The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) encourages members of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to harmonize the gathering and management of data for the biodiversity-related conventions (Paragraph 15 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). The COP encouraged the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-related Conventions to give further consideration to issues of harmonization of reporting among the biodiversity-related conventions, and to develop proposals thereon (Paragraph 14 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). In response, the Liaison Group discussed about relevant issues related to harmonization in February 2008.
The COP requested for collaboration with other biodiversity-related secretariats to develop proposals for streamlining reporting and reducing reporting burdens on Parties, and encouraged the Executive Secretary of the CBD to participate in the ongoing efforts in this regard. In the decisions relating to forest, dry land and inland waters biodiversity, the COPencouraged harmonization or synergies of reporting with other related conventions and forums. The CBD and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), with the support of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC), are collaborating on the development of a joint reporting framework. Under the Committee for Review of Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a coordination team involving various related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has started to look at options for harmonizing reporting related to dry land. For many years, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) has been addressing forest-related reporting under various conventions and mechanisms
through its task force on streamlining forest-related reporting.
The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has requested its Secretariat to continue its collaboration with the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions, UNEP and other bodies, in order to facilitate the harmonization of national reporting.The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has invited its Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Biodiversity Liaison Group and UNEP, to advance the harmonization of reporting both within the UNEP-CMS ‘family’ of Agreements and between relevant
conventions.
The Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, through Resolution IX.5, requested its Secretary General to continue working with the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements concerning more effective convention implementation, with topics including, inter alia, harmonization of national reporting. In Resolution X.11, the COP of the Ramsar Convention requested its Secretariat and the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) to continue to cooperate with the CBD Secretariat, UNEP, and UNEP-WCMC in the development of a framework for harmonized reporting on implementation on inland waters for the CBD and the Ramsar Convention.
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity’s Initiatives
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a regional centre that facilitates cooperation and coordination among ASEAN Member States (AMS). It also provides technical assistance to AMS in the preparation of national reports in compliance to their obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To provide a venue to develop a framework to harmonize reporting to biodiversity-related conventions from national, regional to global levels, ACB conducted the ASEAN Workshop on Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in Hanoi, Vietnam on 15-17 April 2009. The workshop brought about
discussions and exchanges of national experiences, efforts and plans on harmonization of reporting. It also produced recommendations to various biodiversity-related secretariats and national agencies tasked to prepare, consolidate and harmonize reports.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document presents the outputs of the workshop in the form of observations and recommendations that call for actions from the AMS and convention secretariats. Specifically, this document aims to:
• Summarize discussions and recommendations arising from the workshop into two levels, national and global
• Outline key messages that will stimulate interest among convention secretariats, AMS, organizations, and donors enthused in harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
• Demonstrate an action plan that will provide support to countries in their efforts to implement activities relevant to the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION OF REPORTING
TO BIODIVERSITY-RELATED CONVENTIONS
The following observations and recommendations regarding the national level are mainly the areas of concern of countries in the ASEAN region. Since the task of reporting lies heavily on the individual country, the contents under this section are directed to the country level.
General Observations
There is a consensus among AMS that there is no single model for improved information management, collaboration, and harmonization as national circumstances vary between countries. Although AMS shared their own national efforts and experiences perceived to be valuable for other AMS to draw lessons from, they were not inclined to put forward a model for harmonization of reporting. For example, Thailand and the Philippines have one umbrella agency/bureau handling the national reporting tasks to biodiversity-related conventions. This kind of set up centralizes the preparations leading to reporting to conventions. This system,
however, does not exist for the entire region. In the majority of AMS, reporting is decentralized into two or more agencies, which at times do not have coordinated efforts for reporting to the convention secretariats.
Among the purposes of national reporting to conventions are: (1) to demonstrate compliance to and implementation of provisions of the conventions and (2) to assess the effectiveness of the compliance and implementation processes. Thus, underlying any improvements for harmonization of reporting is the understanding that reporting is an output of information management of national implementation of the conventions. The national reporting aims to enable the decision-making of Parties to take stock of what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do in accordance with the provisions of conventions. At the national level, convention secretariats encourage agencies involved in the reporting process to be cognizant of the importance of the need to obtain, gather, assemble, and report information.
