napa implementation in practice khalida bouzar, gef coordinator leg meeting, bangkok, 3-5 september...

15
NAPA implementation NAPA implementation in practice in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Upload: paula-stanley

Post on 22-Dec-2015

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

NAPA implementationNAPA implementationin practicein practice

Khalida Bouzar, GEF CoordinatorKhalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator

LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007September 2007

IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGESIFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENTAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Page 2: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

AGRICULTUREAGRICULTUREandand

CLIMATE CHANGECLIMATE CHANGE

Page 3: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

Linkages between Linkages between agricultureagricultureand climate changeand climate change (1)(1)

Agriculture is considered one of the most vulnerable Agriculture is considered one of the most vulnerable sectors to climate change:sectors to climate change:

– Threats to food securityThreats to food security– Increased stress on fragile farming systemsIncreased stress on fragile farming systems– Loss of biodiversity/Agro-biodiversityLoss of biodiversity/Agro-biodiversity– Decrease in water availability and qualityDecrease in water availability and quality– Reduction of crop resilience to climate variabilityReduction of crop resilience to climate variability– Negative impact on animal health, livestock Negative impact on animal health, livestock

production and fisheriesproduction and fisheries– Impacts on national economies, especially of LDCs, Impacts on national economies, especially of LDCs,

since agriculture is the major economic activity in since agriculture is the major economic activity in most of them.most of them.

Page 4: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

Linkages between Linkages between agricultureagricultureand climate change (2)and climate change (2)

At the same time it is At the same time it is also one of the main also one of the main contributor to GHGs contributor to GHGs emissions:emissions:

– COCO2 2 emissions mainly emissions mainly from land use change;from land use change;

– Methane (CHMethane (CH44) emissions ) emissions from the livestock sector from the livestock sector and from rice production;and from rice production;

– nitrous oxides (Nnitrous oxides (N22O) from O) from the use of fertilizers.the use of fertilizers.

38%

32%

12%

11%

7%

N2O soils

CH4 enteric

Biomass burning

Rice mgmt.

other

Agriculture Emissions 2005

Page 5: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

GHGs from agricultureGHGs from agriculture

Most of the emissions proceeding from agriculture Most of the emissions proceeding from agriculture occur in developing countries……and emissions from occur in developing countries……and emissions from agriculture in developing countries are estimated to agriculture in developing countries are estimated to increase.increase.

NN220 emissions0 emissionsCHCH44 emissions emissions

Page 6: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

Possible interventionsPossible interventionsin the agricultural sectorin the agricultural sector

MitigationMitigation– Switching to Switching to no-tillageno-tillage or or low-tillagelow-tillage techniques to preserve techniques to preserve

carbon stored in soil;carbon stored in soil;– Reducing methane’s emissions from rice production through Reducing methane’s emissions from rice production through

better tillage practices, water management and crop rotation;better tillage practices, water management and crop rotation;– Using more efficiently nitrogen fertilizer to reduce nitrous oxide;Using more efficiently nitrogen fertilizer to reduce nitrous oxide;– Improving land use and management practices (LULUCF);Improving land use and management practices (LULUCF);– Forestry;Forestry;– Sustainable Coastal management and fisheries.Sustainable Coastal management and fisheries.

Adaptation: Adaptation: The choice of the best adaptation options depends The choice of the best adaptation options depends on country-specific vulnerabilitieson country-specific vulnerabilities– Wide range of possible options, including adopting new cultivars Wide range of possible options, including adopting new cultivars

or changing crops and planting date, crops rotation, alternative or changing crops and planting date, crops rotation, alternative tillage systems and erosion control techniquestillage systems and erosion control techniques

– Improve risk management and preparedness, especially with Improve risk management and preparedness, especially with reference to extreme events, are two important components of reference to extreme events, are two important components of adaptation ( early warning systems, drought contingency plans, adaptation ( early warning systems, drought contingency plans, response to flooding, raising awareness, water management, etc)response to flooding, raising awareness, water management, etc)

Page 7: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

IFAD’s ROLE IN IFAD’s ROLE IN ADDRESSING CLIMATE ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGECHANGE

Page 8: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

IFAD’s mandateIFAD’s mandate

IFAD’s goal is to empower poor people in developing IFAD’s goal is to empower poor people in developing countries to achieve higher incomes and improved food countries to achieve higher incomes and improved food securitysecurity

IFAD’s target group is made up of extremely poor and IFAD’s target group is made up of extremely poor and vulnerable people: small farmers, herders, rural women, vulnerable people: small farmers, herders, rural women, etc.etc.

Climate change has been acknowledged in IFAD’s 2007-Climate change has been acknowledged in IFAD’s 2007-2010 Strategic Framework as one of the factors causing 2010 Strategic Framework as one of the factors causing rural poverty and IFAD clearly mentioned climate change rural poverty and IFAD clearly mentioned climate change as one of the new challenges that it needs to address.as one of the new challenges that it needs to address.

Under the IFAD/GEF-4 engagement strategy, IFAD is Under the IFAD/GEF-4 engagement strategy, IFAD is committed to give priority to innovative themes, such as committed to give priority to innovative themes, such as climate change and especially adaptation and to support climate change and especially adaptation and to support pilot and demonstration projects for adaptation to pilot and demonstration projects for adaptation to climate change. climate change.

