Agricultura y Cambio Climatico - FAO

8/2/2019 Agricultura y Cambio Climatico - FAO

1/96

Global Action

on Climate Change

in Agriculture:

Linkages to Food Security,

Markets and Trade Policies

in Developing Countries


2/96

Global Action on Climate Change in Agriculture:

Linkages to Food Security, Markets and Trade

Policies in Developing Countries

By

Aziz Elbehri, Alexandre Genest and Mary Burfsher

Trade and Markets Division

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 2011


3/96

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this informationproduct do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legalor development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specic

companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented,does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preferenceto others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reect the views of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-107109-0

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material inthis information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge,

upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, includingeducational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce ordisseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences,should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policyand Support Branch, Ofce of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

FAO 2011


4/96

iTable of Contents

Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................vi

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................vii

Climate change and agriculture .................................................................................viiAgricultural mitigation and adaptation .....................................................................viiA role for agriculture in the multilateral UNFCCC framework .................................vii

GATT/WTO rules: Climate rst, trade second ......................................................viiiThe funding chasm ....................................................................................................viiiMeeting the challenges ................................................................................................ix

Introduction ............................................................................................................................1

Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation ...............................................5

Agriculture and GHG Mitigation ................................................................................5Conservation Agriculture ...................................................................................5Organic Agriculture ............................................................................................6Renewable Energy Use .......................................................................................7

Challenges for Agricultural GHG Mitigation Actions ........................................7Agriculture and Climate Change Adaptation ..............................................................8Autonomous and Planned Adaptation ..............................................................9Adaptation Costs ...............................................................................................11Adaptation Financing: Opportunities and Obstacles .......................................11

Table 1.Amounts disbursed for adaptation activities by region ................. 12

Prioritizing Agricultural Adaptation: The NAPA Mechanism for LeastDeveloped Countries ................................................................................................. 13Forestry and Climate Change ....................................................................................14

Agriculture and Multilateral Climate Mitigation in the UNFCCC ...................................... 17

UNFCCC The Framework for Multilateral Action on Climate Change Mitigation 17The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 17

Box 1: Milestones in the UNFCCC Framework .............................................. 19

The Kyoto Protocol .......................................................................................... 20Post-Kyoto: In Search of a New Agreement on GHG Emissions ...................21

Table of Contents


5/96

iiGlobal Action on Climate Change in Agriculture:

Linkages to Food Security, Markets and Trade Policies in Developing Countries

Table 2.GHG emission reduction targets of selected UNFCCC Annex I

countries in 2020 ............................................................................................23

Table 3.GHG emission reduction targets of major developingcountries in 2020 ............................................................................................25

Prospects for a Role for Agriculture in the UNFCCC ................................................26Mitigation Financing: Opportunities and Constraints ............................................. 28

UNFCCC Financing ..........................................................................................29Non-UNFCCC Financing ..................................................................................32

Guidelines for Funding Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries ........35

Agriculture, Multilateral Trade Rules and Climate-Smart Policies .................................... 37

Climate Change and Global Agricultural Trade .........................................................37Global Trade Rules and Environmental Policies .......................................................37

Box 2: The Greening of WTO Case Law ........................................................38

WTOs Evolving View: Climate First, Trade Second ............................................... 40Greening the Trade Rules for Climate-Smart Policies ............................................. 41

Reduce Fossil Fuel Subsidies ...........................................................................42Increase Renewable Energy Subsidies .............................................................43Liberalize Trade in Biofuels .............................................................................43Liberalize Trade in Environmental Goods and Services .................................46

Box 3: UnincorporatedProcess and Production Methods (PPMs) ............49

Mandatory and Voluntary Standards, Certication and Labeling Schemes ...50

Box 4: TBTA and SPSA .................................................................................. 51

Technology Transfer, R&D and TRIPS ............................................................54Increase in AfT and EIF directed to GHG mitigation ......................................56International Climate Change Mitigation Investments and Projects andTRIMS ...............................................................................................................57Putting a Price on Carbon and the Problems with Border Tax Adjustments..58

Box 5: Carbon Taxes and Cap-and-Trade Schemes ......................................59

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................61


6/96

iiiTable of Contents

Annexes .................................................................................................................................63

Annex A. Non-UNFCCC International Financing for Climate Change MitigationMeasures (Non-Exhaustive) ...........................................................................64

Annex B.Examples of Coordinated International R&D and Technology PromotionGoal/Activities ................................................................................................73

References.............................................................................................................................79


7/96

ivGlobal Action on Climate Change in Agriculture:


AAU Assigned Amounts UnitsADB Asian Development BankAfDB African Development BankAFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land UsesAfT Aid for TradeA/R Afforestation/reforestationAWG-KP Ad-hoc working group on the Kyoto ProtocolAWG-LCA Ad-hoc working group on long term action

BTA Border tax adjustmentCA Conservation agricultureCDM Clean Development MechanismCER Certied Emissions ReductionsCIF Climate Investment FundCMP Meeting of the Parties of Kyoto ProtocolCOP Committee Of PartiesCPC Central Product ClassicationCTF Clean Technology FundCTO Committee on Trade and EnvironmentDAC-CRS Development Assistance Committees Creditor Reporting SystemDSB Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO

EBA Everything-but-ArmsEBRD European Bank of Reconstruction and DevelopmentEE Energy efciencyEGs Environmental goods and servicesEIF Enhanced Integrated FrameworkEIT Economies in TransitionERU Emission Reduction UnitsFCPF Forest Carbon Partnership FacilityGATT General Agreement on Trade and TariffsGEF Global Environment FacilityGHG Greenhouse gasesGSP Generalized System of PreferencesHS Harmonized System

IDB Inter-American Development BankIEA International Energy AgencyIIRSA Initiative for Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South AmericaIPCC Inter-governmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPRs Intellectual Property RightsITA Information Technology AgreementJI Joint InvestmentLCA Lifecycle analysisLDCF Least Developed Countries FundLULUCF Land Use and Land Use Change and Forestry

Acronyms


8/96

vAcronyms

MCA Multi-criteria analysisMDB Multilateral development bankMEA Multilateral Environmental AgreementMFN Most favoured nationMRV Monitoring, Reporting and VericationNAMA Nationally appropriate mitigation actionsNAPA National Adaptation Programme of ActionsNGO Non-governmental organization

NTB Non-tariff barrierODA Ofcial Development AssistanceOECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPPM Process and production methodPTA Preferential Trade AgreementR&D Research and developmentREDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationSBI Subsidiary body on implementationSBSTA Subsidiary body on scientic and technical adviceSCCF Special Climate Change FundSCMA Subsidies and Countervailing Measures AgreementSECCI Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiative

SPSA Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary MeasuresSSCL Services Sectoral Classication ListSVEs Small, Vulnerable EconomiesTBTA Agreement on Technical Barriers to TradeTRIMS Trade-Related Investment MeasuresTRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property RightsUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeWTO World Trade Organization


9/96

viGlobal Action on Climate Change in Agriculture:


The authors thank three external reviewersfor their valuable inputs and comments toearlier drafts: Ulrich Hoffmann, AlexanderKasterine and David Skully. David Hallam,Director of the Trade and Markets Divisionwas very supportive to this work andhis overall guidance is appreciated. Alsorecognized are Brett Shapiro for technicalediting, Patricia Arquero Caballero for

report design, and Marion Triquet for nalchecking. However, any remaining errorsare the sole responsibility of the authors.

Acknowledgements


10/96

viiExecutive Summary

The objective of this report is to catalyse thinkingabout the ways in which agriculture which hasa vital role in global food security, developmentand natural resources use can and must befully integrated into national strategies and aconsensus-based multilateral framework toaddress the challenges of climate change. Thereport brings forth questions that will occupythe world community over the next decade or

more regarding the role of agriculture in climatechange adaptation and mitigation. The reportoffers some answers and concrete proposals while recognizing that much more needs to belearned, more questions formulated, and moreexperience gained, to build an effective strategyto support global agricultural adaptation whileharnessing its signicant potential contributionto climate change mitigation and taking intoconsideration development objectives and foodsecurity concerns.