Information Management for National Reporting
National reports contain information on the status and trends of the environment and natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular. Because of the value of this information in setting the tone for the national reports, it is important to establish a mechanism to ensure the accuracy and smooth flow of information to the national agency/bureau organizing the national reports. A well-organized information management system plays a key role in ensuring that reports contain updated and accurate information.
Depending on national circumstances, a fully operational (meta) data warehouse such as the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) or National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) covering all biodiversity-related conventions could be established to facilitate national collaboration and sharing of information among and between national stakeholders. Another function of this (meta) data warehouse would be to develop information modules on a regular basis, independent from the national reporting process, in order to provide
information that national focal points of each convention can call upon at any time for producing the national reports. This is the national modular approach to harmonization, as reviewed by a UNEP pilot project on harmonization of reporting in Indonesia.
It should be noted that vital information necessary for national reporting can come from credible sources outside of the government agencies in charge of organizing and submitting the national reports. Thus, there is a need to involve stakeholders (e.g. non-governmental organizations, universities, private think tanks) that hold such information. In some cases, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be helpful to clarify issues of data ownership and use for purposes of national reporting. AMS agree that the inclusionary and extensive method of information-gathering from relevant stakeholders is essential to the output of national reporting.
In this information age, online tools can help shape national reports. These tools are useful to inform and guide users in the preparation of national reports. In a huge way, these online tools lessen the reporting burden of Parties. They also facilitate standardization of outputs and information sharing if these outputs become available online. However, these tools are yet to be popularized and maximized. Besides, the capacity to use these online tools remains to be developed in many countries as member states in the region are at different
levels of technological advancement. Some countries are well-advanced and at par with far developed Western states, whereas some countries are still at their infancy stages in terms of internet and communication technology.
Collaboration between National Focal Points and Agencies
Institutional and Administrative Framework
Each AMS has its own structure and system related to implementing and reporting. In view of this, AMS should keep under review the institutional and administrative arrangements for implementing and reporting to the biodiversity-related conventions to check the effectiveness of such arrangements. Well-structured and coordinated institutional and administrative frameworks provide solid ground for individuals and organizations involved in the reporting process.
At times, national focal points of different conventions work independently of each other in organizing their national reports. Some of these national focal points hardly know each other. For those in close contact with one another, they seldom meet to talk about what they are doing relative to national reporting. In recognition of this concern, it is important for national focal points to share information between and among themselves on a regular basis.
Information-sharing can be in the form of informal and formal meetings, and enhanced online communication (e.g. e-mails, blog, forum, or an intranet). By knowing each other personally, these national focal points can help immensely in establishing formal and informal interactions between and among themselves.
Legal Framework
Dependent on national circumstances, a national (biodiversity) policy or relevant legal framework can help in establishing a national reporting system which will define the roles and responsibilities of concerned agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. This system can be useful for evaluation and accountability of those agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. By having this legal framework, the national reporting process would have a uniform basis which stakeholders can use as they collect, organize, analyze, and report information.
Collaborative Mechanism
Another useful option to facilitate reporting is setting up of formal collaborative mechanisms such as a steering committee for all relevant conventions. Such collaborative mechanisms require agreement on a lead ministry, agency, or institution to centrally coordinate collaboration of work. Such a lead ministry/agency/institution might also be identified for specific aspects of implementation and reporting themes (e.g. wetlands, forests, agriculture, sustainable use, etc). A complementary option is to identify overlapping issues between different conventions (e.g. inland waters/wetlands for Ramsar and CBD and CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets and CITES) and strengthen cooperation between the relevant focal points on these specific issues.
Cooperation and collaboration between and among stakeholders play a key role in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. AMS agree that there is a need to enhance cooperation, be it bilateral, sub-regional and regional, between and among focal points. The presence of an existing regional cooperation through regional organizations such as ACB and ASEAN Secretariat and international cooperation through the convention secretariats can encourage and guide collaboration in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Giving a high-level authority on these organizations can be
explored to assist and persuade countries to collaborate.