Page 9: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

IFAD’s expertise:IFAD’s expertise:implications for climate implications for climate changechange

IFAD has a comparative advantage in working on combating land IFAD has a comparative advantage in working on combating land degradation, rural sustainable development and integrated natural degradation, rural sustainable development and integrated natural resource managementresource management

Through its past projects on irrigation, drought preparedness, Through its past projects on irrigation, drought preparedness,

contingency plans, renewable energies, etc. as well as GEF projects, contingency plans, renewable energies, etc. as well as GEF projects, IFAD has gained experience on climate change.IFAD has gained experience on climate change.

IFAD’s engagement on climate change is based mainly on developing IFAD’s engagement on climate change is based mainly on developing activities that nurture linkages between Sustainable Land activities that nurture linkages between Sustainable Land Management and climate change.Management and climate change.

Based on its experience, IFAD has a clear comparative advantage on Based on its experience, IFAD has a clear comparative advantage on adaptation to climate change rather than mitigation.adaptation to climate change rather than mitigation.

However, the recent broadening of the GEF Climate Change window However, the recent broadening of the GEF Climate Change window to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) opens to IFAD to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) opens to IFAD interesting perspectives for future involvement on climate change interesting perspectives for future involvement on climate change mitigation.mitigation.

Page 10: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

Some concrete Some concrete examplesexamples

Sri LankaSri Lanka: : The GEFSEC approved a project for grant under The GEFSEC approved a project for grant under the SPA (one of the 3 GEF Adaptation financing mechanisms) the SPA (one of the 3 GEF Adaptation financing mechanisms) entitled “Participatory Coastal Zone Restoration and Sustainable entitled “Participatory Coastal Zone Restoration and Sustainable Management in the Eastern Province of post-tsunami Sri Lanka”. Management in the Eastern Province of post-tsunami Sri Lanka”. The long-term goal of the project is the rehabilitation and The long-term goal of the project is the rehabilitation and sustainable management of Tsunami-affected ecosystems, sustainable management of Tsunami-affected ecosystems, including adaptation against extreme climatic events in coastal including adaptation against extreme climatic events in coastal zones.zones.

BangladeshBangladesh: : The Special Assistance Project for Cyclone-The Special Assistance Project for Cyclone-affected Rural Households is a concrete example of IFAD’s affected Rural Households is a concrete example of IFAD’s response to natural disasters. The project strengthened the response to natural disasters. The project strengthened the coping strategies of poor rural households hit by the cyclone in coping strategies of poor rural households hit by the cyclone in 1991.1991.

In In Sub-Saharan AfricaSub-Saharan Africa, , IFAD supports inter alia IFAD supports inter alia adaptation to climate change within the framework of a Regional adaptation to climate change within the framework of a Regional Partnership on SLM (TerrAfrica) and its Strategic Investment Partnership on SLM (TerrAfrica) and its Strategic Investment Programme (SIP). Programme (SIP).

Page 11: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

IFAD: a KEY actorIFAD: a KEY actorfor the GEFfor the GEF

In 2001, the Council of the Global Environment facility In 2001, the Council of the Global Environment facility (GEF) named IFAD a GEF executing agency in (GEF) named IFAD a GEF executing agency in recognition of its expertise in land degradation.recognition of its expertise in land degradation.

IFAD’s flexible programme approach and long-term IFAD’s flexible programme approach and long-term lending framework are conducive to close collaboration lending framework are conducive to close collaboration with the GEF in addressing global environmental with the GEF in addressing global environmental concerns while meeting local development needs.concerns while meeting local development needs.

In June 2007, the GEF Council recognized that, in In June 2007, the GEF Council recognized that, in addition to land degradation, IFAD had developed the addition to land degradation, IFAD had developed the capacity to work in other GEF focal areas, such as capacity to work in other GEF focal areas, such as biodiversity and climate change.biodiversity and climate change.

Page 12: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

GEF components within IFAD’s GEF components within IFAD’s projects: co-financing and projects: co-financing and baselinebaseline

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Brazil VenezuelaChina Sri Lanka ASEAN Tunisia Morocco Jordan Ethiopia Mali Kenya CCD-related

LAC ASIA NENA Sub-Saharan Africa Global

Page 13: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

IFAD: an important partner IFAD: an important partner for NAPA implementation in for NAPA implementation in

LDCsLDCs Most of the NAPA indicate agriculture as a Most of the NAPA indicate agriculture as a

prioritized sector of interventionprioritized sector of intervention

Given its experience on agriculture, IFAD can Given its experience on agriculture, IFAD can implement the relevant proposed projects and implement the relevant proposed projects and facilitate the access of LDCs to GEF fundingfacilitate the access of LDCs to GEF funding

NAPA projects can be fully blended within IFAD NAPA projects can be fully blended within IFAD portfolioportfolio

IFAD will also gain from this partnership by IFAD will also gain from this partnership by

further climate proofing its portfoliofurther climate proofing its portfolio

Thus, it is a win-win situation for both players!Thus, it is a win-win situation for both players!

Page 14: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

Road map for the Road map for the implementation of the NAPAs implementation of the NAPAs with IFADwith IFAD

IFAD

PMD

GEF Unit

Countries* with NAPA alreadycompleted and approved

Project Proposal (related to a sector of intervention of IFAD

and integrated into a baseline)

PIF/PPG with L.E of thecountry GEF focal point

PPG phase (if approved): project preparation

Project approval by IFAD,the government and the GEF Implementation

(*) A country where IFAD has an active portfolio

Page 15: NAPA implementation in practice Khalida Bouzar, GEF Coordinator LEG meeting, Bangkok, 3-5 September 2007 IFAD’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES on on AGRICULTURAL

Thank you!Thank you!