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