrial ecosystem resilience comprehensively viewed via potential changes in social-ecological, economic, and institutional systems. Next, we consider good practice guidelines or principles as well as methods that could be employed to assess climate policy and the role of terrestrial ecosystems in sound policies and actions for climate and development. We then introduce and consider a set of criteria, indicators, and assessment methods
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
that could be used for climate adaptation policy evaluation in the realm of terrestrial ecosystem resilience, designed to work as a component within a new conceptual framework based on multicriteria decision making, dubbed the Multi-Criteria Analysis for Climate, or MCA4climate approach (see in this issue Scrieciu and Chalabi 2013; Scrieciu et al. 2011). Potential applications of a multicriteria approach to climate policy vis-à-vis terrestrial ecosystems are then explored through two hypothetical case study examples. The paper closes with a brief discussion of the utility of the MCA4climate approach in the context of other climate policy evaluation approaches, and reiterates the role of terrestrial ecosystems resilience in creating sound policies and actions that support the integration of climate change and development goals.
2 Terrestrial ecosystem resilience and climate change adaptation 2.1 Terrestrial ecosystem resilience Resilience is a useful concept for thinking about the dynamics of social-ecological systems (SES) in the context of climate change. Although there are numerous interpretations and definitions of this concept across a variety of research disciplines, terrestrial ecosystems resilience is defined here as the capacity to maintain similar structure, functioning, and feedbacks despite shocks and perturbations (Chapin et al. 2012), and the ability to transform, reorganize, and transition to a more desirable state when the system is untenable (Folke 2006). The issue of determining desirability of a certain set of ecosystems goods and services is inherently a socio-political and cultural issue, and it has received considerable attention in the resilience literature (Robards et al. 2011). In general, managing for terrestrial ecosystems resilience in the face of climate change is about being able to persist through continuous development and transforming into new and more desirable configurations when necessary (Folke 2006). Terrestrial ecosystems resilience is inherently difficult to measure because it seeks to capture the dynamic attributes of these systems, both natural and human. That is, these are complex systems that are constantly changing, adapting, and re-organizing, and resilience in these contexts is often characterized with respect to tipping points, non-linearity, regime shifts, and multiple potential stable states (Holling 1973; Gunderson 2000). Add to this spatial and temporal web of interconnected processes the pressure from human and natural external shocks and perturbations, such as climate change, the task of managing terrestrial ecosystems toward greater resilience becomes even more complex. Take for example the concept of a regime shift, or moving from one stable state, such as a grassland/savannah, to another stable state, such as a desert ecosystem. Resilience research indicates that the likelihood of experiencing a regime shift is increased when functional groups of species or trophic levels are removed, functional and response diversity (e.g., elements of biodiversity) are decreased, waste and pollutants are introduced, or disturbance patterns (i.e., normal cycles of fire, floods, etc. to which the flora and fauna in that ecosystem are adapted) are altered in terms of magnitude, frequency, or duration (Folke et al. 2004). Thus, humans are critical in determining and maintaining resilience within terrestrial ecosystems (Walker 2004); humans can either cause shifts in the current ecosystem regime and erode resilience, or can build adaptive capacity and maintain or even increase resilience through mechanisms such as adaptive management and adaptive governance (Lee 1993; Holling 1978; Folke et al. 2005; Olsson et al. 2004). Despite the difficulty in measuring resilience, there are some heuristics for managing ecosystems resilience that have developed over several decades of empirical research, such as flexible management that allows learning and experimentation can help ensure maintenance of diversity, which can serve as insurance in the face of climate change (e.g., diversity
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
increases the likelihood that if one element of the ecosystem is compromised, the other elements are able to take its place and continue to maintain ecosystem functioning, goods, and services) (Peterson 1998). Some of the other important heuristics for resilience of a terrestrial ecosystem include species redundancy (for improved likelihood of regeneration and reorganization after a disturbance), response diversity (variability in responses to stresses of species within a given functional group), biodiversity (including species richness and the existence of various functional groups, such as predators, nutrient transporters, and pollinators), connectivity (maintaining diversity and redundancy across scales), and permeability (limiting habitat fragmentation) (Folke 2006). There are also several species-level determinants of terrestrial ecosystems resilience, such as plasticity (ability of an organism to modify its behavior or physiology) and evolutionary potential (based on generation time, genetic diversity, and population size) (Running and Mills 2009; Glick et al. 2011). Terrestrial ecosystems resilience management is perhaps best understood through the illustration of an example. Forests systems have adapted and evolved over millions of years to experience a dynamic process of growth, succession, and disturbance over cycles that span hundreds or thousands of years. These systems exhibit resilience in that they are able to maintain similar structure and function in the face of various perturbations and shocks. Recent forest management practices in many regions throughout the world however, such as fire suppression, have created altered disturbance patterns or regimes (i.e., more fuel for when the inevitable fire strikes a particular area). The increased intensity and magnitude of the next fire, perhaps exacerbated by from the introduction of non-native species (amongst other external stressors on the system), might result in the forest structure and function being different (e.g., altered vegetation) due to increased intensity and magnitude at which the fires burn. Chapin et al. (2003) show that there is evidence for this occurring in Alaskan boreal forests, for example, illustrating the important influence that humans play in managing resilience through individual and collective decisions, particularly management and policies. 2.2 Challenges facing climate adaptation policy in the area of terrestrial ecosystems There are a host of adaptation options for including within sound climate-change policies. Many of these options are well-established, such as classical natural resource management approaches for sustainable use and conservation terrestrial ecosystems and their goods and services (i.e., simply implementing what is already understood to protect terrestrial ecosystems will likely be beneficial, at least in the short term, for adapting to climate change). However, there are several factors that decision makers might consider that make some adaptation policies uniquely applicable to the issue of climate change resilience. First, robust adaptation policies must be considered across temporal and spatial scales in a manner that other terrestrial ecosystems policies often overlook. To increase resilience across time, the management of terrestrial ecosystems should consider both the fast-moving variables (e.g., extreme events) and slow-moving variables (e.g., hydrology, sediment concentration, and long-lived organisms) in a system (Walker et al. 2006). Successful adaptation measures will likely consider both short-term coping mechanisms to address the fast-moving variables, as well as the longer-term systemic measures that address the slow-moving variables (e.g., such as changes in climate versus changes in soil moisture, respectively). Also, potential tradeoffs and synergies exist between local and national interests and scales that should be considered in order to increase resilience across space through adaptation policies (Adger et al. 2005). While adaptation decisions are often conceived of as local choices affecting communities and individuals, there are important adaptation decisions being made at national and regional scales. Taken together, due consideration of the interaction between adaptation policies across
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
space and time will help increase the likelihood that adaptation decisions are not maladaptive, that is, exacerbating/failing to alleviate existing vulnerabilities, or on an unsustainable pathway (Orlove 2005; Barnett and O’ Neill 2010). For example, an adaptation policy that restores an ecosystem to its natural state, such as through dam removal, may improve ecosystem resilience at the expense of humans whose livelihoods and security are dependent upon the current configuration of the ecosystem, such as through flood protection and energy production. In such cases, a multi-criteria assessment could allow for exploration of the potential tradeoffs and synergies and support multi-sectoral collaboration and coordination to design policies that align and integrate with a broad spectrum of social and economic development needs. The issue of maladaptation is also important to consider with respect to another unique aspect of adaptation policies: their intersection with mitigation goals. Adaptation policies can interact with mitigation measures (Kane and Shogren 2000; Goklany 2007; Janetos et al. 2012), and efforts should be made to pursue climate-change decisions that maximize mitigation-adaptation synergies at play in terrestrial ecosystems policies, or at the very least, develop policies that minimize the tradeoffs. For example, an adaptation policy that encourages reforestation, afforestation, or avoided deforestation can improve resilience by increasing biodiversity and habitat permeability, while also increasing mitigation benefits through additional capture and storage of carbon in the enhanced plant and soil matter. On the other hand, an adaptation policy that protects critical habitat for endangered species might prevent the development and commercialization of available renewable energy resources within the protected area (e.g., wind, geothermal, solar). Another similar example might be a mitigation policy that prioritizes biofuels or biomass, which might come at the expense of terrestrial ecosystems resilience, such as through loss of biodiversity and critical habitat or potential disruption to food systems (Janetos et al. 2012). Another important aspect of adaptation policies for increasing resilience is a heightened emphasis on soft policy options. While many policy decisions are geared toward improving technologies and/or building infrastructure to increase robustness to environmental stresses, some of the most important adaptation policies are those that address the governance, institutions, and human behavioral/interaction aspects of terrestrial ecosystems (Lebel et al. 2006; Folke et al. 2005; Engle 2011). For example, the recently formed Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA) brings together development banks, national government agencies, and NGO partners to identify and produce tools, good management practices, and decision support systems to help improve adaptation decision making in the context of water resources management. Finally, perhaps the element of terrestrial ecosystems adaptation policies that has the most obvious link with climate change is the emphasis on climate information and knowledge. The use of forecasts, model outputs, scenarios, and narratives, and monitoring climate processes are all critical adaptation tools that must be considered in terrestrial ecosystems policies. While climate models and information are improving, it remains critical to also explore additional adaptation policy instruments that can help address the limitations and uncertainties associated with these models and information.