Supplementary Strokes of Action from Donor Agencies and Institutions
Despite the technological development that each AMS is going through, the importance of human interaction in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions is irreplaceable. Thus, regular consultations/dialogues with counterparts and stakeholders (e.g. vertical-horizontal consultations) are essential in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Integrating information and awareness campaigns into regular activities of stakeholders will build up the effectiveness of national reporting and efforts for the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
Donor agencies and institutions with special interest in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions should be informed about the efforts in the AMS. The contents of this output document will be useful to communicate to these agencies and institutions the need by the AMS to enhance its collaborative mechanisms and the engagement of technical assistance as well as the establishment and long-term maintenance of the national data warehouse (e.g. the CHM). The usefulness of existing tools for reporting and harmonization cannot and should not be understated. However, there is an underutilization of these implementation support tools such as the Tematea (http://www.tematea.org/). Opportunities for training in the use of these tools should be explored and promoted.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION: BEYOND THE AMS BORDERS
Harmonization at the global level, to a large extent, is the concern of convention bodies. Although countries set and implement supporting policies for the different conventions, the direction for reporting to conventions and its harmonization is shaped by COPs, Standing Committees, Secretariats and other convention bodies, as appropriate. Hence, it is important to recognize that concerted efforts at the national and international levels should be established.
Drawing from the rich experiences and constructive efforts of countries, convention secretariats can strive to simulate models for harmonization of national reporting between the biodiversity-related conventions. The simulation of models can be further explored, including the following approaches:
• Standardization of reporting formats including standardization of definition such as those for species taxonomy and common terminologies
• Complementarity between reporting formats (e.g. Ramsar report covers aspects of the CBD programmes of work, with CBD not requesting that information through their report)
• Modular reporting which entails a set of themes/categories in which information and data will be collected in line with those themes/categories from relevant agencies and focal points that provide the information and data as required in the reporting
• Core reporting which requires identification of common themes in biodiversity-related conventions to comprise the template of the common core document
AMS also agree that there is a need for clear and practical guidance from the convention secretariats to the Parties for the preparation of national reporting and harmonization of reporting to conventions. It should be pointed out that the harmonization of reporting processes helps minimize time and resources because of streamlining of reporting and avoidance of duplication of data gathering. Furthermore, harmonization of reporting fosters teambuilding and teamwork among focal points and agencies.
Online reporting systems for global biodiversity-related conventions appears to be very helpful but the lack of reliable technological access and capacity to use online tools in many countries currently do not allow for full utilization of online reporting. Tools such as Tematea are encouraged to include clear linkages between implementation activities and national report commitments.
GENERAL PLAN OF ACTION
This section identifies and summarizes the steps the AMS intend to take over the next one to five years to assist governments, convention secretariats, and interested institutions in establishing national priorities on the area of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. The plan of action for harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions with national and global perspectives proceeds with calls for immediate and short-term actions directed to AMS, convention secretariats, regional organizations such as
ACB, the ASEAN Secretariat, and other relevant institutions.
Short-Term Action
For immediate actions, recognizing the usefulness of this document, it is imperative for those who took part in the discussion resulting to and drafting of this document to:
National Level
• Disseminate the workshop results as widely as possible to governments/institutions/ agencies/donors/individuals involved and interested in the work of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
• Assess usefulness of readily available online tools such as Tematea to the national needs and pilot implementation of the online tools for countries with adequate technological capacity and facilities.
• Discuss between and among national focal points and agencies the establishment of collaborative mechanisms including operational data warehouse.
• Review the effectiveness of current institutional and administrative arrangements of agencies tasked for national reporting.
Secretariat Level
• Provide clear and practical guidance to countries with backlogs of reporting obligations.
Long-Term Action
For long-term actions, considering the challenges of harmonization of reporting, the following can be undertaken:
National Level
• Review existing enabling policies that will expedite institutionalization of the harmonization process i.e. institutionalization of national policy that defines national reporting system and roles and accountabilities of agencies/organizations and other stakeholders in the reporting obligations.
• Inform and invite organizations and institutions with regional or international mandates to take an active part of the endeavor to harmonize reporting.
