1 / 67

Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change

Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change. Luohui Liang Institute for Sustainability and Peace United nations University. 14 UNU Centers ---world wide (ISP, EHS, WIDER, INWEH,etc.,) 22 Associated Institutions (AIT, ITC, ＧＮＥＲＩ， etc.,) Cooperating Institutions

lona
Download Presentation

Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change Luohui Liang Institute for Sustainability and Peace United nations University

  2. 14 UNU Centers ---world wide (ISP, EHS, WIDER, INWEH,etc.,) • 22 Associated Institutions (AIT, ITC, ＧＮＥＲＩ， etc.,) • Cooperating Institutions • International Operating units • Joint research projects with a network of faculty • Financed by voluntary contributions - host countries and research grants 2

  3. Institute for Sustainability and Peace • UNU-ISP became operational on 1st of January 2009 integrating former Environment and Sustainable Development and Peace and Governance Programmes at the UNU in Tokyo to create trans-disciplinary synergies that can more effectively address pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare. • Global change and sustainability • Environmentalchange and change by human actions on Sustainability • Peace and security • International cooperation and development

  4. Sustainability & Adaptation Climate and ecosystem is changing, adaptation to change is imperative for sustainability. “Adaptation is Sustainability in action ” Both global and local phenomena should be considered with global and local responses For 2009~ UNU-ISP will focus on: Climate and ecosystem change adaptation research

  5. People, Environment, and Sustainable Livelihood University Network Future strategy Urban Risk Management Climate and Ecosystem Change Adaptation Research -CECAR- Focus on three themes UN Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCC UN Convention on Biodiversity UNCBD UN Convention to Combat Desertification UNCCD Existing programmesfocusing on rapid and slow changes & responses) • Managing agricultural biodiversity • Sustainable Forest Management • Combating desertification • Capacity development • Coping with extreme flood • CC adaptation Asian institute of Technology Transboundary basins Australian National University Tsinghua University University of Tokyo

  6. Interactions between climate change, biodiversity and desertification Impact of climate change on biodiversity Climate change could alter distribution of speicas and their habitats and lead to migration of plants and animals if there are corridors Role of biodiversity in climate change mitigation and adaptation Forest and biodiversity sequester carbon and affect local climate Biodiversity ensures ecosystem resilience to climate change Impact of Climate change on desertification Rising temperature increases evaportranstation and causes drought i Decreasing precipitation leads to drought Impact of desertification on climate Desertification causes loss of vegetation and soil carbon and changes drylands from carbon sink into carbon source Dust storms increase aerosols with cooling effect Climate Change Impact of desertification on biodiversity Desertification degrades habitats for biodiversity and leads to loss of biodiversity Role of biodiversity in combating desertification Loss of drought- resistant biodiversity reduces resilience of ecosystem to droughts. Vegetation protects soil from erosion and stabilizes slopes from landslides. Desertification Biodiversity

  7. Integrated approaches to UNFCCC, CBD, and CCD: Two Examples • 1. Climate change adaption • Downscale climate change projections and impacts • Adjust the system of biodiversity protected areas, create corridors for migration and incorporate ex-situ conservation if migration is not possible • Develop water harvesting and storage systems to manage water cycle affected by climate change • 2. Sustainable land management to achieve co-benefits • Conservation and sustainable management of forests protect biodiversity habitats and sequester carbon in the vegetation • Sustainable agriculture enhances soil organic matter for carbon storage and conserve agrobiodiversity • Biodiversity and forests are harnessed to mitigate climate change impact

  8. Establishing a University Network for Climate and Ecosystems Adaptation Research 2009 June Conference in Tokyo: Consultative meeting to discuss role of higher education in Adapting climate change Decisions: Establish a University-Network: Climate and Ecosystems Change Adaptation Research Agree on TOR Define structure

  9. Case Study Outline • Introduction • Research process • Monograph of the study site • Policyreview • Findings (& Results) • Discussion and conclusions

  10. Montane Mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA) • Biodiversity Hotspots • International watersheds • Diverse transboundary ethnic groups • Development behind the lowland • Land use in transition CENTER OF ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY of RICE

  11. MMSEA: Bio-cultural diversity and international watershed

  12. Shifting Cultivation in Transition • Cropping phase: food security and balanced nutrition (a variety of crops (cereals, root crops, vegetables, etc); • Fallowing phase: wood, non-wood forest products, and ecosystem services (soil regeneration, control of weeds and soil erosion, biodiversity conservation) Land Use Mosaics of Different Stages of Fallows and Cropping

  13. Study Sites in MMSEA UNU set up a regional network to create new knowledge and alternative options for harnessing and up-scaling local knowledge and actions with positive impact into implementation of sustainable development policies.

  14. Case Study in Laos: Laksip Village, Luangprabang • Understand implications of land use policy in sustainable development, • Assess to what extent and how the traditional land use and formal land arrangements have contributed to development of alternative land use, • Synthesize research findings and available knowledge into the sustainable development of SC in Lao PDR and MMSEA region.