3 Principles and choice of assessment methods for climate policy evaluation and the role of terrestrial ecosystems in sound policies and actions 3.1 Good practice principles for climate policy evaluation and the role of terrestrial ecosystems It would be a great challenge for decision makers to develop and apply terrestrial ecosystems indicators without adhering to a principled set of good-practices. Here, we briefly outline seven
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
evaluation good practice principles that could serve to underpin the development of robust climate adaptation policy-making in the area of terrestrial ecosystem-based approaches. It is important to note that many of these resemble the heuristics of resilience and factors that decision makers should consider with adaptation policy options and examples discussed in further detail in Sections 4 and 5. 3.1.1 Future macro-level assumptions When contemplating adaptation options for terrestrial ecosystems, decision makers can now refer to the new United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report 5 released in September 2013. This third generation of scenarios, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs.), (see http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_ process/index.html) differs from earlier scenario development, shortening the time required to develop and apply new scenarios and ensuring better integration between socioeconomic driving forces, changes in the climate system, and the vulnerability of natural and human systems. When possible, one should attempt to use downscaled model projections specific to the studied region. If downscaled projections are not available, global model projections could be substituted. Also, the concentration pathways described in the scenario could be used to develop national level socio-economic assumptions. In addition, scenarios of natural resource utilization used by the Global Environmental Outlook 4 (GEO4) could be used in combination with emission scenarios. Complementing quantitative modeling of future macro-level assumptions, narratives or storylines of future political, economic, institutional, cultural, and other factors that influence aspects terrestrial ecosystems resilience could also be used to inform the indicators, particularly those that are qualitative. 3.1.2 Dynamics and feedbacks Because human and natural systems are inseparable, terrestrial ecosystems adaptation options should be considered in the broader context of social ecological system (SES) analysis (Folke 2006). An SES approach takes into consideration many of the resilience concepts, such as interactions between spatial and temporal scales, nonlinearity, adaptive cycles, and other dynamics and feedbacks that are difficult to capture in one-directional causal terms. 3.1.3 Co-benefits Co-benefits, tradeoffs, and synergies among adaptation policy options, as well as between mitigation and adaptation policy options for terrestrial ecosystems resilience have already been discussed in previous sections. Sound climate policy should also consider the interactions between terrestrial ecosystems and other themes being developed in the MCA4climate framework (i.e., see other chapters, this edition). Mutual consideration will not ensure that optimal choices will be made, but rather that decision makers will likely settle on second-best policies over the third-and-fourth-best polices that might have been chosen in the absence of co-benefits, tradeoffs, and synergies considerations. Such broader thinking will also serve to avoid negative surprises in outcomes. 3.1.4 Valuation issues While market/monetary values are applicable to several of the indicators of terrestrial ecosystems, many elements affecting adaptation policy options are more appropriately depicted in
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
non-monetary, or even qualitative terms. This is particularly relevant for the consideration of ecosystems goods and services. 3.1.5 Discount rates The discount rate selected in economic analyses plays a substantial role in determining the ultimate viability of a particular policy option. Fortunately, the MCA4climate framework represents a path forward for making decisions that are not solely based on valuing monetary costs and benefits. When monetary valuation occurs, however, we suggest an intergenerational discount approach (i.e., a low discount approach), because of the long-term, cross-generational aspects of terrestrial ecosystems goods and services (which are overlooked in traditional discounting approaches). The choice of a discount rate depends importantly on the period considered; a short-term discount rate may be appropriately higher than a long-term discount rate, as the long-term preservation of ecosystem services must be duly considered and reasonably priced (hence the lower discount rate), reinforcing the need to include both slowmoving and fast-moving variables. 3.1.6 Uncertainty Uncertainty is inherent in many shapes and forms for developing terrestrial ecosystems adaptation policies (e.g., uncertainty in the various future systems being modeled – climate, socioeconomic, ecological – and uncertainty in the effectiveness of policy options and their influence in increasing resilience, to name a few) (Polasky et al. 2011; Berkes 2012). In order to address the issue of uncertainty, decision makers might consider several issues when deciding between policy options and evaluating the MCA4climate indicators. First, there should be a preference for decisions that emphasize co-benefits and across multiple time scales. Second, ensemble models could be considered in conjunction with the indicators in order to develop a more robust understanding of the future state of particular ecosystem. And third, narratives and storylines (preferably using participatory methods that include a widerange of stakeholder preferences and interests) could be employed to help decision makers conceptualize the uncertainties, particularly allowing for consideration of high-impact/lowprobability events that might otherwise be overlooked in typical policy decisions. 3.1.7 Time horizon Considering terrestrial ecosystems adaptation policy options in the context of short-term coping and longer-term systemic measures is important for addressing the slow and fast moving variables in these systems (Polasky et al. 2011). The general guidance provided by the developers of the MCA4climate framework, for example, is to consider the short term as 10 years and the longer-term as 20 to 40 years (Scrieciu and Chalabi 2013). In addition, the very long term (from the perspective of policy formation and implementation) should be considered (i.e., 50–100 years), but is slightly less important than the others due to the large amounts of uncertainty inherent this far into the future. 3.2 On the choice of assessment methods The good practice guidelines presented above provide a set of illustrative guideposts, or principles, for evaluating and assessing adaptation policy options in the context of terrestrial ecosystems resilience. Of equal importance is the identification of methods that can be
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
employed in building such an assessment. In this section, we discuss five methods of assessment categories that can be used to assign value to various indicators, whether the decision processes employs a multi-criteria analysis lens such as the MCA4climate approach, or another alternative assessment method. The indicators represent a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures. Within each category, we also point to examples of studies, databases, models, and relevant initiatives that could help advance research and guide decision makers in pursuing each method of assessment. 3.2.1 Policy document/data reviews A handful of the indicators would rely on national government or corporate data, often in the form of financial/budgetary information. Reviews of policy documents and budgetary spreadsheets should provide the data needed to assign values to the relevant indicators. A major advantage of this method is that these data are widely available, since most national governments publish such information. However, two potential drawbacks are that the published data might be less reliable and accurate in countries with higher corruption, and corporate data are generally more difficult to obtain for the private investment indicators. Also, deciding which fiscal projections to rely upon will ultimately be a subjective decision. In general, data for this method of assessment will be numerical, but some of the indicators will require a more qualitative assessment of policy documents. For instance, evaluations of one of the governance indicators, adaptive governance, could require reviewing legislation and decision-making procedures to identify the influence of a given adaptation policy option on flexibility/adaptability of management and institutions. Examples of this method of assessment and respective data include analysis of individual country documents obtained from national administrative websites (e.g., South Africa, or national financial projections from World Bank data, such as the World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance Indicators). 