• Place a petition to the relevant governmental bodies such as the ASEAN Working Group on MEA to have special interest in the biodiversity cluster of MEAs.
Secretariat Level
• Pursue the standardization of reporting formats.
• Assist in developing national capacity including technological facilities and skills to demonstrate compliance to convention requirements.
• Evaluate and review on a regular basis the impact and effectiveness of actions taken on harmonization. ACB may take the lead at the regional level with support from the secretariats, countries, and donor/funding institutions
Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/conventions/harmonization/ActionPlan.pdf
Showing posts with label ASEAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ASEAN. Show all posts
Ecosystem Adaptation to Climate Change: The ASEAN Experience
In the early part of the year 2009, severe weather news in various parts of the world shocked the unsuspecting inhabitants of the areas. In Australia, during the two epic five-setter tennis matches by Rafael Nadal of Spain towards his first Australian Open title, the country had a heat wave of above 40 degrees Celsius in the southwest of the country including the cities of Adelaide and Melbourne. About 28 deaths were reported to have been caused by the searing heat (Reuters, 2008). In Europe, a strong storm with 190 kilometers per hour (kph) wind speed battered northern Spain and southwest of France killing 15 people on January 24, 2008 (Fichot, 2008). In Southeast Asia, the city of Cagayan de Oro in southern Philippines experienced a wave of flash floods that started on January 3 and killed at least nine people (Inquirer Bureaus, 2009). Described as unusual, unprecedented, worst and gravest in such areas, the three incidents are symptomatic of climate change that grips our world today. The intensity and frequency of extreme weather occurrences are said to be the dire consequences of climate change. And there will be more, more severe, if climate change is not tackled.
How is Southeast Asia adapting to climate change? Are there regional responses to climate change?
This paper seeks to explore the extent and experiences on ecosystem adaptation to climate change in Southeast Asia.
What we know about climate change
Our understanding of climate change has now improved since it became a buzzword. We owe our enlightened knowledge to the numerous scientists and experts who are instrumental to shift the buzzword from theoretical to real global threat and challenge. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which co-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was recognized for its scientific work on climate change.
The 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) presents a comprehensive view on climate change which is referred to as, “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC, 2007).
The AR4 provides a “schematic framework of anthropogenic climate change drivers, impacts and responses” and their linkages centering on the relationship between earth and human systems (See Figure 1 below). Not only anthropogenic sources bring about climate change, natural disturbances such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, in part, also result to a change in climate.
There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer and warmer. The AR4 indicates that since 1850, eleven of the twelve warmest years registered in the record of the global surface temperature were from 1995-2006. The increase in the average surface temperature from 1906 to 2005 is 0.74°C. This increase in temperature is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Human activities from the sectors of energy, transport and industry are said to be the main emitters of GHG.
Notable impacts of climate change
Whether we like it or not, the way we live our lives is being altered by climate change. Our choices are being shaped by it. The impacts of climate change are already in our midst. From the familiar things and gadgets we use to places we know, they are being influenced and determined by factors that reinforce, mitigate, and adapt climate change. For example, the home appliances and other products
Figure 1. A schematic framework
Source: Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)
have been made compliant to become “environmentally-friendly” and phase out the “ozone-depleting gases” such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
Due to climate change, the global sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year since 1961 to 2003. Low-lying and coastal areas are at risk of constant flooding and erosion, and wetlands may be altered (Ouano, 2007).
On peatlands
Covering over 4 million km2 spread in 180 countries all over the world, “peatlands are important natural ecosystem with high value for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation and human welfare” (Parish et. al., 2007). Climate change impacts on peatlands through desertification and degradation. If not managed properly, peatlands contribute to climate change in a major way. Degradation of peatlands exhales carbon dioxide from peatland drainage and fires of “at least 3,000 million tonnes per annum or equivalent to more than 10% of the global fossil fuel emissions” (ibid, 2007).
