Valuating climate adaptation options: Placencia Peninsula, Belize

Transcription

1 Valuating climate adaptation options: Placencia Peninsula, Belize Nadia Bood*, Amy Rosenthal, Katie Arkema, Gregory Verutes and Mariana Panuncio April 16 th, 2015 Page 1

2 Description Valuating Climate Adaptation Options used ecosystem service and cost-benefit analysis to illuminate the trade-offs between different climate adaptation strategies on Placencia Peninsula, Belize. It accounts for coastal-marine ecosystem services like tourism opportunities, protection from storms and sea level rise, and spiny lobster catch to make informed decisions. Page 2

3 The Context Challenges faced for which the solution aims to address include: Unsustainable tourism development practices (land clearance, dredging & reclamation) Deforestation for village expansion Mangrove clearance by shrimp aquaculture farms Contamination of Placencia Lagoon and nearby reef systems (die-off seagrass beds and corals, compromised lagoon nursery function, etc.) Vulnerability to natural and climate-related threats Page 3

4 Building Block #1: Characterization of ecosystem services Ecosystems considered: corals reefs, mangroves and seagrass Utilized some results from stakeholder consultations and service valuation from the ICZM planning process. Other data on ecosystem service benefits via local consultations. Data compiled and included within Natural Capital s Marine InVEST for valuation purpose. Page 4

5 Building Block #2: Design of climate mitigation scenarios Stakeholders consulted to obtain feedback on relative vulnerabilities (e.g. climate impacts). Information also sourced via desktop research and review of journal articles. Analysis of direct and indirect influence of climate factors on ecosystem services/habitats conducted. Climate impact hypotheses formulated and scenarios developed for use in modelling. Page 5

6 Building Block #3: Design of climate adaptation scenarios Climate scenarios analysed against ES provisions (tourism, fisheries, coastal protection, C sequestration). Adaptation strategies* from consultations and research were narrowed down based on potential costeffectiveness and triple-wins. These were analysed under three management scenarios (i.e. no action, integrative, reactive). Ocean temperature 2100 Global mitigation +1.5 degrees C Global Inaction +3.0 degrees C IPCC 4 th Assessment, Working Group II, Table 13.7, Simpson et al., 2010 Sea level rise 2100 Global Global mitigation Inaction 0.5 m 2 m Simpson et al 2010, IPCC 4 th Assessment, Parris et al., in press *Strategies used were: Mangrove and littoral forest conservation and restoration, MPA establishment, and sea wall construction (i.e. green vs grey) Page 6

7 Climate scenarios Global Inaction Global Mitigation Scenarios Management scenarios (climate adaptation options) No Action Integrated Reactive No change to habitats; 1.5+ C; 0.5 m SLR Mangrove restoration; Decrease in risk to coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass 1.5+ C; 0.5 m SLR Increase in risk to coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass 1.5+ C; 0.5 m SLR No change to habitats; 3+ C; 2 SLR Mangrove restoration; Decrease in risk to coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass 3+ C; 2 m SLR Increase in risk to coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass 3+ C; 2 m SLR 4/16/2015 Footer Text Page 7

8 Building Block #4: Cost-benefit analysis of adaptation options Alternative adaptation options analysed to identify costs and benefits of each approach. Costs were incorporated directly into the scenarios and InVEST (e.g. for implementation of options plus any associated costs to ecosystem services as quantified by the models) Benefits based on positive return in ecosystem service values quantified by models. 4/16/2015 Habitats matter for services. Page 8

9 4/16/2015 Footer Text Page 9

10 Building Block #5: Information sharing (via meetings, focus group sessions, and policy briefs) Project results shared for uptake, capacity and awareness building, and implementation of greener landscape practices within the coastal zone. Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute National Climate Change Office Ministry of Tourism Local communities NGOs and CBOs Land developers Private tourism sector Aquaculture farms Local fisheries coop 4/16/2015 Footer Text Page 10

11 Impact Demonstrated impacts of this solution include: Placencia Lagoon on track towards getting protected areas designation to protect mangrove forests and fringing ecosystems. Increased efforts to restore and conserve mangroves on the Peninsula. ASC certification of 95% of shrimp aquaculture farms in the area (footprint reduction & ecosystem enhancement efforts). Page 11

12 Reflections Lessons learnt and the way forward for this solution include: Collaboration with partners in planning and implementation is key for success. Access to robust datasets allows for effective analysis. Consultations with local communities and stakeholders, and government decision-makers are critical as well as with civil society groups and academia where possible (i.e. aided design, data collection, and uptake of results). These groups can be agents of change. Exploring replication national and regionally (MAR). Page 12

13 TEAM: Amy Rosenthal, Katie Arkema, Gregory Verutes, Nadia Bood, Dan Cantor, Marianne Fish, Rob Griffin, and Mariana Panuncio Thank you!!! Page 13