3.2.2 Environmental monitoring and analysis Numerous indicators rely upon tracking and projecting changes in environmental, natural resource, and land/water/air management variables. There are a host of efforts underway that monitor such information, from international government organizations, to nongovernmental organizations, to individual country initiatives. The abundance of data, while generally an advantage, can lead to difficulties in comparability and representativeness. Furthermore, economic and budgetary stress around the world has led to significant cuts in environmental reporting (enforcement) and monitoring. Finally, the scales at which environmental phenomena are manifested (e.g., watersheds and river basins) are often mismatched with the scales at which their data are collected and analyzed (e.g., national, provincial, state levels), leading to incomplete or erroneous calculations. Data for this category will usually be quantitative and collected by satellites and remote sensing initiatives [e.g., Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS); Earth Observing System (EOS); Global Observation for Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC/GOLD); Group on Earth Observations Forest Carbon Tracking Portal (GEO FCT)]. Some of the data will be internationally standardized and vetted from international treaty and agreement reporting requirements (e.g., United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)); greenhouse gas emission reporting, particularly land-use, land-use change, and forestry. Other data sources could include independently compiled databases [e.g., World Bank environmental statistics; World Resources Institute’s Global Forest Watch;
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List, or national agency statistics]. 3.2.3 Valuing ecosystems goods and services The practice of placing a value, often economic or monetary, on the numerous goods and services provided by terrestrial ecosystems has been increasing over the past decade, particularly since the completion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The most common method for incorporating the often-overlooked importance of environmental goods and services into decision making is benefit/cost analysis or cost-effective analysis. Because many of the benefits of terrestrial ecosystems are non-market goods and services or have an intrinsic value, assigning monetary measures is complex or inappropriate, respectively. Also, the ultimate output or valuation from benefit-cost analysis is greatly dependent upon the discount rate chosen by the analyst. Thus, value might be more appropriately assigned through nonmonetary calculations, for instance in terms of tons of carbon sequestered, or number of tourist visitor days added. Valuing ecosystems goods and services through cost-benefit analysis or cost-effective analysis can be performed in a variety of ways, such as through contingent valuation, travel cost valuing, hedonic pricing, valuing life-years, and stated and revealed preferences (Kumar et al. 2013). With respect to non-monetary approaches, there are several noteworthy initiatives underway to identify the tradeoffs and synergies of different terrestrial ecosystems decisions (e.g., the Natural Capital Project and the Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) tool); the World Bank’s ‘Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+’ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) training manual (White and Minang 2011); and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative hosted by UNEP (http://www.teebweb.org/)]. 3.2.4 Models, projections, and scenarios The dynamic nature of terrestrial ecosystems is perhaps most effectively captured through ecosystems models, which are often combined with econometric models, models of socioeconomic processes, and other modeled phenomena that interact with terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., Integrated Assessment Models) (Moss et al. 2010; Hibbard et al. 2010; Pereira et al. 2010). While model outputs are useful for producing projections or scenarios about future conditions, modeling tends to be data-, resource-, and time-intensive, and raises the potential for oversimplification and misrepresentation, particularly when the underlying assumptions are not transparent or well understood. One way to address these limitations is through participatory processes, such as stakeholder scenario planning and development, although these processes tend to be resource- and time-intensive as well. Examples of these participatory methods for scenario planning include decision making under uncertainty and robust decision making approaches (Lempert et al. 2013). Since it is difficult to imagine an independent modeling effort to derive any of the individual indicators discussed above, it is most useful to use readily available tools or offthe shelf models for such analyses. For instance, hydrological models for the natural resources indicators [e.g., the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), a public domain model developed by the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), and the Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) system, an initiative of the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), are often available and scalable to country levels. Also, although participatory and stakeholder processes are not appropriate to derive any single
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
indicator, there are several adaptation-related efforts already underway in many countries that present opportunities for such participatory processes to be realized and linked with the multicriteria approaches, such as the MCA4climate approach [e.g., the National Programmes of Action (NAPA) process, the World Bank’s Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), and the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR)]. 3.2.5 Various qualitative analyses and data Several of the indicators are most appropriately derived from qualitative assessments. In addition to the policy document reviews mentioned above, other qualitative assessment methods include case study analysis, surveys and interviews, and expert elicitation (Busch et al. 2012; Carpenter et al. 2006). One benefit to qualitative methods is that they generally allow for more nuanced detail to be incorporated into an analysis. Another advantage is that qualitative data can be transformed into numerical or categorical formats to facilitate indicator comparisons. However, placing qualitative information into quantitative form also presents drawbacks; mainly the loss of the detailed information that qualitative data tend to provide in the first place.
4 MCA4climate: a multi-criteria approach to climate policy analysis There are myriad options that decision makers can pursue in forming climate policies, however, to weigh and evaluate those decisions there is a need to comprehensively understand and assess the range of climate change mitigation or adaptation policy options that may support development processes. Here, building from the evaluation principles and assessment methodology choices in the previous section, we present and evaluate the utility of the MCA4climate approach as a new conceptual framework that can be used to advance thinking and multi-level governance planning for pro-development climate polices within the realm of terrestrial ecosystem resilience. Developed initially as part of a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) project and drawing on new climate economics and multi-criteria decision analysis, the MCA4climate approach developers intend to provide a generic analytical and practical framework to help governments identify climate policies and measures that are low cost, environmentally effective, and consistent with national development goals (Scrieciu et al. 2011), see also http://www.mca4climate.info/. Systematic application of a framework, such as that used in the MCA4climate approach, allows for evaluation for synergies and tradeoffs between various policy choices across a broad set of evaluation criteria. The framework and accompanying multi-tiered criteria tree at the generic level is described in detail in the methodology paper of this special issue (see Scrieciu and Chalabi 2013). However, a meaningful application of the framework for the evaluation of policies and plans for terrestrial ecosystem adaptation requires the development of specific set of tailored criteria, descriptors and measurable indicators, through which the MCA4climate approach and criteria framework could be used to evaluate policy options for terrestrial ecosystem resilience. In this section, we discuss issues of measuring and assessing how various options and policies might ultimately affect terrestrial ecosystem resilience, comprehensively viewed via potential changes in social-ecological, economic, and institutional systems. We do this by placing the MCA4climate policy evaluation framework or criteria tree, into the context of terrestrial ecosystems resilience (See Fig. 1). Under the MCA4climate approach, the adaptation options of climate change policies and plans in the area of terrestrial ecosystem resilience would be ideally assessed against a set of nineteen criteria (referred to as level-three criteria), as developed at the generic climate policy
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
Fig. 1 MCA4Climate criteria tree in the context of terrestrial ecosystem resilience (left to right: criteria levels 13 are generic while level 4 criteria are specific to the terrestrial ecosystem resilience theme).