Climate change and agriculture

Agriculture is among the most vulnerablesectors to the effects of climate change becausechanges in temperatures and rainfall, morefrequent weather extremes, and the growingpresence of carbon dioxide (CO

2) in the

atmosphere have mostly negative effects onproductivity. Yet, the projected increase inworld population during the next 40 years,which should reach 9.1 billion in 2050, callsfor agriculture to signicantly step up itsproductivity and production levels. Agricultural

activities also account for a substantial shareof total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions andthese are expected to increase in the future dueto a variety of drivers, including populationand income increases, diet changes andtechnological change. Together, these factorsdemonstrate the urgency of implementingmeasures that favour actions and policiesthat simultaneously address climate changemitigation and adaptation in agriculture

while supporting development objectives andensuring food security.

Agricultural mitigation and adaptation

In industrial economies, a fundamental rethinkof the way agriculture is practiced needs tobe initiated. Mitigation practices includeconservation agriculture, organic agriculture

and greater reliance on renewable energy fordomestic use in rural households in developingcountries. Finding ways to reduce reliance onchemicals and synthetic fertilizers and creatingincentives to promote the use of renewableenergy throughout the modern agriculturalsystems is of the utmost urgency and requiresconcerted policy action.

Adaptation to climate change is a multi-dimensional, ecological and socio-economicprocess. Much agricultural adaptation occurs

autonomously at the local level as farmersadjust their planting systems to climaticchange. Planned adaptation occurs at thesectoral and national levels and includespolicies such as addressing changes in foodinsecurity, identifying vulnerabilities, re-assessing agricultural research priorities,and strengthening agriculture extension andcommunication systems. Planned action onclimate change adaptation should build on,coordinate with, and remove impediments toautonomous local adaptation, while pursuingsector-level and long-term adjustment.

A role for agriculture in the multilateralUNFCCC framework

Agricultures potential contribution toclimate change mitigation has yet to be fullyharnessed in the coordinated, multilateralclimate mitigation action being undertakenwithin the UNFCCC framework. A role foragriculture was addressed in a draft decision

Executive Summary


11/96

viiiGlobal Action on Climate Change in Agriculture:


produced by the Ad-hoc working group on

long term action (AWG-LCA) for the 2009UNFCCC Copenhagen meeting, which outlineda commitment for members to promote andcooperate in research and development andtechnology transfer to mitigate GHG emissionwhile promoting agricultural efciencyand productivity and taking into accountdevelopment priorities and food security.Climate change talks in Copenhagen didnot focus on agriculture in time to settle thetechnicalities necessary for reaching even apolitical agreement on agricultures inclusion

in the accord. Hence, neither agriculture norfood security are mentioned in the CopenhagenAccord, despite their critical importance fordeveloping countries. However, the proposedagriculture text in Copenhagen was dropped inCancun (only calling for a work programme ofthe Subsidiary Body on Scientic and TechnicalAdvice - SBSTA). Now it remains as agricultureas a driver of deforestation in REDD+.

GATT/WTO rules: Climate frst, tradesecond

The most challenging question for world tradethat is posed by actions taken to adapt to andmitigate climate change is whether the rules-based global trade system under the GATT/WTO can achieve a balance between ensuringan open and fair multilateral trading systemwhile providing sufcient scope for multilateraland national action to mitigate climate change.

Climate change is now recognized as primary Climate rst, trade second. Within theframework of a multilateral consensus

on climate change targets and mandates,multilateral trade rules should not hinderpolicies that encourage a switch to moresustainable patterns of consumption andproduction, and trade rules should themselvesencourage the sustainable use of resources.

A review of the multilateral trade frameworkand an analysis of trade rules from anenvironmental perspective nd that the WTO

Appellate Body has adopted interpretations of

GATT provisions that now give environmentalmeasures a better chance to pass muster.Unilateral trade measures can be justiedas long as they are applied exibly and inconnection with good-faith negotiating effortsto reach a multilateral agreement on the policyissues that eventually prompted the unilateraltrade measures. Unilateral trade measures inaccordance with trade restrictions embeddedwithin a multilateral environmental agreement(MEA), even if applied to countries that are notparties to the MEA, could likely be justied as

long as membership to the MEA is open to allcountries to which the trade restrictions apply.

Overall, however, the long and arduous processin the adjustment of GATT/WTO trade rules toenvironmental concerns has demonstrated thecontinued primacy of trade over environmentalconcerns. Many trade rules need to berecongured in light of the mounting concernsover sustainability of natural resources andthe increasingly pressing challenges posedby climate change. Proposed areas in which

global trade rules could be greened includea reduction in fossil fuel subsidies; increasedrenewable energy subsidies; liberalized tradein biofuels and in environmental goods andservices; mandatory and voluntary standards,certicates and labels; and technology transfer.

The funding chasm

A critical obstacle to developing countriesadaption and mitigation activities in agricultureis their ability to marshal the resources neededto build the capacity to identify, plan, prioritize

and implement effective climate changeprogrammes. The UNFCCC incorporates theprinciple of differentiated obligations, whichinclude the provision of nancial supportfrom developed to developing countries. Themultilateral community has also stepped upto provide a number of funding mechanisms.Nevertheless, the nancing chasm is still farfrom being bridged and represents one of the


12/96

ixExecutive Summary

key obstacles in the coordinated, multilateral

ght against global climate change.

Since climate change impacts the economicdevelopment of developing countries,it constitutes both an economic and anenvironmental challenge. Therefore,international nancing should addresseconomic development and climate change ina complementary way. Allowing developingcountries to ensure that funded activitiescorrespond to their needs, views and priorities;that multiple funding sources are streamlined

and coordinated; and that the nancing is usedto support an over-arching, programmaticstrategic approach are among the principlesthat would help to ensure the most effective useof funding provided to developing countries.

Meeting the challenges

Meeting the challenges of ensuring food securityand supporting agricultural development,at the same time as coping with the need forfarming systems to adapt to and mitigate

climate change, will require broad-basedcommitment by the global community, moresubstantial nancial transfers to developingcountries than has so far been achieved, andconcerted national and multilateral policyaction involving the convergence of adaptation,climate change mitigation and trade.


13/96

Introduction 1

In its Fourth Assessment Report onclimate change, published in 2007, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) concluded that the warming of theEarths climate system is unequivocal, andthat human activities are very likely the causeof this warming.1 Global greenhouse gas (GHG)emission levels are projected to continuegrowing over the coming decades.2 Key driversof GHG emissions include economic growth,population growth and technological progress,along with changes in consumption andproduction patterns.3

Agriculture is one of the sectors that is most

vulnerable to the effects of climate change.Agricultural production and productivityare impacted in multiple ways: (i) highertemperatures affect plant health, increasethe occurrences of pests, and lower wateravailability; (ii) modied rainfall patternsreduce water availability and shift rainyseasons, with consequences both for irrigatedand rainfed agriculture and for farmingsystems; (iii) enhanced frequency of weatherextremes worsens supply variability; (iv)enhanced carbon dioxide (CO

2) concentration

in the atmosphere may improve yields and crop

productivity in some cases; and (v) the rise insea level and frequent ooding disturb global

1 UNEP - WTO - Trade & Climate (2009, 194 pp.), atvii.

2 UNEP - WTO - Trade & Climate (2009, 194 pp.), atvii.

3 UNCTAD - Trade & Development Report, 2009 -Climate Change Mitigation & Development (218 pp.),at 135.

agricultural production patterns, generatinglosses for some farmers and countries.