On biodiversity
The Biodiversity Synthesis by the 2005 Millennium Assessment Reports (MAR) highlights the significance of biodiversity on various aspects of human life, from security, social relations to freedom of choices and actions. Biodiversity offers ecosystem services through its provisioning services (food, medicines), regulating services (filtering water and air, moderating weather), and cultural services (recreational spaces, tourism, heritage). The MAR notes that one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem services change is climate change. For the last 50 years, biological extinction is unprecedented and depletion of one-fourth of earth’s top soil, one-fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests have occurred (Djoghlaf, 2008).
Interestingly, the MAR also mentions that one of human activities that exert pressure on biodiversity is agriculture.
On agriculture and food
Agricultural productivity, food availability and crop yields will be adversely affected by climate change. On Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the impacts of climate change are divided into two categories; the biophysical impacts which include, among others, changes in the quality and quantity of land, soil and water resources, rise in sea temperature, and the physiological effects in the quality and quantity of crops, livestock, pasture, and forests; and the socio-economic impacts which are decline in production and yields, fluctuations in the global market prices, and among other things.
Brought about by climate change, “increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability” (FAO, 2007).
Ecosystem resilience
There is an inherent capacity of ecosystems to resist and adapt to climate change known as ecological resilience (Prato and Fagre, 2006). Our ecosystem has this inherent capacity which makes our habitat livable in spite of the harmful changes it undergoes and confronts. “Ecological resilience concentrates on the ability of a set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to persist” and allows “the change required to move the ecosystem from being organized around one set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to another” (Holling et. al., 2006).
Climate change places lots of pressures on the ecosystem’s capacity. “When this capacity is exceeded, the ecosystem can change in ways that may not be socially and ecologically acceptable” (Prato and Fagre, 2006). That is why there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystem and strengthen its ecological resilience through mitigation and adaptation approaches to climate change. Without any consequential action on climate change, the impacts are going to be severe in the coming years. Mitigation approaches are intended to reduce the ecosystems’ vulnerability and GHG in the biosphere while adaptation approaches are meant to enhance ecosystems’ ecological resilience to climate change.
Ecosystem adaptation
Ecosystem adaptation aims to deal with the impacts that are already present in the ecosystem, recover from the impacts and build the resilience of the people and ecosystem.
In the position paper by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to the Fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it states that “adaptation to climate change should now be a central element of climate change policy at local, national, regional and international level.” Furthermore, it “calls States to mainstream ecosystem-based adaptation as an integral element of overall climate change adaptation in poverty reduction strategies and development planning.” (For the purpose of this paper, ecosystem adaptation and ecosystem-based adaptation would be treated as the same)
The IUCN defines ecosystem-based adaptation as “a range of local and landscape scale strategies for managing ecosystems to increase resilience and maintain essential ecosystem services and reduce the vulnerability of the people, their livelihoods and nature in the face of climate change” (IUCN, 2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation calls for a collective action among stakeholders including the governments, communities, environmental groups, development organizations “to plan and empower local action that will increase environmental and community resilience to the changing climate” (ibid, 2008).
ASEAN experiences on adaptation
There are ten countries that comprise ASEAN as a regional bloc, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now a chartered regional organization which aims to integrate member-countries into one rule-based and dynamic community. The region is home to biodiversity hotspots which host about 20% of the known species in the world. As in any other regions, ASEAN is facing the grave risks and threats of climate change.
As a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN has instituted regional agreements, initiatives and strategies to combat environmental concerns such as transboundary haze through ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution, peatland management through ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy, and conservation of protected areas through the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks.
Outside the ASEAN organization, there are “regional” efforts of ecosystem adaptation. The Rice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a form of farmers’ field school that provides knowledge and understanding of ecological principles, monitoring crop cycles, destructive and friendly pests, and biodiversity. Started in Indonesia, the IPM is now benefitting the Vietnamese and Filipino farmers through increased crop production and reduction of pesticides inputs (Ooi, 2000). Another effort with “regional” scope is the Ecoregion conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Sharing similar or interrelated ecological characteristics and processes, the three countries of ASEAN, under Ecoregion conservation, are “to develop long term conservation programs that ensure the persistence of healthy ecosystems and species by mainstreaming conservation with natural resource management” (Hodgdon, 2000). Another ecoregion project that includes Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines is the Ecoregion Conservation Plan in the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion which is part of the Coral Triangle, the richest source of marine biodiversity in the world.