level, cutting across all twelve climate change mitigation and adaptation themes. These generic criteria are grouped, at the first level, under inputs (the costs or efforts required to implement a climate policy option) and outputs (the impacts of a particular policy option). The input side is linked to two dimensions (or level-two criteria): public financing needs and implementation barriers, which are in turn disaggregated in technology expenditures and other monetary considerations for the former, and policy feasibility and timeline of policy implementation for the latter (these are the four level-three criteria on the input side). The output side refers to five dimensions (level-two criteria): policy effectiveness (i.e., increase in terrestrial ecosystem resilience), environmental, economic, social, and political and institutional to describe likely positive or negative impacts of a policy option. These are in turn broken down into 15 levelthree criteria: two on policy effectiveness, three on the environmental side, four on the economics, four on the social dimension, and two linked to the political and institutional dimension. It is important to note that it is difficult to provide the clearest guidance on this subject without an understanding of what the specific climate change policy entails and without the involvement of the range of stakeholder interest affected by such a policy. Therefore, the reader should interpret the following Sections 5–10 descriptions of proposed criteria as (1) framed with respect to a generic climate change policy that has as one goal to
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
increase terrestrial ecosystems resilience, and (2) a helpful set of ideas for how decision makers within a particular region/country might utilize the MCA4climate framework to make climate change policies and decisions more robust. As such, the descriptors and indicators provided do not provide an off-the-shelf tool for evaluating climate change policies, but rather a structure, framework, and ideas for indicators that might be negotiated within the given context if decision makers were to implement the MCA4climate framework. 4.1 Proposed level 1 criteria for evaluating and supporting decision-making in helping adapt terrestrial ecosystems to climate change 4.1.1 Inputs: efforts required for implementing a climate policy option Identification of public financing needs and implementation barriers are both critical to the success of implementing climate policy options that increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience. A mix of direct and indirect public financing instruments are required to meet the needs for technology expenditure as well as other types of expenditure (or monetary considerations) that will, together, support efforts at increasing terrestrial ecosystem resilience. In the area of technology expenditure it is necessary to assure the required investment in infrastructure, technology, research, and innovation that allow development of the best and most effective approaches in the context of the region, country, or sub-national region where terrestrial ecosystem approaches will serve to increase resilience and mitigate climate change. For example, Miteva, et al. (2012) found that significant challenges remain in establishing the appropriate costing of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) to create new markets for EGS (e.g., provision of incentives through government programs for EGS, voluntary or regulationdriven private payments, tradable permit markets) and call for a program of research – “Conservation Evaluation 2.0”— in order to measure how program impacts vary by sociopolitical and bio-physical context, to track economic and environmental impacts jointly, to identify spatial spillover effects to untargeted areas, and to use theories of change to characterize causal mechanisms that can guide the collection of data and the interpretation of results. Additionally, other monetary considerations, such as the investment in maintenance of formal and informal institutions, management, and monitoring and evaluation systems in support of terrestrial ecosystem resilience are essential to climate-development objectives. Efforts in this realm can be measured in several ways, and include those expenditures that the government allocates directly in the annual budget (i.e., actual amount in annual budget) as well as the amount government allocates indirectly in the annual budget (i.e., those funds that are not directly apportioned for increasing ecosystems resilience, but can have positive synergies with ecosystem resilience). The latter is especially important in the context of international development planning, where multiple-benefits (in the realms of climate, biodiversity protection, and development, for example) must be derived from single streams of investment. Technology and innovation allow for appropriate research and development to maximize cost effective, high-impact approaches designed to work appropriately within the context and scale of intervention, while investment in institutions and social processes that improve management (as well as development indicators) can yield multi-objective results. Even with appropriate financing, policy feasibility of terrestrial-ecosystem-focused climate policy interventions must be evaluated in terms of political feasibility. Policy barriers and bridges to implementation need to be assessed, and the presence of these, as well as the potential to shift and align goals towards appropriate policies, must be identified—prioritizing those that permit flexibility in implementation. In terms of specific types of policies that are known to interact with the management dimensions of terrestrial resilience, we identify secure tenure regimes; presence
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
of existing natural resource management policies, protected area and co-management systems; and a knowledgeable staff of public servants as key anchors for assuring policy feasibility. For land tenure, it is important to evaluate the presence/absence of secure tenure regimes (i.e., relationships among people, individuals or groups, whether legal or customarily defined, that provide clear rules of use and/or protection of land, forests, and other resources) that support sustainable management of terrestrial ecosystem services and research in this area is ongoing. For example, the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research network has worked for over 20 years to examine how governance arrangements affect forest and the people who depend on them with current research being conducted for The World Bank and the CGIAR research program in Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) to assess the nature of tradeoffs among forests conservation, livelihood development, and carbon sequestration. Does the resource regime protect what it is intended to protect (e.g., timber, fauna, flora, water, minerals)? This is a critical question that is receiving much attention in international debates around REDD+, as designation of rights, responsibilities, and benefit streams and responsibilities, becomes critical to incentivizing appropriate management. In evaluating feasibility, the existence of policies that can be amended or built upon (e.g., presence/absence of natural resource laws, legislation, and regulation, etc.) is important, as many relevant climate policies that would increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience already exist and can be shaped to serve new resilience. Reserves/parks established with co-management arrangements that can be altered and improved upon as needed, (e.g., the transfer of management responsibilities alongside clearly defined and enforceable use-rights to local communities within those boundaries) will also be key to terrestrial adaptation strategies as will a well trained cadre of public servants who have knowledge regarding climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., number of recent post-graduates within the federal government who have a degree in earth, ecological, and/or social sciences). Lastly, in terms of implementation feasibility, timing is important. How quickly the policy can be implemented and the likely duration of that option, which will depend on political, institutional, technological processes, is an important factor in gauging policy feasibility. 4.1.2 Outputs: possible impacts of a climate policy option The effectiveness of the policy implemented in terms of achieving its primary target (e.g., increasing resilience in the case of adaptation or reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the case of mitigation), as well as its ancillary impacts on the economic, social, environmental, and political and institutional dimensions of societal development constitute the output criteria against which we purport to evaluate and plan climate policy options in the area of terrestrial ecosystem resilience. The following Sections 5 through 10 describe second and third level economic, social, environmental, and political and institutional 'output' criteria and support further identification of policy options for terrestrial ecosystem resilience.
5 Outputs/climate related 5.1 Reduce greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions Policies might be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in reducing green house gas emissions and increasing resilience to climate change. The extent to which efforts to increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience contribute to effective mitigation of these gases can be indicated by the net biomass (e.g., afforestation, reforestation, and avoiding deforestation) of forests
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
that help sequester carbon from the atmosphere, and maintain forest carbon sinks; the degree to which soil carbon sequestration is maximized through appropriate land management practices [e.g., evaluating and comparing integrated assessment model (IAM) outputs such as the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM), see http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/models/gcam/, can be employed to understand how climate-change mitigation policies will alter the decisionmaking environment for land management and how changes in agriculture productivity will influence cultivated land expansion (Thomson et al. 2010)]. Careful monitoring and prevention of forest loss through conversion to other various land-cover typologies will require monitoring (e.g., through coordinated international efforts such as the GOFC-GOLD Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover, see http://www.fao.org/gtos/gofc-gold/ to provide ongoing space-based and in-situ observations of forest and other vegetation cover through regional and global datasets).