While the magnitude of the impact on globalagricultural production is uncertain at thistime, countries in the temperate zones ofNorth America, Northern Europe and Asia areexpected to benet from increased agriculturalproductivity. In contrast, regions around theMediterranean and especially in tropical zonesare expected to be net losers from decliningproductivity. For most developing countriesin semi-arid, arid and tropical zones, yieldsare expected to drop signicantly, reducingcurrent production levels and making it

more challenging to reach the even higherproductivity goals needed to meet their growingfood demands in the next decades.4

As production possibilities shift across agro-ecological zones, global agricultural tradeows will also shift dramatically. Becausethe disruption of agricultural production isexpected to be most severe in developingcountries, both their import food requirementsand their import nancing needs will increasesubstantially. Thus, the expected effectsof climate change on global agricultural

production will have serious and negativeimpacts on food security for many countries.

The disruption in global agriculture will occuras the world population during the next 40 yearsincreases to a projected 9.1 billion in 2050, thusrequiring that agriculture signicantly step up

4 FAO - Organic Agriculture and Stability of Food Sup-ply (5 May 2007, 32 pp.), at 7.

Chapter 1

Introduction


14/96

2Global Action on Climate Change in Agriculture:


production and productivity in the coming

decades. Without sufcient adjustment byexisting agricultural systems, the number ofpeople living in hunger will rise rapidly overthe next 50 years. For example, a recent studysuggested that without adaptation efforts,decreased yields in South Asia could threatenthe food security of more than one billionpeople, and the number of malnourishedchildren in Africa could increase by 10 millionmore to a total of 52 million by 2050.5 Climatechange thus is expected to result in impacts onall four dimensions of food security: availability,

stability, utilization and access (Schmidhibe etal. 2007).

The Stern Review and IPPC reports also drawattention to the particular necessity to adaptagriculture to be more climate-resilient indeveloping countries because of the heavyreliance of their economies on this climate-sensitive sector (Wiegman, 2010).

Measures and actions taken in respect ofclimate change can be organized into two broad

categories: mitigation and adaptation, althoughthis distinction is not airtight. Often adaptationmeasures also serve mitigation purposes andvice versa. An important distinction betweenmitigation and adaptation is that mitigationactivities, wherever they occur, generate aglobal benet of reduced GHG emissions.Adaptation activities respond to specicclimate change impacts and they benet thoselocally who pay for it (Wiegman 2010).

Mitigation measures aim to reduce the volumeof accumulated GHG emissions and their

associated impacts in the future, therebyreducing or avoiding the worst case climatechange scenarios. In order to reduce GHGemissions, mitigation measures intend, notablythrough technological change and substitution,to shift global production and consumptionpatterns towards the use of more climate-

5 IFPRI - Climate Change - Impact on Agriculture andCosts of Adaptation (2009, 30 pp.).

friendly primary commodities, production

equipment and consumer goods; mitigationmeasures also intend to enhance carbon sinksthat sequester carbon, such as forests andoceans.6

Adaptation measures mainly relate toaddressing the impacts of global warmingthat have become unavoidable and that arealready being experienced or that have a highprobability of occurring within a relativelyshort timeframe. Adaptation measures aim atattenuating the negative impacts of climate

change or exploiting its potential benecialeffects and at increasing the ability of peopleor natural systems to cope with the impacts ofclimate change.7

The cost of adaptation to climate change isdifcult to estimate because it depends uponprojected climate changes, assessments ofvulnerability, and data about adaptationactivity at the farm and national levels thatare often limited. Therefore, cost estimatesof adaptation vary widely, ranging between

USD 9 billion and USD 86 billion (Mller,2008).

Developing countries will have difculty inmarshalling the sizeable resources that will beneeded to nance their adaption to a changingclimate. The global community is being calledupon to help provide the urgently needed fundsthat developing countries require to build theircapacity to plan and prioritize adaptationactions, and to implement effective adaptionpolicy while at the same time meeting theirpolicy objectives for development, poverty

reduction and food security.

6 UNCTAD - Trade & Development Report, 2009 - Cli-mate Change Mitigation & Development (218 pp.), at133, and UNEP - WTO - Trade & Climate (2009, 194pp.), at 24-25.

7 UNCTAD - Trade & Development Report, 2009 - Cli-mate Change Mitigation & Development (218 pp.), at133, and UNEP - WTO - Trade & Climate (2009, 194pp.), at 24-25.


15/96

Introduction 3

Agricultural mitigation and adaptation activity

at the farm and national levels, and the costsand nancing of adaptation, are the subject ofChapter Two of this report.

Because climate change is a global problem, itsmitigation requires concerted and coordinatedmultilateral action to reduce the growth inGHG emissions that are the cause of globalwarming. Since 1990, the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) has served as the forum in whichmultilateral action on climate mitigation

measures and commitments are negotiated andimplemented. In 1997, the UNFCCC frameworkled to the signing of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,which mandates UNFCCC Annex I countries8to reduce, either individually or jointly, theiraggregate anthropogenic GHG emission levelsbetween 2008 and 2012. Negotiations continueon a post-Kyoto accord but, despite the growingurgency of aggressive action, the complexityand enormity of the task has stalled progresson dening new GHG reduction mandates.

In Chapter Three, we analyse and assess thecurrent and potential role of agriculture inthe multilateral UNFCCC framework, and thecosts and funding of developing countriesimplementation of UNFCCC climate changemitigation action.

In part as a response to the difculties beingencountered by the international communityin nding multilateral solutions to addressglobal warming, many countries are pursuingand enacting unilateral climate smartpolicies to mitigate against global warming

and to ensure greater ability to adapt to the

8 Annex I countries: Australia, Austria, Belarus,Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic,Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,Japan , Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxem-

bourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federa-tion, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland, United States of America.

immediate impacts of climate change. To do

so, many current laws, policies and actions arechanging in order to prompt a shift to a low-carbon economy and towards more sustainablepatterns of production and consumption.As a result, domestic measures that addressclimate change but that impact trade have beenmultiplying.

National actions intended to addressenvironmental concerns raised fears ofprotectionism long before global warminggarnered any political attention. Now that

the ght against climate change heads theinternational political agenda, there is growingdebate as to whether international trade rulesunduly impede climate-friendly measuresand, more important, whether they allow theclimate-friendly potential of trade to be fullyexploited.

Today, trade is being called upon to serve climatechange objectives and not the reverse. In ChapterFour, a review of the multilateral trade frameworkand an analysis of trade rules from an environmental

perspective describe an evolving interpretationof the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) rulesthat now provide greater opportunity for membersto pursue unilateral, trade-related measures thathave environmental objectives. The chapter alsoidenties nine areas in which WTO memberscould change GATT/WTO rules to achieve a betterbalance between safeguarding the principals of anopen trading system and the increasing demandsfor environmental protection and sustainable use ofnatural resources, while simultaneously supportingdevelopment, poverty reduction and food security

goals.


16/96


17/96

Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 5

Agriculture is one of the sectors whoseproduction is most vulnerable to the effects ofclimate change. While the magnitude of effects

remains uncertain, changes in temperatureand water availability, weather extremesand ooding, and changing CO

2levels in the

atmosphere all have direct and signicantimpacts on agricultural productivity and resultin shifting crop production patterns acrossagro-ecological zones (see UNCTAD, page 3).

Agriculture also has the potential to make asignicant contribution to mitigating climatechange. A full assessment of the GHG emissionsdue to agriculture is still in the making.

What is clear is that modern industrializedagriculture from developed economies is amajor source of GHG emissions; but the extentand magnitude have not yet been established.In developing countries, major agriculturalproduction systems also contribute to thecumulative GHG emission from agriculture.However, as agriculture represents the mainincome-earning activity in many of thesesame countries, mitigation actions must alsobe designed to help ensure food security andalleviate poverty reduction.

Agriculture and GHG Mitigation

In industrial economies, a fundamentalrethink of the way agriculture is practicedneeds to be initiated. Finding ways to reducereliance on chemicals and synthetic fertilizersand creating incentives to promote the useof renewable energy throughout the modernagricultural systems is of the utmost urgencyand requires concerted policy action.

