Date post: | 07-May-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | ccafs-cgiar-program-climate-change-agriculture-and-food-security |
View: | 596 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Pro-Poor Climate Change Mitigation: Lini Wollenberg
WHY ?Long Term: food security v. agricultural mitigation Competing demands will exceed the 445 Mha
available(Lambin 2011)
Short Term: Identifying feasible options for smallholder mitigation
-Incentives (C mkt?), MRV, results in practice, trade-offs
3.1 Agricultural development pathways
1.Policies supporting low GHG impact & triple win2.Policy impacts on outcomes and trade-offs3.Methods and scenarios to conduct analyses
Target: policy makers, donors, UNFCCC, NARS
3.2 Incentives and institutions1. Policy, market, and
project design options2. Feasibility of options:
cost effectiveness, benefits for farmers, farmers’ participation, governance
Target: Project developers, donors, policy makers
3.3 Technical options for smallholders1. Standards and MRV
appropriate to smallholders
2. Systems analysis at farm and landscape levels
3. Technologies on farms
Target: standards, national agencies, project developers
Impacts and trade-offs
Place-based workBenchmark sitesAction research
Capacity buildingEmissions scenarios
GHG regional working groupsPhD network on methods
Gender lens
PR
O P
OO
R M
ITIG
AT
ION
Mitigation potentialsand technical options
Technical options and mitigation potentialsBenchmark site, national, and regional emissions baselines and
mitigation potentials (80%+ GHGs from livestock, Ethiopia)National training on modelling mitigation potentials
Centers- Technical options (most centers); trade-offs in livestock sector, tool for low C emissions decisions (ILRI); agroforestry suitability maps and sensitivity analysis (ICRAF)
CGIAR Synergies• Demonstrating feasibility of improved practices and
technologies in agriculture, (benchmark sites)• Trade-offs analysis (win3 + adaptive)• National capacities for decision-making
Pro-poor mitigation
>> Spotlight on: State-of-the-art agricultural mitigation
Earthscan book of current knowledgeLessons from REDD+ for agriculture
What CCAFS outputs?
Maximizing opportunities, avoiding pitfalls in future systems for ag mitigation
Why are they useful?
3INSTITUTIONS AND INCENTIVES
• Improving benefits from carbon market projects PAR with 6 E. Africa projects, w/ Ecoagriculture, ICRAF):
- Real benefits from yields, not payments ($2/yr) - Need to decrease costs and risks- Pre-existing institutions, upfront finance critical- Monitoring livelihoods not a project priority
CGIAR Synergies-Mitigation as co-benefit to agriculture
-Models for ecological service payments (PES) (ICRAF, CIFOR, and ?)
Test the carbon market
Incentives synthesis workshop: review papers on • costs and benefits of mitigation options• adoption barriers, incentive delivery mechanisms
•Investment mechanisms (Munden Project + bilateral donors?
Centers: Most, IFPRI’s IFAD project
CGIAR Synergies
Comparison of benefits and trade-offs among practices
Increasing adoption of mitigation practices: win-win farming practices, learning hubs
Adoption of low climate impact practices
• Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters)
• Site, national, and regional mitigation potentials and GHG baselines
• C-market institutional baselines and partnerships for PAR (including role of women)
• Lessons learned from REDD
• Livestock synthesis
• Coffee synthesis
• Cocoa intensification study
Major Outputs in 2010Measurement and Monitoring
Field testing of process models in regions
Agricultural GHG quantification (FAO, Duke U. ++) : (1) General review, (2) Farm-scale and landscape scale tools
Regional working groups
Centers: Landscape tools for C stock estimates (ICRAF), National training for livestock systems GHG inventories (ILRI)
CGIAR Synergies MRV and standards for smallholders,
Systems methods and analysis: Farm, production system, and landscape
Scientific capacity building
Measurement and Monitoring of GHGs
• Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters)
• Site, national, and regional mitigation potentials and GHG baselines
• C-market institutional baselines and partnerships for PAR (including role of women)
• Lessons learned from REDD
• Livestock synthesis
• Coffee synthesis
• Cocoa intensification study
Major Outputs in 2010
• Regional mitigation planning workshops
• Road map and synthesis of GHG quantification for smallholders: Towards standards
• GHG assessment tool (ILRI)
• GHG inventory training (ILRI, Nepal, GRA)
• Comparative evaluation of process models in field (region-led)
• Action research on technical and economic feasibility of C market for smallholders
• Review of pro-poor
mitigation incentives
• Food and REDD
• Review of institutional mechanisms:
maintaining forest-farm boundary
Major Activities in 2011
Pro-Poor Mitigation objectives
3.1 Identify agricultural development pathways Evaluate C footprint for
-food production and adaptation options-energy production-sustainable intensification
Assess policy impacts for “triple win”
TOC: Develop visions/ evidence with policy makers, UNFCCC and donors to guide agricultural development
CGIAR: ILRI, IFPRI
3.2 Develop incentives and institutions for pro-poor mitigation
- Test feasibility of carbon market for smallholders - Other incentives and innovations: food value chains,
aggregation, risk sharing, micro-finance, landscapes - Assess impacts
TOC - Develop innovative models for projects and policy makers - Use long-term action research; learning networks - Focus where success likely (Latin Am, SE Asia) - Test mitigation among vulnerable populations?