6 Outputs/economic 6.1 Trigger private investment Policies can trigger economic investment from the private sector in terrestrial ecosystem maintenance, preservation, and management. Examples might include private investment for establishing reserves and conservation infrastructure, protecting biodiversity, preserving land, facilitating afforestation, reforestation, and avoiding deforestation that are spurred by a given policy (e.g., macroeconomic or sectoral indicators/models show evidence of private sector investments in terrestrial ecosystem management). Also, investments in capacity for considering biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem structure and function in lands managed by the private sector or though biodiversity or other types of offset payments would indicate good performance in this criterion area. The Rio Tinto company, for instance, has been working to develop biodiversity offsets—conservation actions designed to compensate for the unavoidable residual impacts on biodiversity caused by mining and processing—and are testing offset methodologies through a set of pilot projects at a number of their operations including Rio Tinto Madagascar and Corumbá in Brazil (Rio Tinto 2008; Doswald et al. 2012). Conservation trust funds (CTFs) have also proven to be valuable instruments for protection of global biodiversity (Spergel and Taieb 2008). 6.2 Improve economic performance The degree to which ecosystem/economic co-benefits are generated from the policy can be measured through a variety of indicators including increases in profits to industries (e.g., tourism, food, fiber, biochemical, pharmaceuticals) that benefit directly or indirectly from sustainable management and maintenance and extraction of EGS such as fresh water, food, fiber, and genetic resources (e.g., improved revenues for companies resulting from sustainable use of sensitive ecosystems). Ecosystem services contribute significantly to global employment and economic activity, with food production contributing by far the most to economic activity and employment and comprising a significant proportion of GDP within developing countries (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). However, care must be given to assure that appropriate institutions are in place so that revenues generated from ecosystem services provision are then used to generate other forms of capital in support of development rather than siphoned off by elites or dissipated into the economy (Kronenberg and Hubacek 2013). In the case of tourism, observed or expected increases in tourism due to the existence of ecological
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
resources (e.g., conservancies or parks) can be positively correlated with economic performance and development. It is thus critical that tourism be modulated in such a way as to avoid creation of excessive infrastructure and human traffic that then degrades ecosystems (Tallis et al. 2008). Though win-win projects that achieve conservation and economic gains are possible, they are not easy to attain and the realization of positive outcomes depends largely on the quality of management plans and careful monitoring of human use of ecosystems. Other indicators of co-benefit generation from ecosystem services could include observed increases in water availability and quality yield benefits (e.g., drinking, domestic consumption, industry, irrigation, hydro energy power) and economic efficiencies (e.g., appropriate management of ecosystems upstream results in maintenance of or reduction in siltation rates of dams/reservoirs used for energy and domestic consumption and thus lower costs). 6.3 Generate employment Increased employment in sectors related to sustainable management and extraction of terrestrial ecosystem goods and services is a useful criterion for understanding a policy’s impact on employment. Assessment of percent change in jobs in sectors relevant to terrestrial ecosystem management and extraction (e.g., national park employees, government scientists) as well as assessment of the total number of jobs gained or lost through a ratio of short-term vs. long-term jobs gained/lost could serve as potential indicators. Positive values would be more favorable than negative values (except where both long- and short-term values are negative), and favoring high positive values vs. low positive values depends on whether short- or longterm employment is prioritized by decision makers. The case of the 2009 political coup in Madagascar provides a sobering example of how employment in the management of protected areas and parks constitutes a critical element of conservation of terrestrial ecosystems. There, the withdrawal of donor organizations that provided half of the country’s national budget resulted in a collapse of civil service and park management system (Freudenberger 2010). 6.4 Contribute to fiscal sustainability Policies can also have an impact on fiscal sustainability by reducing expenditures and/or increasing savings that would result from loss/gain of terrestrial ecosystem resilience. Expenditure indicators might include elimination of infrastructure, processes, or other factors that require government expenditure (e.g., a dam), which when eliminated might increase ecosystem resilience or if kept could pose challenges to ongoing ecosystem resilience. This issue is especially compelling in considering the way in which natural capital can substitute for built capital and vice-versa. In many cases, healthy terrestrial ecosystems can supply environmental services at less cost than built systems. For example, restoration wetlands along the US Gulf Coast are now thought to be less costly and more effective than construction of additional grey infrastructure such as levees and higher sea walls; adaptation within the Gulf Coast region is moving in this direction (CPRA 2012).
7 Outputs/social 7.1 Reduce poverty incidence Increase in productivity, amount, and health/biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems has multiple positive impacts on livelihoods and poverty reduction such as increased incomes within
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
resource-dependent communities (e.g., forest, nomadic, riverine/estuarine communities), and livelihood diversification (Bebbington 1999; Roe 2013). Qualitative surveys can be used to reflect increased capitals and capabilities at the household level. While predicted or observed change in per capita income and/or number of households below poverty line can serve as useful indicators when it can be demonstrated that income is derived from sustainable use of resources or value chain enhancement. Data that reflect increases in both range and distribution of informal and formal sector employment within a region can also be useful if increases/ decreases of such employment can be linked to sustainable use or activities that, alternatively, divert pressures on ecosystems. 7.2 Reduce inequity Terrestrial ecosystem policies can influence equity and fairness within a population and or community; in this sense the issue of access and rights is paramount, the existence of informal and formal rule systems that govern resource access and use and the degree of inclusion in such systems within a region would be a helpful descriptor in understanding equity in the context of such policies. For example, work by Meinzen-Dick et al. (2011) and Cotula (2007) provide useful frameworks for understanding the role of gender and resource access. 7.3 Improve health Successful maintenance of healthy terrestrial ecosystems results in ecosystem service provisioning of medicines, and of clean air, water, and food providing benefits for communities at multiple spatial scales. Increasingly, tools for assessing and valuing such health related benefits such as valuation of water-quality related services are becoming available. Arguing that water quality is actually an important contributor to many different services, from recreation to human health, Keeler et al. (2012) presents a valuation approach for water quality–related services that is sensitive to different actions that affect water quality, identifies aquatic endpoints where the consequences of changing water quality on human well-being are realized, and recognizes the unique groups of beneficiaries affected by those changes. In addition to water quality indicators, other descriptors to successfully gauge contributions of policies in this sense could include measurements related to food production [i.e., presents minimal contamination from pesticides and chemicals (e.g., national food control systems put in place, observed reductions in presence of pesticide residues in foods derived from terrestrial ecosystems)] and continued discovery of new biochemical compounds/medicines derived from terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., national accounting of medicinal and pharmaceutical products derived from forests). 7.4 Preserve cultural heritage Sustaining healthy terrestrial ecosystems derives multiple non-material cultural benefits (IPCCA 2013; Plieninger et al. 2013), such as maintenance of indigenous linguistic and knowledge systems (e.g., as evidenced through data collected by national ministries of culture, interior, and other agencies of national governments responsible for supporting well-being of national indigenous populations); maintenance of cultural practices (e.g., spiritual and religious values) carried out within and through use, transformation of, and communion with terrestrial ecosystems; and maintenance of aesthetic values (e.g., as evidenced by presence/absence in quantity/quality of natural lands). Moreover, efforts to develop methodological toolkits for assessment of cultural-ecosystem linkages by indigenous peoples are underway. The
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
Indigenous People’s Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative (IPCCA), see http:// www.ipcca.info/, is an example of an indigenous initiative that brings together indigenous communities and organizations from a diversity of fragile and biodiverse ecosystems and socio-ecological production landscapes to assess the impacts of climate change. The IPCCA helps build responses that enable continued community resilience and strengthen a harmonious relationship between people and nature, and represents an example of how preservation of cultural heritage is made possible through maintenance of ecosystems embedded in indigenous biocultural territories.