The concern over climate change and the needto shift to more sustainable systems has raisedthe prole of and interest in many long-standing

practices, including conservation agricultureand organic agriculture, and greater relianceon renewable energy for domestic use in ruralhouseholds in developing countries.

Conservation Agriculture

Conservation Agriculture (CA) aims toconserve, improve and make more efcientuse of natural resources through integratedmanagement of available soil, water andbiological resources combined with external

inputs.

9

It contributes to environmentalconservation as well as to enhanced andsustained agricultural production. It can alsobe referred to as resource-efcient/resource-effective agriculture. A variety of CA practicesdeemed GHG reducing should be encouraged.Among these:

agronomic practices (promoting the use ofperennial crops, which can be cultivatedfor longer periods, instead of annual crops,which require periodic turning of soil;extending crop rotations);

more careful land nutrient (most notablyfertilizers) management;

improved fallows;

improved grazing land management;

9 ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/ch10/ch104.pdf

Chapter 2

Agriculture and Climate ChangeMitigation and Adaptation


18/96



minimized tilling frequency;

increased practice of agro-forestry (i.e.crop production on land that also growstrees);

restoration of degraded lands and organicsoils through, for instance, re-vegetation;

rewetting of cultivated organic soils;

change in the composition of animal feedor change in stocking practices toward

more intensive grazing methods in orderto reduce enteric methane emissions fromcows and other ruminants;

improved manure management; and

adoption of rice cultivation practices(such as mid-season drainage and shallowooding) that reduce the amount of timethat soils are submerged under waterand by the same token the amount of gasproduced.10

If properly implemented, these practicescan achieve GHG mitigation and improveagricultural productivity and sustainability.11For instance, in East Africa, agriculturalproductivity, currently at a low level, couldbe increased through improved nutrientmanagement, increasing organic and syntheticfertilizer use (given current very low levels) andthrough restoration of degraded land. Thesemeasures would not only increase agriculturalproductivity, but also reduce deforestation and

10 Msangi-Rosegrant - Agriculture and Environment Linkages, Tradeoffs and Opportunities (Sum-mer 2007, 20 pp.), at 12-14; IPCC - Climate ChangeMitigation - Agriculture (2007, 44 pp.), at 505-511;FAO - Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to ClimateChange Mitigation (Feb. 6, 2009, 13 pp.), at 2.

11 FAO - Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to ClimateChange Mitigation (6 February, 2009, 13 pp.), at 3.

sequester increased amounts of CO2.12 Another

example is in Asia, where improved efciency infertilizer use could reduce production costs andincrease productivity while reducing emissionsof nitrous oxide (NO

2). 13

Organic Agriculture

Organic farming is being promoted as a climate-friendly and sustainable farm system. Organicagriculture combines modern science andtraditional knowledge and strives to convertlow-input and subsistence farms into more

productive systems and to increase farmersability to avail themselves of local resources.

A key feature of organic agriculture is itsreliance on techniques for recycling farm-ownnutrients and organic carbon. These includedirect recycling of manure; efcient compostingtechniques for crop residues, non-palatablebiomass and livestock manure; and mulchingwith crop residue and green manure to preventerosion of fertile topsoil.

Organic agriculture is thought to contribute toGHG mitigation based on a number of factors.Organic agriculture has a much reducedconsumption of fossil fuels for energy, lessvulnerability of soils to erosion, and an increasein carbon sequestration due to the recycling offarm-own nutrients and to other techniquesaimed at building up soil fertility.

Research on these factors has come a long wayto explain how organic agriculture helps reduceemissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide(N2O). Data show that CO

2emissions from

organic agriculture are generally much lowerthan from conventional agriculture. This goeshand in hand with lower energy consumption,the omission of synthetic fertilizers and

12 FAO - Anchoring Agriculture Within a CopenhagenAgreement - Policy Brief for UNFCCC Parties (2009,4 pp.), at 2.



19/96


pesticides, and a reduced use of high-energy

feedstuff.

Although few data exist regarding N2O

emissions from organic agriculture, it is likelythat key organic agriculture characteristicsand practices result in reductions of suchemissions compared to conventionalagriculture. Signicantly less mobile nitrogenconcentrations can be found in organicsoils, which are more aerated. Many organiccropping systems also use permanent plantcovers, which further reduce nitrous oxide

N2O emissions. These two factors account forconsiderable reductions in N

2O emissions.

It is possible, however, that organic agriculturedoes not contribute signicantly to a reductionin CH

4emissions from organic rice and

ruminant production, although it appears tohelp reduce methane emissions during theunproductive phase of young cattle and theproductive phase of dairy cows.

Despite these advantages, organic agriculture

still occupies a very small but growing sliceof total agriculture. The reasons for its slowadoption are economic and reect changesin yields, production costs and productprices. Under low-input systems, a switch toorganic agriculture generates little or no yieldreductions. Moreover, yields under organicagriculture can recover or even be higher thanbefore, once the conversion period (2-3 years)is over. Yield reductions are more importantwhen the system had previously run on a high-input level; although yields recover after theconversion period, they might not return to

the yield level preceding the switch to organicagriculture.

Production costs vary greatly among farmtypes (e.g. degree of farm mechanization,labour intensity of crops). While organicagriculture may entail higher productioncosts than conventional agriculture (e.g.organic apple production in the US), it canalso provide greater net returns due to lower

production costs (e.g. cotton production in

India). Typically, organic agriculture, both indeveloped and developing countries, requiresmore labour, which increases production costsbut saves on expensive synthetic fertilizer andpesticide costs.

Not only is organic agriculture relativelylabour-intensive, it is also knowledge-intensivebecause it requires an understanding of localvarieties and breeds and of local productionconditions. Access to and conservation oftraditional knowledge and practices thus

constitute important dimensions of organicagriculture, especially in a globalized worldwhere intellectual property claims and disputesabound.

Premium prices paid mostly by developedcountry consumers for organic productsrepresent one of the main incentives for farmersof developed and developing countries alike.However, gaining access to these premiumprices requires that agricultural products becertied and/or labelled organic, which entails

additional costs and efforts.

Renewable Energy Use

A major area of potential benets for GHGmitigation is the transformation of small-scale energy use by rural households. Giventhe scale of traditional reliance on biomassfor rural cooking and other energy needs, thespread of appropriate technologies based onrenewable and clean energy to small-scale ruralhouseholds has perhaps the largest potential interms of reducing GHG emissions and lessening

resource degradation in developing countries.

Challenges for Agricultural GHG MitigationActions

One of the key impediments to mitigationactivities is the uncertainty about GHGemission estimates from the agricultural sector.Limited information to establish terrestrialcarbon baselines at the national level as well


20/96



as the high cost of measuring, reporting and

verifying (MRVing) agricultural GHG emissionreductions have plagued international effortsto create mechanisms that would rewardagricultural GHG mitigation activities.14

Limitations and gaps in our knowledge ofsaturation of soil carbon sequestration capacity,the risk of losing stored carbon and the durationof the sequestration in time also have causedproblems. Soil carbon sequestration must beestimated accurately in a practical and cost-effective way to provide sufcient credibility

for effective funding mechanisms to see thelight of day. Accuracy can be met with currentmeasurement capabilities, but a widespreaduse raises the need to develop efcient samplingdesigns and rigorous protocols.15 Direct on theground soil carbon measurement would be tooexpensive and is unnecessary. A combinationof eld measurements and model-basedapproaches would be sufcient, but wouldrequire more comprehensive and extensivedata, as well as a global system of informationsharing. Reliability and performance would

then improve with time so that practice-basedapproaches could eventually be sufcient tomonitor and verify soil carbon sequestration.16

Despite the complexity associated withinformation-gathering and validation needs,enough is known now to start includingagricultural initiatives in the ght againstclimate change. International funding ofglobally coordinated pilot projects could helpgather soil, climate, land use and managementinformation through direct measurement;establish rigorous eld and laboratory protocols

and a common data archive; determine themost effective soil carbon MRVing and

14 AWG-LCA Report - opportunities and challenges formitigation in the agricultural sector (7 April 2009, 4pp.), at paras. 12 and 24.