Conclusion
Climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events worldwide. The continued warming of the earth’s surface temperature is changing or threatening to change the landscapes and seascapes, triggering biodiversity loss and decline in crop yields, agricultural productivity and food supply, and peoples’ lifestyles. While mitigation approaches to climate change are reducing the vulnerability of ecosystem by cutting emissions of GHG, adaption approaches are necessary to adjust to the anticipated impacts of climate change. Ecosystem adaptation is a useful strategy to help communities and ecosystem become more resilient to the climate change impacts. Adaptation strategies must be cost-effective, participatory and sustainable to be able to effectively address the present and anticipated impacts.
ASEAN has recognized the need to combat the impacts collectively as a region. As a regional response to the threats and challenges of climate change, it has initiated and instituted plan of actions on various environmental concerns that are shared by and common to some if not all ASEAN member-countries. Other efforts with “regional” coverage are contributing to the task of making communities and ecosystem adaptive to climate change.
Although these efforts and initiatives may not be specifically directed to tackle climate change, they are, nevertheless, directly addressing its impacts on communities and ecosystem. If that is so, they are ecosystem adaptation with which we can suitably confront the impacts of climate change, not just in ASEAN, but in our world. What we do in ASEAN will have an impact on our task to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
References:
Djoghlaf, A. (2008, April-June). Climate and Biodiversity: The twin planetary environmental challenges of
the 21st Century. ASEAN Biodiversity, 7, 10-17.
Fichot, N. (2009, January 25). Spain pick up pieces after deadly storm. Reuters AlertNet. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LP686061.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities. Rome, Italy. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j9271e/j9271e.pdf
Hodgdon, B. (2000). Ecoregion Conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam: Approach, Experiences
and Preliminary Outputs. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Holling, C., Peterson, G. and C. Allen (1998). Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems, 1,
6-18. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/BioDEcoFn.pdf
Inquirer Bureaus (2009, January 15). 9 dead in flash floods, storm surges. Philippines Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20090115-183446/9-dead-in-flash-floods-storm-surges
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Adaptation to Climate Change. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/unfccc_cop14_adaptation_pp_19_nov_08_final.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation: An approach
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_submission_on_ecosystem_based_adaptation_final_6_dec_2008.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
Ooi, P. (2000). Rice IPM as application of the ecosystem system approach in Indonesia and elsewhere in
Asia. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Ouano, A. (2007, April-June). Climate Change and Initiatives. ASEAN Biodiversity, 6, 25-31.
Parish, F. Sirin, A., Charman, D. Joosten, H., Minayeva, T. and Silvius, M. (eds.) 2007. Assesment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Executive Summary. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.peat-portal.net/index.cfm?&menuid=123&parentid=113.
Prato, T. and D. Fagre (2006). Coping with Climate Change. American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/ActionBioscience_PratoFagre_06.pdf
How is Southeast Asia adapting to climate change? Are there regional responses to climate change?
This paper seeks to explore the extent and experiences on ecosystem adaptation to climate change in Southeast Asia.
What we know about climate change
Our understanding of climate change has now improved since it became a buzzword. We owe our enlightened knowledge to the numerous scientists and experts who are instrumental to shift the buzzword from theoretical to real global threat and challenge. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which co-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was recognized for its scientific work on climate change.
The 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) presents a comprehensive view on climate change which is referred to as, “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC, 2007).
The AR4 provides a “schematic framework of anthropogenic climate change drivers, impacts and responses” and their linkages centering on the relationship between earth and human systems (See Figure 1 below). Not only anthropogenic sources bring about climate change, natural disturbances such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, in part, also result to a change in climate.
There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer and warmer. The AR4 indicates that since 1850, eleven of the twelve warmest years registered in the record of the global surface temperature were from 1995-2006. The increase in the average surface temperature from 1906 to 2005 is 0.74°C. This increase in temperature is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Human activities from the sectors of energy, transport and industry are said to be the main emitters of GHG.