8 Outputs/environmental 8.1 Protect environmental resources (quality and stocks) Understanding the impacts on quality and stocks of environmental resources generated by policy can serve as a one of the most important set of indicators for understanding terrestrial ecosystem resilience (Holling 1973; Folke et al. 2002). Such indicators can be divided into four main sets. First, predicted impact on keystone species, predicted impact on invasive species, and predicted impact on other environmental indicators that are important to a particular resource/system (e.g., pH, salinity, temperature/precipitation). Second, impact on adaptive capacity of species and ecosystems (e.g., anticipated increase or decrease through direct or indirect effects of the policy measured by plasticity of species physiology/behavior, dispersal abilities, evolutionary potential, redundancy, and response diversity of ecosystem functional groups). Third, projected impacts (magnitude and pace of change) on water quality and availability, including hydrology (ground and surface water), evapotranspiration, and sediment/pollutant flows through a watershed or other natural systems (e.g., as evidenced through hydrological and climate models). Fourth, regulating services, such as disease, pest, and natural hazard regulation, as well as pollination services are maintained or improved (e.g., evidence that natural control of pests is not degraded through pesticide use, improvement in pollinator abundance, presence of natural buffers such as healthy mangroves and wetlands, or indication that such controls are compromised). Lastly, the degree to which biogeochemical properties of the ecosystem are maintained, such as nutrient cycling, primary productivity, soil formation (e.g., evaluating whether shifts or changes are occurring or projected to occur) will be of critical importance to understanding the effects of climate policies on terrestrial ecosystem resilience. 8.2 Protect biodiversity Projects to increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience are most often positively correlated with increase in biodiversity stocks and reversal of species loss (Reyers et al. 2012; Gunderson 2000). Fischer et al. (2006) demonstrates the critical role of biodiversity in enhancing resilience, or the system’s capacity to recover from external pressures such as droughts or management mistakes and suggests guiding principles for biodiversity conservation in forestry and agricultural landscapes, in that such landscapes can serve critical roles in the maintenance of terrestrial ecosystem health. Criteria indictors may include: predicted number of species removed from or improved status on endangered lists (e.g., number of species moved from endangered to vulnerable); predicted amount of land preserved and/or additional land acquired by the policy, focusing on biodiversity ‘hot spots’ within the country (e.g., as predicted in landuse/land-cover change and integrated assessment models); and permeability of landscape (e.g., as measured through barriers to dispersal/migration, habitat fragmentation).
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
8.3 Support ecosystem services Prioritization of ecosystem services is a cross-cutting theme throughout the paper and is captured in the various criteria/indicators. For example, supporting services of nutrient cycling, soil formation, and primary production are furthered by the protecting environmental resources criterion and provisioning services of food, fresh water, wood and fiber, and fuel appear also to improve economic performance and health, while regulating services such as air quality, climate, water, and pollination are included in criteria reduce GHG emissions, economic performance and protect environmental resources. Lastly, cultural services such as spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational services are captured by preserve cultural heritage, trigger private investment, and improve economic performance. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) remains the gold standard for guidance regarding the linkages between ecosystem health and human-well being through provision of ecosystem services. As well, the newly created Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPES) is intended to serve as the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystems services through an IPCC-like platform (Larigauderie et al. 2012; Scholes et al. 2012).
9 Outputs/political and institutional 9.1 Contribute to political stability Struggles over natural resource exploitation and water and food security can engender conflict and violence, in light of the fact that terrestrial ecosystems can also be the sites of valuable resources (e.g., minerals, precious forests, bushmeat) and struggles over their use can generate instability in governance systems (Le Billon 2001; Richards and Helander 2005). The degree to which such conflicts are minimized can be an indicator of positive impact (e.g., higher values on water poverty index, WPI, or food security risk index). And, in terms of financial flows of international trafficking and organized crime, favorable rankings on watchdog systems to promote transparency such as the International Corruption Hunter’s Alliance or an otherwise favorable ranking in corruption and political stability indices (e.g., less perceived corruption according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index can serve as useful indictors. However, it is important to note the caveat that in situations of weak governance, such data is often difficult to obtain. 9.2 Improve governance Management of terrestrial ecosystems through adaptive governance mechanisms that involve key stakeholders can be key to securing and increasing resilience of the ecosystems and the people that live in them (Olsson et al. 2007; Folke et al. 2005). Determining whether a particular policy has a positive impact on governance systems can be measured through demonstration that tools for adaptive governance and management are evident and implemented, such as adjustable/flexible policies to keep pace with slow and fast moving variables/ processes (e.g., changes in climate versus changes in soil moisture, respectively) (Carpenter et al. 2001) inherent in terrestrial ecosystems. Additional evidence of adaptive management and governance could include: iterative policy evaluation in appropriate multiple time frames that align with ecosystem and policy time-scale processes; presence of formal and informal networks for social learning; existence of data monitoring protocol infrastructure to be able to adjust decisions; and integration of various interests (e.g., biodiversity, livelihoods, carbon sequestration, etc.) considered across multiple scales (spatial/temporal). Other useful indicators
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
include tools and processes for good governance being implemented, such as legitimacy, accountability, participation, representativeness, rule of law, control of corruption, and regulatory quality (e.g., as measured through governance indicators, such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, which aggregates and individual governance indicators for 213 economies over the period 1996–2009 (Kaufmann et al. 2010). For access to WGI project information and data set see: www.govindicators.org).