15 FAO - Anchoring Agriculture Within a CopenhagenAgreement - Policy Brief for UNFCCC Parties (2009,4 pp.), at 2-3.

16 FAO - Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to ClimateChange Mitigation (6 February 2009, 13 pp.), at 4.

crediting mechanisms; and develop and test

remote sensing-based and ground survey-based methods for monitoring and verifyingmanagement practice implementation.17

Developing countries will need nancialsupport to develop national terrestrial carbonbaselines and their MRV capacities. The initialphase should focus on building condence,capabilities and national strategies, whichwould imply providing capacity-buildingtechnical assistance and nancial incentivesthrough public funds and institutions.18 In

order to fully tap into the GHG sink potentialof agriculture, appropriate wording onagricultural climate change mitigation effortsand on the requisite nancing and technologydevelopment and transfer should be enshrinedin any successor to the Kyoto Protocol19 (seeChapter 3).

Agriculture and Climate ChangeAdaptation

Adaptation to climate change is the adjustment

of natural and human systems in response toexpected or actual climatic factors in order tomoderate the harm or benet from change ofits effects (IPCC, 2001). The concept includeschanges in processes, practices and structuresin ecological, economic and social systems(Wiegman, 2010). These broad denitionsdemonstrate that adaptation incorporates bothenvironmental and social-economic policydomains.

17 See AWG-LCA Report - opportunities and challengesfor mitigation in the agricultural sector (7 April 2009,4 pp.), at para. 26, and FAO - Enabling Agriculture toContribute to Climate Change Mitigation (6 February2009, 13 pp.), at 4.


19 FAO - Information Note - Agriculture, Food Securityand Climate Change in Post-Copenhagen Processes(12 April 2010, 6 pp.), at 4.


21/96


More specic delineations of adaptation and its

dimensions remain to be formulated. Even inthe UNFCCC, a commonly accepted denitionof adaptation is not specied, nor have any ofthe recent submissions by Parties proposed one(Persson et al. 2009). Aside from their humanand systems adjustment denition (as perabove), the IPCC (2007) distinguishes betweenadaptive capacity and vulnerability. Adaptivecapacity is dened as the ability of a systemto adjust to climate change (including climatevariability and extremes) to moderate potentialdamages to take advantage of opportunities

or cope with the consequences. Vulnerabilityimplies the degree to which a system issusceptible to and unable to cope with adverseeffects of climate change including climatevariability and extremes.

The UNFCCC (2009) distinguishes betweenthe following categories of adaptation actions:

actions that climate-proof socio-economicactivities by integrating future climate risk;

actions that expand the adaptive capacityof socio-economic activities to deal withfuture and not only current climate risks;and

actions targeting activities adapting toclimate change that would not otherwisebe initiated under business-as-usualscenarios.

The international community acknowledgesthat adaptation to climate change is a pressingissue, especially for developing countries, and

that more resources are needed to adequatelyreduce exposure to disturbed climate patterns.There is considerably less consensus on howthe scale of adaptation that is needed can beachieved. Although changing and adaptingto climate variability have always occurredin human societies, the phenomenal andincreasing pace of climate change demandsproactive and urgent responses, without losingsight of the rich source of information gained

from coping with environmental shocks in the

past. There is unlikely to be any one-size-ts-all solution to adapting to climate change, butthere are many lessons that already have beenlearned and this knowledge can be shared tohelp better inform decision making.

Agriculture should be in the frontline foradaptation priorities, given its naturalvulnerability to climate and its crucialimportance for food security and livelihoodprotection in developing countries. However,the local nature of adaptation actions and

benets raises issues about the local capacityfor coping and implementation. These concernsare heightened because those most vulnerableto the effects of climate change, or the potentialbeneciaries from adaptation, often lack thecapacity and nance needed. Considerableefforts will be required to prepare developingcountries in particular to deal with climate-related impacts on agriculture (FAO, 2007).

Autonomous and Planned Adaptation

In its 2007 report, FAO distinguished betweenautonomous (micro - farm level) and planned(macro - policy level) adaptation. Examplesof autonomous adaptation to climate changeinclude changes in sowing dates, productionof different crop varieties or species, changesin the use of irrigation and water supply,changes in the use of other inputs or in farmmanagement (e.g. fertilizer, tillage methods,grain drying) (Reilly and Schimmelpfenning,1999, p.768).

The range of adaptation strategies that

autonomous actors have depends upon social,economic and political status (ISET, 2008).Vulnerable households may have to choosebetween an adaptation activity, such asconstructing rain-harvesting or other irrigationmethods in drought-prone areas, or payingfor other important services like schoolingor health care (Klein, 2002). Therefore theamount of autonomous adaptation desirableand feasible largely depends on the level of


22/96



individual income and amount of available

resources (Margulis et al., 2008).

Planned adaptations are sector-wide changesin processes or systems to build climateresilience or to encourage shifts in resourcesto a more efcient use under climate changeeffects (FAO, 2007). Examples of plannedadaptations include addressing changes in foodinsecurity, identication of vulnerabilities, re-assessment of agricultural research priorities,strengthening of agriculture extension andcommunication systems, adjustments in

commodity and trade policy, and increasedtraining and education. Planned adaptationpolicies take into account that, in addition tothe important role of autonomous adaptation,there are limits to the capability of individualsto make long-term strategic adjustments in theabsence of government policies that incentivizefarmers and communities to adopt adaptationactivities.

Coordination of autonomous and plannedadaptation activities is essential. In some

cases, maladaptive adaptation has occurredbecause of a dis-harmony between planned andautonomous local-level actions. ISET (2008)cites the example of farming communitiesin India settling in ood plains which weredesigned to protect villages from adverseweather conditions. The result was repeatedooding of their elds, which caused more risksrather than reducing them. A further exampleis the improved use of chemical pesticidesand herbicides to build crop resilience underincreasingly difcult conditions. This mayin fact have health risks to producers and

consumers as well as increase the emissions ofGHGs and air pollutants (Scheraga et al., 1998).

There is also strong merit in incorporatingautonomous adaptation processes tooperate as a prime point of entry for policydevelopment. ISET outlines the strategy oftargeting autonomous adaptation as follows:At the micro level (individual, household),autonomous adaptation interventions cover

the course of action individuals, households,

communities and businesses take in responseto the opportunities, constraints and risks theyface within livelihood systems (ISET, 2008).By seeking to identify the factors that constrainactors in responding to risks and opportunitiesassociated with natural hazards and changingclimatic conditions, a variety of points of entrycan be found where appropriately targetedsupport of other interventions can enhanceexisting or catalyse new adaptation responses.This approach is most effective when it canbuild on existing abilities of households,

communities and businesses to adapt to climatevariability and reduce their vulnerability todisaster risks.

A key nding from an ISET study on SouthAsian households was that the degree to whichhouseholds take measures to adapt to the threatof ood and drought occurrence dependedlargely on their access to information regardingclimatic statistics and other goods and services,the ability to migrate and diversify income,and the existing patterns of vulnerability that

exist in the community (gender, age, incomeand social position factors) (ISET, 2008).Therefore, communication and early warningsystems regarding wider market, economicand environmental information are a key entrypoint for planned adaptation activities.

Thus far, the breadth of adaptation researchand policy development, and the involvementof international organizations, has been limitedto the planned adaptation level. However,as proposed by ISET (2008), autonomousadaptation is more likely to play the key role

in responding to climate change than plannedadaptation efforts for the simple reason thatactors at the grass-roots level are much moreclosely aligned with the mix of constraints,opportunities and risks that arise in the localcontext than are governments.