Notable impacts of climate change
Whether we like it or not, the way we live our lives is being altered by climate change. Our choices are being shaped by it. The impacts of climate change are already in our midst. From the familiar things and gadgets we use to places we know, they are being influenced and determined by factors that reinforce, mitigate, and adapt climate change. For example, the home appliances and other products
Figure 1. A schematic framework
Source: Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)
have been made compliant to become “environmentally-friendly” and phase out the “ozone-depleting gases” such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
Due to climate change, the global sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year since 1961 to 2003. Low-lying and coastal areas are at risk of constant flooding and erosion, and wetlands may be altered (Ouano, 2007).
On peatlands
Covering over 4 million km2 spread in 180 countries all over the world, “peatlands are important natural ecosystem with high value for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation and human welfare” (Parish et. al., 2007). Climate change impacts on peatlands through desertification and degradation. If not managed properly, peatlands contribute to climate change in a major way. Degradation of peatlands exhales carbon dioxide from peatland drainage and fires of “at least 3,000 million tonnes per annum or equivalent to more than 10% of the global fossil fuel emissions” (ibid, 2007).
On biodiversity
The Biodiversity Synthesis by the 2005 Millennium Assessment Reports (MAR) highlights the significance of biodiversity on various aspects of human life, from security, social relations to freedom of choices and actions. Biodiversity offers ecosystem services through its provisioning services (food, medicines), regulating services (filtering water and air, moderating weather), and cultural services (recreational spaces, tourism, heritage). The MAR notes that one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem services change is climate change. For the last 50 years, biological extinction is unprecedented and depletion of one-fourth of earth’s top soil, one-fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests have occurred (Djoghlaf, 2008).
Interestingly, the MAR also mentions that one of human activities that exert pressure on biodiversity is agriculture.
On agriculture and food
Agricultural productivity, food availability and crop yields will be adversely affected by climate change. On Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the impacts of climate change are divided into two categories; the biophysical impacts which include, among others, changes in the quality and quantity of land, soil and water resources, rise in sea temperature, and the physiological effects in the quality and quantity of crops, livestock, pasture, and forests; and the socio-economic impacts which are decline in production and yields, fluctuations in the global market prices, and among other things.
Brought about by climate change, “increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability” (FAO, 2007).
Ecosystem resilience
There is an inherent capacity of ecosystems to resist and adapt to climate change known as ecological resilience (Prato and Fagre, 2006). Our ecosystem has this inherent capacity which makes our habitat livable in spite of the harmful changes it undergoes and confronts. “Ecological resilience concentrates on the ability of a set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to persist” and allows “the change required to move the ecosystem from being organized around one set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to another” (Holling et. al., 2006).
Climate change places lots of pressures on the ecosystem’s capacity. “When this capacity is exceeded, the ecosystem can change in ways that may not be socially and ecologically acceptable” (Prato and Fagre, 2006). That is why there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystem and strengthen its ecological resilience through mitigation and adaptation approaches to climate change. Without any consequential action on climate change, the impacts are going to be severe in the coming years. Mitigation approaches are intended to reduce the ecosystems’ vulnerability and GHG in the biosphere while adaptation approaches are meant to enhance ecosystems’ ecological resilience to climate change.
Ecosystem adaptation
Ecosystem adaptation aims to deal with the impacts that are already present in the ecosystem, recover from the impacts and build the resilience of the people and ecosystem.
In the position paper by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to the Fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it states that “adaptation to climate change should now be a central element of climate change policy at local, national, regional and international level.” Furthermore, it “calls States to mainstream ecosystem-based adaptation as an integral element of overall climate change adaptation in poverty reduction strategies and development planning.” (For the purpose of this paper, ecosystem adaptation and ecosystem-based adaptation would be treated as the same)
The IUCN defines ecosystem-based adaptation as “a range of local and landscape scale strategies for managing ecosystems to increase resilience and maintain essential ecosystem services and reduce the vulnerability of the people, their livelihoods and nature in the face of climate change” (IUCN, 2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation calls for a collective action among stakeholders including the governments, communities, environmental groups, development organizations “to plan and empower local action that will increase environmental and community resilience to the changing climate” (ibid, 2008).