10 Applying the MCA4 framework: case studies and assessment methods 10.1 Exploring MCA4 climate through examples Although the framework illustrated and evaluated in this paper was designed by the UNEP to be adapted to the specific needs of development decision makers, in this section we attempt to illustrate situations wherein the framework might be beneficially applied to the types of choices and processes currently underway in development and climate decision making; in this case, those that intersect with the management and use of terrestrial ecosystems. We introduce the potential relevance of the framework applied to terrestrial ecosystem resilience by offering two hypothetical examples for how decision makers might answer the following question: How can I use the MCA4Climate approach to inform how a climate development policy under consideration might enhance, or otherwise affect, terrestrial ecosystem resilience via potential changes in socio-ecological, economic, and institutional systems? Although the two situations below are overly simplified for illustrative purposes and there is likely interaction between these types of decisions, they are an attempt to briefly demonstrate how such a framework and indicators might be useful. For both illustrations, we provide a hypothetical example of how various climate adaptation policy options might be considered, measured, and assessed within a given decision process. For these cases, we focus on the decisions and institutional processes within countries, as well as bi-lateral and multi-lateral lending agencies where the framework and multi-criteria approach could be particularly applicable in the immediate future. 10.1.1 Situation 1 Evaluating climate change adaptation and terrestrial ecosystem resilience building strategies – Terrestrial ecosystem resilience as a primary motivation In selected instances, most likely in highly climate-sensitive countries and sectors, development practitioners have thought considerably about the impacts of climate change on development projects. Furthermore, those in this situation are also likely interested in thinking systematically about climate-change resilience to include as an integrating theme in planning and daily on-the-ground programmatic work. Here, the individual or team may already have a certain level of understanding regarding climate-resilience, and may have also begun identifying which specific projects are most important to prioritize in the face of a host of potential climate changes and which are currently resilient (or not) to these changes. The MCA4climate approach put forth in this paper could help the analyst more confidently identify these priority areas by considering projects through the lens of how each might enhance terrestrial ecosystem resilience in support of adaptation goals. Three levels of criteria enable identification of a fourth more specific set of indicators, in this case for terrestrial ecosystems, that in turn allows for identification of a range of synergies and tradeoffs (See Fig. 1). In this example, we consider a case where decision makers have identified a folio of projects aimed at minimizing climate-change challenges to human development such as water availability, hunger, land degradation, vulnerability to extreme weather, and poverty through
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
promotion of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and forestry. In seeking to apply the MCA4 approach, decision makers will have already clarified climate and development policy objectives and would then seek to agree on the criteria and indicators. As an example, in this case, under the input side: for public financing, criteria would be identified such as the types of capital expenditure (technology, research, and innovation) required to support farmers and forest dependent peoples to make the transition to climate-smart agriculture and agroforestry, as well to expand knowledge of existing practices and develop scalable technologies. In terms of implementation needs, the identification of policy barriers and bridges, creation of flexible implementation approaches between various government ministries, and potential policy synergies between the various sectors, in this case, agriculture, natural resource management, and climate change, would be important indicators for assessment. On the output side (possible impacts) of the proposed climate-smart agriculture policies and associated practices could be those that are intended to increase farm productivity and incomes and make agriculture more resilient to climate change through an ecosystem-based approach. These would be considered based on the five subgroups that enable identification of the likely impacts, or outputs [i.e., the climate related, economic (including fiscal), environmental, social, and political and institutional dimensions of the development intervention]. Practitioners would then choose from among various subgroup criteria developed for evaluating contributions to the goal of terrestrial ecosystem resilience. For example, if the criteria (level 3) chosen for evaluation of this program is reducing GHG and black carbon emissions, an attempt would be made to gather data using ecosystem monitoring tools (see Section 3) and carbon stock assessment protocols on the degree to which the project increases biomass of terrestrial ecosystems (level 4) through establishment of permanent agriculture, agroforestry, and forestry as a part of the climate-smart agriculture program in question. In terms of good practice guideposts, evaluators would be looking for co-benefits, and in this case might find that sufficient synergies exist for adaptation, mitigation, and development triplewins. Other output criteria for the proposed policy could be whether it triggers private investment, or improves economic performance in which case level 4 subcriteria proposed for evaluation of terrestrial ecosystem-related policies could be qualitative/quantitative measurement of activities contemplated in CSA program to link farmers and communities to finance opportunities from public and private sectors, for example, through the creation of new agriculture and agroforestry product value chains. Estimates could also be made regarding the program’s potential to generate ecosystem services (such as increased water provisioning for communities) and further boost local economies and value-added production options. Other level 3 criteria chosen for evaluation could include protecting biodiversity, and estimates could be made to examine the degree to which the CSA program proposed includes management practices that will increase biodiversity stocks and reverse species loss such as the use of integrated pest management practices rather than chemical inputs. In some cases, application of pesticides can be a labor saving method to improve yields and enhance development and poverty reduction. However, if biodiversity conservation is also a goal multicriteria analysis will allow identification of where criteria and goals might contradict and allow for program reformulation to meet multiple criteria (e.g., reduce poverty incidence through increasing incomes and livelihood diversification, as well as protect biodiversity by reversing species loss, caused by pesticide applications). For reducing inequity, proposed CSA projects could be assessed based on the degree to which they increase rights/access to natural resources through appropriate rule systems and terrestrial ecosystem use (i.e., forest policies) or in terms of how they contribute to political stability. Does the project minimize conflict over natural resources? In terms of improving governance, decision makers would also evaluate if the project or set of
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
policies support establishment of adaptive governance regimes that engage key stakeholders in the design and proper functioning of appropriate resource governance institutions. As stressed in Scrieciu and Chalabi (2013) it is important that the process seek to engage all relevant stakeholders, support a shared understanding of the issues, and identify a commonlyagreed way forward. Although this example is hypothetical, development of a folio of projects for a particular country, province, or region or set of communities would benefit from consultation from decision makers across multiple levels of governance levels as well as from diverse constituents of communities, for example, women and disadvantaged groups. 10.1.2 Situation 2 Evaluating implications of a climate change mitigation policy for existing development priorities – Terrestrial Ecosystem Resilience as an added benefit By and large, greater emphasis in the climate policy arena has been devoted to the issue of mitigation of climate change. At the present time, any given development organization member may never have given priority to the potential implications of a mitigation project on climate adaptation processes in a country of expertise. For example, a development practitioner might be working to follow through on projects related to the promotion of REDD+ activities within a country such as community-based carbon monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). While the individual or team developing the project may have expertise in development of communitybased monitoring MRV systems, they may have less understanding of how terrestrial ecosystems might enhance adaptation processes. To this individual or team, adaptation is yet another factor that needs to be considered when reconciling projects into operational programs on the ground. In this situation, the multi-criteria approach discussed in this paper could be used to provide a preliminary glimpse into how planned activities might contribute to terrestrial ecosystem resilience. Here, the analyst could select a few criteria to improve understanding of how the project might result in triple-win outputs such that, in addition to the project’s primary goal of mitigation, adaptation and development goals are also being served. In this hypothetical example, criteria selection through the MCA4climate approach could include evaluation of degree to which community based monitoring systems protect environmental resources (level 3), through assessment of impact on resource quality and stocks. Such an assessment could be based on pilot work in one or two communities or regions employing community-based methods to establish baseline environmental conditions and ongoing monitoring systems. How the program might also contribute to forest governance objectives (see output criteria level 3 improve governance) through involvement of key stakeholders, could be assessed via qualitative methods such community interviews or surveys. Another criterion for assessment of outputs of such a mitigation project could be the degree to which the project serves to trigger private investment in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management as a result of greater investor confidence in the maintenance of net biomass in community monitored forests assessed using social network analysis. While general, these two hypothetical situations illustrate the potential applicability of the MCA4climate approach. The approach can incorporate multiple assessment methodologies, and is flexible enough to accommodate various evaluation principles. The approach is particularly well-suited for considering multiple timescales (via the criteria indicators) with respect to a potential adaptation policy, as well as co-benefits and tradeoffs.
11 Conclusion The MCA4climate approach represents a new and integrative framework for evaluation of benefits, synergies, and tradeoffs in the context of other climate policy evaluation approaches.