Support for planned adaptation strategiestherefore should include capacity building tobetter enable local communities to manage


23/96


their existing resources and diversify income

(Nelson et al., 2009). Planned adaptationshould also focus on developing an enablingenvironment by improving institutions,creating incentive structures, strengtheninglegal frameworks, and improving educationand health (Klein, 2002), which should fosterbetter economic and social conditions and giveindividual actors more options for adaptationactivities.

Adaptation Costs

A challenge for developing countries in formingpolicy and implementing adaptation activitiesat whatever level is in setting aside adequateresources to facilitate adaptation and indeveloping a clear vision of how to use existingfunding. Ascertaining the costs involved inadaptation has been hard to operationalize,and estimates have varied greatly for severalreasons.

First, estimating costs relies largely on climateprojections, assessment of exposure, models of

climate sensitivity and the forecasted potentialimpacts at a given level. Depending on whichforecast is used, the potential impacts varyand therefore the corresponding adaptationsvary as well. Furthermore there are differentlevels of adaptation - full adaptation mayinclude all possible opportunities to mitigaterisk/ benet from climatic changes, whereaspartial adaptation may focus on activities thatavert the highest level or most probable risks(Margulis et al., 2008).

Adaptation activities at the autonomous level

are perhaps more widespread than plannedadaptation measures, but their costs areharder to estimate because they are rolledout by private actors. There are also somegrey areas as to what activities constituteadaptation measures, and there is a lack of aconcise denition for adaptation (some aredirect, others are more broad and cover bothsoft and hard activities). In addition, nancialinstitutions do not agree on what is classied as

adaptation nance, which makes it increasingly

hard to nd estimates on the current level ofadaptation nance that is being leveraged inthe private sector (Atteridge et al., 2009).

Although there are obstacles to calculatingthe cost of adaptation given the uncertainty,this is not a valid justication for inaction andtherefore should not hinder decision makingregarding adaptation activities. Under Article3.3 of the UNFCCC, it is stated that wherethere are threats of serious or irreversibledamage, lack of full scientic certainty should

not be used as a reason for postponing suchmeasures. Persson et al. (2009) argue thatthis should hold as much for economics asfor climate science and that the urgent andimmediate adaptation needs of least developedcountries must be strongly underlined.

Adaptation Financing: Opportunities andObstacles

Developing countries face signicant challengesin marshalling the resources necessary to

fund their adaptation activities. Multilateralnegotiations on adaptation funds havestagnated given the difculties in ascertainingthe exact costs of adaptation and an ongoinglack of political commitment to adequatelyaddress nancing needs for activities indeveloping countries.

At present USD 244 million has been distributedfor adaptation activities, with the regionalbreakdown shown in Table 1. Although mostestimates vary, the indication is that billionsof dollars annually are required. The World

Bank places the gure between USD 9 and 41billion, the UNDP at USD 86 billion, Oxfam atmore than USD 50 billion and the UNFCCC atbetween USD 28 and 67 billion (Mller, 2008).Closing the adaptation


24/96



Table 1. Amounts disbursed for adaptation activities by region

Region Amount dispersed(USD millions)

Africa 118.6

Asia 50.3

Europe 1.1

Oceania 16.0

Middle East 20.2

North America 8.2

Central America 7.6

Total 244.0

Source:www.climatefundsupdate.org

funding chasm requires substantial additional

funding amounts. Current funding horizons donot come anywhere near this, and many believeexisting sources of nance cannot be scaled upto meet these needs (Atteridge et al., 2009).

Adaptation funding has come largely frombilateral/voluntary Ofcial DevelopmentAssistance (ODA) (Mller, 2008). BilateralODA consists of concessional nance monitoredby the OECD Development AssistanceCommittees Creditor Reporting System (DAC-CRS). The DAC has 23 members (22 countriesand the EU) and is the key forum in which

bilateral donors coordinate development aidand support sustainable development. It maybe difcult to induce further contributionsthrough ODA to facilitate adequate adaptationfunding.

Multilateral funding mechanisms includethe Adaptation Fund, which was establishedto nance concrete adaptation projects andprogrammes in developing countries that

are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and are

particularly vulnerable to the adverse effectsof climate change. The Adaptation Fundis nanced from a share of proceeds fromthe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),which allocates 2 percent of certied emissionreductions (CERs) issued for CDM projectactivities (UNFCCC, 2010).

The Global Environment Fund (GEF) alsohas been a large contributor of funds but hasfocused on adaptation assessment, planningand capacity building, particularly in theNational Adaptation Programmes of Actions

(NAPA) process described in the section thatfollows. More focus on the implementationside of adaptation projects is urged by keystakeholders. The implementation of activitiesshould provide a rich source of data regardingactual costs and benets realized by theprojects, which would help to facilitate thequantitative analysis that is lacking in projectproposals at the planned level.


25/96


impacts of climate change are felt mainly at the

local level.20

Forming the NAPAs requires a process ofrigorous assessment of risk and options. Inthe nal stage, potential projects are rankedaccording to priority. Priorities for adaptationare determined by nationally dened criteria asset out in the UNFCCC NAPA guidelines. Fourgeneral criteria are used in selecting nationalpriorities:

1. level or degree of adverse effects of climate

change;

2. poverty reduction to enhance adaptive ca-pacity;

3. synergy with other multilateral environ-mental agreements; and

4. cost-effectiveness.

In developing the NAPAs, most countriesemploy the use of multi-criteria analysis

(MCA). The MCA approach is appropriatebecause of the lack of quantiable data that arerequired when applying standard cost-benetanalyses to evaluate projects.

Cost-benet analysis weighs costs againstbenets and determines whether benetsoutweigh costs over a given period of time,thereby supporting a decision on whetherimplementation is in the interest of the nationaleconomy. When quantifying costs and benets,it is necessary to set a baseline (situationwithout the measure carried out) and a project

case (situation with the measure). Expressingcosts and benets in monetary terms whenapproaching adaptation activities is not alwayspossible.

20 UNFCC downloaded on 17 August 2011 from http://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/ldc_work_programme_and_napa/items/4722.php

While some are more optimistic about

raising private nance to fund adaptation indeveloping countries (or pessimistic about theavailability of public funds to achieve this),one thing is clear: more funding is needed tomake adaptation happen. Until then, othernancial options can help facilitate adaptationat the individual level, such as crop insurance,nancial hedging or bank loans (Mahul &Vermersch, 2000), although these mechanismshave yet to be explored in the context ofdeveloping countries that are already facedwith challenging climatic conditions.

Prioritizing Agricultural Adaptation:The NAPA Mechanism for LeastDeveloped Countries

Given the funding constraints to adaptationactivities, a rigorous evaluation must beapplied to adaptation projects to ensure thatlimited resources are used effectively. Withinthe UNFCC framework, the developmentof NAPAs supports the efforts of the leastdeveloped countries to plan and prioritize their

adaptation activities.

NAPAs are used to identify priority activitiesthat respond to countries urgent andimmediate needs to adapt to climate change activities for which further delay wouldincrease vulnerability and/or costs at a laterstage. While the NAPA projects cover smallareas that represent urgent adaptation needs inthe least developed countries, they also providea strong basis for developing medium- to long-term adaptation plans (UNFCCC, 2010).

NAPAs are based on the use of existinginformation on autonomous adaptationthat is already occurring at the micro level.The emphasis on local activities and inputsrecognizes that local communities are animportant source of information and that the


26/96



Although much adaptation has already

occurred at the autonomous level, there islimited availability of data regarding thisexperience. Agricultural adaptations also havestrong links to development outcomes thatshould be taken into account. In addition,agriculture adaptation options are not alwayseasily and clearly identiable from ongoingmanagement decisions, and the costs andbenets of adaptation are commonly shared bymore than one party (Smit et al., 2001).

Consequently, countries have extended the

UNFCCC list of priorities to take into accountother priorities and to incorporate a variety ofcriteria, not limited to cost or economic factors(Smit et al., 2001). That is not to say that costsdo not matter in the formulation of NAPAs; infact they represent the single largest barrier totheir implementation.