  15. Outline • Introduction • Research process • Monograph of the study site • Policyreview • Findings (& Results) • Discussion and conclusions

  16. Research Process (1)

  17. Research Process (2) cont’d

  18. Outline • Introduction • Research process • Monograph of the study site • Policyreview • Findings (& Results) • Discussion and conclusions

  19. Historical background Laksip Village was established in 1962 by 3 families Huaytong village merged with Laksip in1976-77 Nasone village merged with Laksip in 1982-83 Huaynokpit moved to Laksip in 1996-97 LUPLA was implemented in 1985 Laksip land incorporated Huaynokpit land based on agreement dated 27/4/1999

  20. Land cover and land use based on land use zoning

  21. Socio-demographic characteristics • Number households: 95 Households • Number families: 90 families • Total population: 450 persons • Divided in 3 groups: • Khmu: 89% (80 families) • Laoloum:11 (9 families) • Hmong: 1% (1 family)

  22. Village economy: on-farm

  23. Village economy: off-farm

  24. Outline • Introduction • Monograph of the study site • Policy review • Research process • Findings: • Discussion and conclusions

  25. Relocation policy • Huyatong in 1976 and Nasone in 1982 • Main purposes: • Access to infrastructure & public health • Small and remote villages should merge to more accessible and larger village • Land still belongs to their ownership (relocated only)

  26. Land use planning & Land allocation programme • LUPLA was implemented in 1995 • Main purposes: • Promote sedentary production to replace shifting cultivation • Protect forest through land allocation • Achievements: • 2 steps completed: • Demarcation of village boundary • Delineation of agriculture and forest lands • Allocation of land to households is still based on traditional custom.

  27. Watershed conservation policy • Huaynokpit in 1996 • Main purpose: Protectheadwater areas as the village was located at headwater of Luangprabang & Xienngeun districts • Relocation based on their choice. In fact the villagers could chose to moveto Densavanh village where more landwas available, but most chose Lak Sip.

  28. FAO Project (1985-1991) • Main purposes: • Assist PAFO & DAFO in management of natural resources (forest, land & water) • Promote SLM practices to replace shifting agriculture • Establishnurserys for production of tree seedling production, especially teak • Demonstrate SLM practices (terracing, agroforestry, hill side ditch, alley cropping and animal raising) by training

  29. Outline • Introduction • Research process • Monograph of the project site • Policy review • Findings and results: • Land use change • Consequences • Discussion and conclusions

  30. Existing Land Uses of Laksip Village

  31. Land Use Zoning

  32. Change in Land Use Zoning

  33. Rice Cultivation and Teak Plantation from 1995 to 2008

  34. Rice is followed by teaks

  35. Change in the Fallow Length

  36. Changes in Land Management

  37. Policy Drivers of Land Use Change • Relocation policy, 1976-82 • Huaytong & Nasone were relocated to Lak Sip. • Development projects (1986) • Teak nursery technique introduced in the village by the FAO project. • LUPLA (zoning),1995 • Delineation between forest and agricultural lands • Forests were closed from timber production, timber needs have to be met with expansion of teak plantation • Watershed conservation policy,1996 • Huaynokpit was relocated for watershed conservation

  38. Market demand for cash crops Price of teak in the market: 300US$ per cubic meters Comparative advantages of teak over rice production (labor saving and economic profit) Rice per ha: 228 days’ labour, net return of -3,800,000 kip (negative) Teak per ha: 135 days’ labour, net return of 144,819,500 kip Teak plantation as a saving and investment for: Children, education General expenses House construction Emergency, etc Increasing availability of off-farm jobs (factory, and hotel construction) in Luang Prabang Socio-economic Drivers of Land Use Change

  39. Reasons to Plant Teak

  40. Increasing Role of Off-Farm in Annual Income Off farm 2003 2009 1990 On farm

  41. Environmental Consequence of Land Use Change • More than 20% of forest areas restored; • Agrodiversity remains unchanged; • Wild life and NTFPs declined; • Land degradation • Crop yield decreased • Watershed service declined • Evapo-transpiration increased • Rain infiltration reduced • Periodic flush floods and low base flows • A sudden lowering of the water level of the stream with expansion of teak since1985 • Soil carbon storage in teak plantation: 20-30 tonne/ha

  42. Forest Restoration in Former Houaynokpit Village

  43. Rain Water Infiltration ReducedDuring the Rainy Season in 2009 (Anneke de Rouw, 2010)

  44. Economic Consequence of Land Use Change • Off-farm labor has increased at expense of resting time; • Income change/trend of farmers has increased by 70%; • Farming system: traditional rice-based system has been replaced by cash crops based system.

  45. Social Consequences of Land Use Changes • Labor division: • Husbands and young adults work for off farm • Women and children work on farm • Time allocation (getting busier) • Safety net (teak plantation) • Food security: increasing dependency on markets

  46. Average Time Allocation (days per year)

  47. Outline • Introduction • Monograph of the project site • Policy review • Research activities • Findings & Results • Discussion and conclusions

  48. Discussion and conclusions (1) • Traditional land management system • Rice-based subsistence • Shifting cultivation with fallow of more than 5 year • No-tillage • Traditional land tenure • Course and the sequence of changes in the policy related to land use management • Relocation policy • LUPLA • Watershed conservation policy • FAO project

More Related