ASEAN experiences on adaptation
There are ten countries that comprise ASEAN as a regional bloc, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now a chartered regional organization which aims to integrate member-countries into one rule-based and dynamic community. The region is home to biodiversity hotspots which host about 20% of the known species in the world. As in any other regions, ASEAN is facing the grave risks and threats of climate change.
As a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN has instituted regional agreements, initiatives and strategies to combat environmental concerns such as transboundary haze through ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution, peatland management through ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy, and conservation of protected areas through the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks.
Outside the ASEAN organization, there are “regional” efforts of ecosystem adaptation. The Rice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a form of farmers’ field school that provides knowledge and understanding of ecological principles, monitoring crop cycles, destructive and friendly pests, and biodiversity. Started in Indonesia, the IPM is now benefitting the Vietnamese and Filipino farmers through increased crop production and reduction of pesticides inputs (Ooi, 2000). Another effort with “regional” scope is the Ecoregion conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Sharing similar or interrelated ecological characteristics and processes, the three countries of ASEAN, under Ecoregion conservation, are “to develop long term conservation programs that ensure the persistence of healthy ecosystems and species by mainstreaming conservation with natural resource management” (Hodgdon, 2000). Another ecoregion project that includes Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines is the Ecoregion Conservation Plan in the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion which is part of the Coral Triangle, the richest source of marine biodiversity in the world.
Conclusion
Climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events worldwide. The continued warming of the earth’s surface temperature is changing or threatening to change the landscapes and seascapes, triggering biodiversity loss and decline in crop yields, agricultural productivity and food supply, and peoples’ lifestyles. While mitigation approaches to climate change are reducing the vulnerability of ecosystem by cutting emissions of GHG, adaption approaches are necessary to adjust to the anticipated impacts of climate change. Ecosystem adaptation is a useful strategy to help communities and ecosystem become more resilient to the climate change impacts. Adaptation strategies must be cost-effective, participatory and sustainable to be able to effectively address the present and anticipated impacts.
ASEAN has recognized the need to combat the impacts collectively as a region. As a regional response to the threats and challenges of climate change, it has initiated and instituted plan of actions on various environmental concerns that are shared by and common to some if not all ASEAN member-countries. Other efforts with “regional” coverage are contributing to the task of making communities and ecosystem adaptive to climate change.
Although these efforts and initiatives may not be specifically directed to tackle climate change, they are, nevertheless, directly addressing its impacts on communities and ecosystem. If that is so, they are ecosystem adaptation with which we can suitably confront the impacts of climate change, not just in ASEAN, but in our world. What we do in ASEAN will have an impact on our task to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
References:
Djoghlaf, A. (2008, April-June). Climate and Biodiversity: The twin planetary environmental challenges of
the 21st Century. ASEAN Biodiversity, 7, 10-17.
Fichot, N. (2009, January 25). Spain pick up pieces after deadly storm. Reuters AlertNet. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LP686061.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities. Rome, Italy. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j9271e/j9271e.pdf
Hodgdon, B. (2000). Ecoregion Conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam: Approach, Experiences
and Preliminary Outputs. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Holling, C., Peterson, G. and C. Allen (1998). Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems, 1,
6-18. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/BioDEcoFn.pdf
Inquirer Bureaus (2009, January 15). 9 dead in flash floods, storm surges. Philippines Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20090115-183446/9-dead-in-flash-floods-storm-surges
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Adaptation to Climate Change. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/unfccc_cop14_adaptation_pp_19_nov_08_final.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation: An approach
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_submission_on_ecosystem_based_adaptation_final_6_dec_2008.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
Ooi, P. (2000). Rice IPM as application of the ecosystem system approach in Indonesia and elsewhere in
Asia. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Ouano, A. (2007, April-June). Climate Change and Initiatives. ASEAN Biodiversity, 6, 25-31.
Parish, F. Sirin, A., Charman, D. Joosten, H., Minayeva, T. and Silvius, M. (eds.) 2007. Assesment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Executive Summary. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.peat-portal.net/index.cfm?&menuid=123&parentid=113.
Prato, T. and D. Fagre (2006). Coping with Climate Change. American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/ActionBioscience_PratoFagre_06.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