Existing adaptation needs assessments underthe NAPAs have been submitted by 45 countriesas of August 2011. The NAPAs detail currentclimatic concerns/changes, their impacts,

and current and future adaptation measures.Adaptation of the crop sector was the mostcommon form of adaptation project proposed,as it responds to concerns over adverse weatherpatterns that result in signicant reductionin crop yields and hence pose a direct andimmediate threat to livelihoods.

Funding for NAPAs so far has been used forpreparation, not implementation, of projects.While the activities set out in the NAPAs (over400-plus projects in total) have fullled thecriteria of immediate and urgent adaptation

needs, only one has been implemented to date,in Bhutan (Persson et al., 2009). The nancialcommitments to NAPAs needs to be followedthrough not only to validate the programmeset out but also to collect rigorous economicand nancial data on the implementation costand benets of adaptations and to allow forinternational comparisons. Funding projectsis a pivotal issue in climate change adaptation,and it is considerably more difcult to achieve

considering the localized benet of adaptation

activities compared to mitigation activities.

In conclusion, adaptation policy including inagriculture is very much a work in progress.Proposing a clear set of adaptation options andrecommendations for prioritizing activities inthe agriculture sector to adapt to the pressingrealities of climate change is no simple task.More work at the local level in pragmaticactivities and better collection of data on suchgrass-roots adaptation costs will be invaluableto ensuring that eventual national adaptation

policies will work on existing strengthsat the community level as well as avoidmaladaptation. The extensive evaluation andresearch that went into developing the NAPAsis a testament to how much needs to be doneacross sectors, but particularly in agriculture,to help developing countries adapt. Actionsto be encouraged on a priority basis shouldsimultaneously serve mitigation, adaptationand agricultural productivity purposes.

Financing is the issue which blocks progress in

the implementation of adaptation projects, not alack of evaluation of needs, tools for evaluation,or uncertainty regarding the effects of climatechange. The international community is calledupon to drive momentum in the area of raisingadequate funds as well as look at ways in whichto best use alternative nancial tools to provideresources for adaptation.

Forestry and Climate Change

Forestry is closely linked to climate change andagriculture because shifts in cultivated areas

are associated with deforestation. Forests coverjust over 4 billion hectares (ha) or 31 percent oftotal world land area. They store vast amountsof carbon and constitute the worlds chiefcarbon sinks. Deforestation though land-usechange (generally for agricultural purposes)generates approximately 18.2 percent of totalGHG emissions and thus constitutes one ofthe most important sources of GHG emissions.Fires, pests, diseases and extreme weather


27/96


events also cause increasing forest losses in

many countries.

Each year approximately 13 million ha offorests were converted to other uses or lostthrough natural causes between 2000 and2010, in comparison to an approximateannual conversion of 16 million ha between1990 and 2000. Annual forest losses inBrazil (2.9 million ha) and Indonesia(1.9 million ha), the highest suffered by anycountry during the 1990s, were reducedduring the last decade (respectively to

2.6 million and 0.5 million ha). At the sametime, wide-scale tree planting programmes inChina, India, the US and Viet Nam, along withnatural forest expansion, have provided morethan 7 million ha of new forests during eachyear of the last decade. The annual global netforest loss thus fell from 8.3 million ha between1990 and 2000 to 5.2 million ha between 2000and 2010.

Tree planting programmes in China, India andViet Nam helped Asia register an average net

annual gain of 2.2 million ha of forests between2000 and 2010. South America suffered thehighest net annual forest loss during the sameperiod, with 4 million ha, followed by Africa(3.4 million ha annual forest loss). Forest coverremained stable in North and Central Americaand expanded in Europe.21

Approximately 13.5 percent of the worldsforests benet from the status of protectedarea. The potential to increase this percentageis relatively low, except in large forestedregions with low population density (Amazon

Basin, Congo Basin, boreal forests in Canadaand Russia).22

21 FAO - Key Findings - Global Forest Resources As-sessment 2010 (12 pp.).

22 FAO - State of the Worlds Forests 2009 (March2009,168 pp.), at 72.

Alternative ways of mitigating GHG emissions

via forests must increasingly be promoted. TheUnited Nations REDD+ (Reducing Emissionsfrom Deforestation and Forest Degradationin Developing Countries) programmeaddresses the reversal of deforestation andforest degradation, conservation of existingcarbon stocks and enhancement of carbonstocks. These activities are viewed as the mostpromising and affordable GHG mitigationmeasures.

Other important areas where efforts must

be stepped up include sustainable forestmanagement, afforestation and reforestation,agro-forestry, and providing wood fuels as asubstitute for fossil fuels and wood products toreplace more energy-intensive materials. Anyefforts to preserve the sink attributes of forestsmust ensure that the market value of a standingtree surpasses that of a felled tree.


28/96


29/96

Agriculture and Multilateral Climate Mitigation in the UNFCCC 17

While agriculture is particularly vulnerable tothe short-term and long-term effects of climatechange and must quickly adapt to it, agriculture

also offers great potential for climate changemitigation in light of the size of its emissions.Current estimates put agricultures totalcontribution to GHG emissions at 14 percent(excluding forestry).23 In non-carbon dioxidegases, agricultures contribution to emissionis even higher: 47 percent of CH

4emissions

(especially due to cattle and wetlands, mostnotably rice paddies) and 58 percent of N

2O

emissions (mostly from fertilizer use).24Agriculture thus should be a priority sector inmultilateral efforts to mitigate climate change,

although its diversity and complexity willpresent enormous challenges.

If deforestation is added to the mix, approximatelyone third of global anthropogenic GHGemissions, more specically 25 percent of CO

2,

50 percent of CH4

and 75 percent of N2O, can

be traced back to agriculture and deforestation.Forestry is closely intertwined with agriculturebecause increases in agricultural area are oftenlinked to deforestation. This has negativeimpacts on GHG emissions because forestsconstitute the worlds greatest natural sinks.

23 FAO - Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to ClimateChange Mitigation (6 February 2009, 13 pp.), at 1.

24 IPCC - Climate Change Mitigation - Agriculture(2007,44 pp.), at 503.

UNFCCC The Framework forMultilateral Action on Climate ChangeMitigation

The United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Multilateral negotiations on a coordinated,global agenda to mitigate global warming andclimate change have taken place within the1994 UNFCCC, an international treaty signedby nearly every country of the world.

The UNFCCC has its origins in the1992 Earth Summit in Rio, some

20 years following the rst United NationsConference on the Human Environment in1972 in Stockholm. The Stockholm conferenceunderlined the need for countries to cooperateat an international level to effectively control,prevent, reduce and eliminate adverse, globalenvironmental effects.25 The major milestonesin the four decades of global action followingthe Stockholm conference are summarized inBox 1.

The objective of the UNFCCC is to avoiddangerous interferences of man-made

GHG emissions with the climate system. Inmeeting this objective, the UNFCCC calls uponcountries to act, despite a lack of scienticcertainty, regarding the adverse effects ofclimate change. The UNFCCC aims to preventcountries from using scientic uncertainty as

25 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Con-ference on the Human Environment (1972), Principle24; see UNEP - WTO - Trade & Climate (2009, 194pp.), at 68.

Chapter 3

Agriculture and Multilateral ClimateMitigation in the UNFCCC


30/96



an excuse to forestall the adoption of climate

change mitigation policies.

The UNFCCC contains few legally bindingobligations and does not set GHG emissionreduction targets. Its role has been to lay thegroundwork for further multilateral cooperationby creating an institutional framework tosupport ongoing dialogue between UNFCCCsignatories, with a view to adopt protocols thatwould set binding GHG reduction obligations.To do so, the framework provides for periodicmultilateral conferences, called conferences of

the parties (COPs). COPs are a venue in whichall UNFCCC signatory countries are membersand each has one vote.