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
While other efforts have attempt to support integration of adaptation into conservation through approaches such as Community-Based Adaptation and Ecosystem-based Adaptation (Cross et al. 2012; Girot et al. 2012), such efforts have focused exclusively on adaptation rather than more comprehensive evaluation of synergies and trade-offs with mitigation and development objectives embodied in the MCA4climate approach. Where such attempts to evaluate climate policy and development ‘triple wins’ have occurred, (see Janetos et al. 2012; Tompkins et al. 2013), such efforts have lacked the detailed and thorough guidance contained in the overall MCA4climate approach. In terms of lessons learned, as our effort to provide a framework for evaluation of adaptation policies for terrestrial ecosystem resilience through the MCA4climate approach reveals, the approach still faces challenges, as do other climate policy tools, in evaluating dynamics and feedbacks inherent in ecosystems. Moreover, the MCA4climate approach needs a focused consideration of climate change model projections and impacts on the particular policy choice, as well as the associated uncertainties that accompany the policy (Lempert et al. 2013). Nevertheless, these issues might be addressed by piloting the multicriteria approach in real-world case studies, which would help to refine the methodology into a more policyapplicable decision support tool for consideration of terrestrial ecosystems resilience in creating sound policies and actions in support of climate change and development goals. Acknowledgments The authors thank William Cheung and Bob Scholes for helpful reviews, Elizabeth Malone for her comments and suggestions, and Anthony Janetos for his support and guidance in the development of earlier versions of this paper. We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript, and Serban Scrieciu and Zaid Chalabi for their unfaltering dedication as editors of this special issue.
References Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Chang Hum Policy Dimens 15:77–86 Barnett J, O’ Neill S (2010) Maladaptation. Glob Environ Chang 20:211–213 Bebbington A (1999) Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Dev 27:2021–2044 Berkes F (2012) Implementing ecosystem-based management: evolution or revolution? Fish Fish 13:465–476 Busch M, La Notte A, Laporte V et al (2012) Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:89–103 Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM et al (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765–781 Carpenter SR, De Fries R, Dietz T et al (2006) Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs Chapin FS III, Rupp TS, Starfield AM et al (2003) Planning for resilience: modeling change in human-fire interactions in the Alaskan boreal forest. Front Ecol Environ 1:255–261 Chapin FS III, Vitousek PM, Matson PA (2012) Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology, 2nd edn. Springer, New York Cotula L (2007) Gender and Law: women’s Rights in Agriculture. FAO Legislative Study 76. FAO, Rome CPRA (2012) Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Baton Rouge, LA Cross MS, Zavaleta ES, Bachelet D et al (2012) The Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) framework: a tool for incorporating climate change into natural resource management. Environ Manag 50:341–351 Doswald N, Barcellos Harris M, Jones M et al (2012) Biodiversity offsets: voluntary and compliance regimes. A review of existing schemes, initiatives and guidance for financial institutions, Cambridge, UK, Geneva, Switzerland Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ Chang. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.1001. 1019 Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267 Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T et al (2002) Resilience and Sustainable Development: building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations, Scientific background paper on resilience for the process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development. on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, Stockholm Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B et al (2004) Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581 Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P et al (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473 Freudenberger K (2010) Paradise Lost? Lessons from 25 years of USAID environment programs in Madagascar. International Resources Group, Washington DC Girot P, Ehrhart C, Reid H et al (2012) Integrating Community and Ecosystem-Based Approaches in Climate Change Adaptation Responsesi. In: CARE I, IUCN WWF (eds) Ecosystem and Livelihoods Adaptation Network (ELAN). Ecosystem and Livelihoods Adaptation Network (ELAN), USA Glick P, Stein BA, Edelson NA et al (2011) Scanning the Conservation Horizon: a Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC Goklany I (2007) Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerablity and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12:755–786 Gunderson LH (2000) Ecological resilience–in theory and application. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:425–439 Hibbard K, Janetos A, van Vuuren DP et al (2010) Research priorities in land use and land-cover change for the Earth system and integrated assessment modelling. Int J Climatol 30:2118–2128 Holling C (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley, New York Indigenous Peoples Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative (IPCCA) (2013) The non-carbon benefits of forests: biocultural conservation approaches of indigenous and local communities as non-market based approaches to conserve and inhance the carbon and non-carbon benefits of forests for climate mitigation and adaptation. IPCCA, Cusco Janetos AC, Malone EL, de Bremond AC et al (2012) Linking climate change and development goals: framing, integrating, measuring. Climate and, Development 4, (forthcoming) Kane S, Shogren JF (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Chang 45:75–102 Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2010) The worldwide governance indicators: a summary of methodology, data and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5430 Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA et al (2012) Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:18619–18624 Kronenberg J, Hubacek K (2013) Could payments for ecosystem services create an “ecosystem service curse”? Ecol Soc 18 Kumar P, Brondizio E, Gatzweiler F et al (2013) The economics of ecosystem services: from local analysis to national policies. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:78–86 Larigauderie A, Prieur-Richard A-H, Mace GM et al (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services science for a sustainable planet: the DIVERSITAS vision for 2012–20. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:101–105 Le Billon P (2001) The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Polit Geogr 20:561–584 Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B et al (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11, 19. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol11/iss11/art19/ Lee KN (1993) Compass and Gyroscope: integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Groves DG et al (2013) Making good decisions without predictions: robust decision making for planning under deep uncertainty. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica Meinzen-Dick R, Johnson N, Quisumbing A et al (2011) Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development Programs: a Conceptual Framework. CAPRi Working Paper 99. IFPRI, Washington, D.C Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Miteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ (2012) Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxf Rev Econ Policy 28:69–92 Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environ Manag 34:75–90 Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V et al (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecol Soc 12:28
Author's personal copy Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change Orlove B (2005) Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three historical cases and some general perspectives. Environ Sci Pol 8:589–600 Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP et al (2007) In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Linden PJVD, Hanson CE (eds) Technical Summary. Climate Change 2007: impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proenca V et al (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496–1501 Peterson G (1998) Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18 Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E et al (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129 Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C et al (2011) Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol 26:398–404 Postel S, Richter B (2003) Rivers for Life: managing Water for People and Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC Reyers B, Polasky S, Tallis H et al (2012) Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 62:503–507 Richards P, Helander B (2005) No Peace, No War: an Anthropology of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Ohio University Press; J. Currey, Athens Rio Tinto (2008) Rio Tinto and Biodiversity: biodiversity offset design Robards MD, Schoon ML, Meek CL et al (2011) The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 21:522–529 Roe D (2013) Has biodiversity fallen off the development agenda? A case study of the UK department for international development. Oryx 47:113–121 Running SW, Mills LS (2009) Terrestrial Ecosystem Adaptation, Resources for the Future Scholes RJ, Walters M, Turak E et al (2012) Building a global observing system for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:139–146 Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change (2007) Confronting Climate Change: avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. In: Bierbaum RM, Holdren JP, MacCracken MC, Moss RH, Raven PH (eds) Report prepared for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC, and the United Nations Foundation, Washington DC, p 144 Scrieciu S, Chalabi Z (2013) Advancing Methodological Thinking and Practice for Development-Compatible Climate Policy Planning. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change submitted, this issue Scrieciu S, Bristow S, Puig D et al (2011) In: Branch DE (ed) A Practical Framework for Planning ProDevelopment Climate Policy. United National Environment Program, Paris Spergel B, Taieb P (2008) Rapid review of conservation trust funds, second edition, in: (CFA), CFA (Ed.), prepared for Working Group on Environmental Funds Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M et al (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:9457–9464 Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Chini LP et al (2010) Climate mitigation and the future of tropical landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:19633–19638 Tompkins E, Mensah A, King L et al (2013) An investigation of the evidence of benefits from climate compatible development. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 124, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Walker (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in Social Ecological System. Ecology and Society Walker, B, Gunderson, L, Kinzig, A, et al. (2006) A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11, 13. [online] URL:http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art13/ White D, Minang P (2011) Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+: a training manual. The World Bank Institute, Washington, DC