CGIAR: IFPRI, CAPRI, ICRAF, World Fish
3.3 Develop technological options for mitigation by smallholders
- Test technologies on farms for multiple sectors (all GHG, lifecycle, whole farm, landscape)
- Develop cost-effective, simple, integrated MRV - Assess impacts
Build on existing trials and work of CG Centers and NARSCGIAR: All centers TOC - Produce data and standards for national inventories,
IPCC/UNFCCC, carbon markets - Regional working groups and datasets
OBJECTIVES OUTCOMES OUTPUTSObjective 3.1 Inform decision makers about the impacts of alternative agricultural development pathways
Outcome 3.1: Enhanced knowledge about agricultural development pathways that lead to better decisions for climate mitigation, poverty alleviation, food security and environmental health, used by national agencies in at least 20 countries
Output 3.1.1 Analysis of agricultural development pathways and the trade-offs among mitigation, poverty alleviation, food security and environmental health
Output 3.1.2 Enhanced tools, data and analytic capacity in regional and national policy and research organizations to analyze the implications of different development scenarios and mitigation strategies
Output 3.1.3 Analysis of the gender and social differentiation implications of alternative agricultural pathways and findings built into communications and capacity building activities
OBJECTIVES OUTCOMES OUTPUTSObjective 3.2 Identify institutional arrangements and incentives that enable smallholder farmers and common-pool resource users to reduce GHGs and improve livelihoods
Outcome 3.2: Improved knowledge about incentives and institutional arrangements for mitigation practices by resource-poor smallholders (including farmers’ organizations), project developers and policy makers in at least 10 countries
Output 3.2.1 Evidence, analysis and trials to support institutional designs, policy and finance that will deliver benefits to poor farmers and women, and reduce GHG emissions Output 3.2.2 Improved capacity to increase the uptake and improve the design of incentives mechanisms and institutional arrangements to deliver benefits to poor farmers and women
OBJECTIVES OUTCOMES OUTPUTSObjective 3.3 Test and identify desirable on-farm practices and their landscape-level implications
Outcome 3.3: Key agencies dealing with climate mitigation in at least 10 countries promoting technically and economically feasible agricultural mitigation practices that have co-benefits for resource-poor farmers, particularly vulnerable groups and women
Output 3.3.1 Analysis of mitigation biophysical and socioeconomic feasibility for different agricultural practices and regions, and impacts on emissions, livelihoods and food security Output 3.3.2. Methods developed and validated for GHG monitoring and accounting at farm and landscape level to contribute to compliance and voluntary market standardsOutput 3.3.3 Synthesis of understanding about the direct and indirect economic and environmental costs and benefits from agricultural mitigation Output 3.3.4 Analysis of impacts of on-farm and landscape level practices on women and poor farmers
Main outcomes• 2012
– Innovative C footprint assessment tool– Methods field testing and regional networks– Assessments of national policy and projects– Trade-off scenarios
• 2015– Standards for agriculture MRV– Project developers have more options for supporting mitigation via carbon
markets, food supply chain actions and other incentives – Costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses of options understood
• 2020– Integrated landscape-based mitigation and adaptation models in place– Policy makers understand low carbon options for intensified agriculture
Multilevel and Integrated AnalysisGlobal and regional
climate
Landscapes
Whole farm
All crops & livestock
Life
cyc
le
Food
cha
in
All GHGs
Policy
-Country and regional mitigation scenarios-Tool for assessing GHG impact-Mitigation planning group
-Lower C agricultural intensification -Mitigation optimized across landscapes
-Synthesis of costs and benefits of mitigation options-Synthesis of institutional mechanisms-Field action research w/C-market projects
Poor farmers and women adopt mitigation & earn income from C market
-Synthesis of GHG quantification methods for smallholders-GHG quantification workshops-farm and landscape-Regional working groups
Smallholder mitigation
systems established;
Reduced leakage
Outputs Outcomes Impacts
3.1
3.2
3.3
-Knowledge of strategic mitigation options-Investment in low C intensified agriculture-Policy support integrated across REDD and agric
-Knowledge of net benefits of mitigation options- Innovative incentives and institutional mechanisms developed
-Rigorous, low cost GHG quantification tools and methods for smallholder agric.-Improved knowledge of GHG impacts-Regional technical capacity
• Strategic value of improving carbon market projects versus other incentives?
• Focus on most vulnerable populations or where mitigation potential highest?
• Making the best of the CGIAR: Appropriate balance of technical mitigation components versus integrated systems approaches?
Prioritize by fit with objectives
Challenges
• Review of farm-forest boundary institutions (A. Agrawal, Michigan)-Strong impacts: enforcement, projects (not policy)-Strong relationship: livelihoods & forest condition (r=.41, n=98)
• International policy: Analysis of food security and agriculture in REDD R-PPs (G. Kissinger)
Centers: Enforcement v. PES, Amazon (CIFOR), Cacao intensification & REDD, Ghana (IITA), Multiple incentives for REALU, Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ICRAF)
CGIAR SynergiesIncentives and institutions for managing forest-farm landscapes
Landscape analysis
Cost effectiveness of enforcement in space
<US$700 million for enforcement versus >US$ 9 billion annually for PES