The UNFCCC also requires that each signatorycountry: (i) report on its sources and sinks ofGHGs; (ii) implement national programmesdestined to mitigate climate change; (iii) reporton its implementation of the UNFCCC; and(iv) cooperate internationally in the study ofclimate change.26

The UNFCCC imposes additional obligationson two groups of countries: OECD-membercountries as of 1994 and Economies inTransition (EIT)27 countries. These countriesare altogether identied as Annex I countriesand the OECD-member countries as of 1994are further designated as Annex II countries.

Each UNFCCC Annex I country must limitits anthropogenic GHG emissions, protectand enhance its GHG sinks and reservoirs,and report detailed information regardingits GHGs. One objective of the UNFCCC is to

stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations inthe atmosphere at a level that would preventdangerous anthropogenic interference with theclimate system (Article 2 of the UNFCCC).

26 Knox - International Legal Framework for Address-ing Climate Change (Winter 2004, 9 p.), at 2.

27 Economies in transition (most notably Russia andEastern European countries formerly members of theSoviet bloc).

In addition, UNFCCC Annex II countries must:

(i) pay reporting costs incurred by developingcountries; (ii) assist developing countriesthat are particularly vulnerable to the adverseeffects of climate change (e.g. small islandstates) with adaptation costs; and (iii) takeall practicable steps to promote, facilitate andnance, as appropriate, the transfer of, oraccess to, environmentally sound technologiesand know-how to other countries.28

The principles embedded in the UNFCCChave permeated climate change negotiations

ever since, most notably the concepts ofcommon but differentiated responsibilitiesbetween UNFCCC Annex I countries and othercountries29 and the specic needs and concernsof developing and least-developed countries.30The 1995 Berlin Mandate, negotiated at COP-1, also underlined the historical responsibilityof Annex I countries for the bulk of GHGemissions and the necessity for developingcountries and least-developed countries topursue their economic growth.

28 Articles 4.3 to 4.5 of the UNFCCC.

29 Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC.

30 Articles 4.8 to 4.10 of the UNFCCC.


31/96


Box 1: Milestones in the UNFCCC Framework

1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the HumanDevelopment calls for international cooperation to address adverseenvironmental problems

1983 World Commission on Environment and Development convenes (BruntlandCommission)

1987 Bruntland Commission issues a Report Our Common Future which callsfor stronger multilateral solutions to global environmental problems

1988 Establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)tasked to assess timing, magnitude and impact of climate change caused byhuman activity

1990 IPPC issues its First Report

1990/2 Creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)

1992 Adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange(UNFCCC)

1992/2 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil (Earth Summit) 155 countries sign on the UNFCCC

1994 UNFCCC enters into force with 192 signatory countries; UNFCCC lays thegroundwork for multilateral cooperation to mitigate climate change

1995 First Conference of the Parties (COP-1) is held under the auspices of theUNFCCC in Berlin (Berlin Mandate); goal: move toward mandatory GHGreduction targets for Annex 1 (OECD) countries

1997 COP-3 held in Kyoto, Japan and results in an agreement on binding targetsfor GHG emission cuts for Annex 1 countries (Kyoto Protocol)

2000 COP-6 held in the Hague; results in a deadlock over how anthropogenicsinks (land-use, land use change and forestry - LULUCF) could count towardGHG emission reduction targets

2001 COP-6.5 meeting in Bonn expanded the coverage of anthropogenic sinks tocover four additional types of activities: (i) forest management; (ii) croplandmanagement; (iii) grazing land management; and (iv) revegetation

2001 COP-7 meeting in Marrakesh nalizes the Kyoto protocol setting the stagefor its ratication


32/96



As of 12 September 2011,31 16 UNFCCC Annex Ideveloped economies (including the EuropeanUnion and its member countries) haveestablished GHG emission reduction targetsbetween 5 and 30 percent, with the lowesttargets often being unconditional while higher

targets are conditional.

The Kyoto Protocol

The 1997 COP-3 meeting held in Kyoto, Japanconcluded with a landmark multilateralagreement the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCCThe Kyoto Protocol imposed mandateson UNFCCC Annex I countries to reduce,either individually or jointly, their aggregateanthropogenic GHG emissions by at least 5percent below 1990 levels in the commitmentperiod 2008 to 2012.32

31 See FAO - Information Note - Agriculture, FoodSecurity and Climate Change in Post-CopenhagenProcesses (12 April 2010, 6 pp.), which seems to beupdated every two months. See also http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php(last consulted on 17September 2011) for most recent information and fortargets of other UNFCCC Annex I countries.

32 Article 3.1 of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC entered intoforce on 16 February 2005, after having beenratied by 55 signatory countries representing55 percent of global CO

2emissions in 1990.

During the protocols negotiation, COP

members struggled to specify the extent towhich UNFCCC Annex I countries could takesinks and joint action (such as emissionstrading and joint implementation) into accountwhen meeting their GHG emission reductiontargets. Countries with large forest areas (US,Canada, Russia) favoured the inclusion of forestsinks toward GHG targets, but other Annex Icountries were opposed. The solution was toallow only certain types of anthropogenic (man-made) sinks afforestation, and reforestationsince 1990.33

One remaining obstacle in the Kyotonegotiations was the percentage of the GHGemission reduction target that could be reachedthrough forestry or other activities. This wasnot specied in the Kyoto Protocol and thisissue later proved to be contentious.

33 Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol.

2005 COP-11 meeting in Montreal, rst Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol

(CMP-1); growing interest in developing countries considering mitigationefforts; proposal to allow credits for reducing emissions from deforestationand forest degradation (REDD) is tabled by 15 rainforest nations

2007 COP-13 and CMP-3 meetings in Bali; adoption of the Bali Roadmap toward asuccessor to the Kyoto in 2009; 4th IPCC Assessment issued, asserting thatclimate change is unequivocal and that human activities are very likelythe cause of warming

2009 Copenhagen Conference (COP-15 and CMP-5); countries fail to agree to anew post-Kyoto protocol; an unofcial Copenhagen Accord is issued

2010 Cancun Conference; makes further progress on adaptation, mitigationprocesses; but no new breakthrough on rm country commitments inmitigation; more focus on adaptation


33/96


The Protocol established joint action among

UNFCCC Annex I countries and between AnnexI and non-Annex I countries through threemain exibility mechanisms: internationalemissions trading, joint implementation (JI)and the CDM.

International emissions trading betweenUNFCCC Annex I countries of AssignedAmount Units (AAUs) was allowed but howthis trading is to take place was not specied.

JIallows Annex I countries to invest in projects

in other Annex I countries and receive creditstowards their GHG emission reduction targets.As of 1 October 2011, 478 projects were in thepipeline34.

The CDMallow rms in Annex I countries toinvest in projects in developing countries andreceive CERs that count toward their GHGemission reduction targets.

During the 2001 COP-6.5 meeting in Bonn,the details of the Kyoto Protocol were

nalized and the Bonn Agreement also ledto the creation of three new funds: (i) theSpecial Climate Change Fund to help withadaptation, technology transfer, energy,transport, industry, agriculture, forestry andwaste management; (ii) a Least DevelopedCountries Fund to help with NAPAs; and (iii)the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund to nanceconcrete adaptation projects and programmesin developing country Parties that have becomeParties to the Protocol.35

Post-Kyoto: In Search of a New Agreement on

GHG Emissions

During COP-11 Montreal in December 2005,which also served as the rst Meeting ofthe Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP-1),

34 Source: http://www.cdmpipeline.org/ji-projects.htm#1 (last viewed 13 October 2011).

35 See COP-6 Bis The Bonn Agreement (24 July 2001,14 pp.).

planning for a Post-Kyoto accord started in

earnest. A major breakthrough during COP-11 came when developing countries showeda greater willingness to consider developing-country mitigation efforts. Another signicantdevelopment was the leadership of PapuaNew Guinea, heading a coalition of 15rainforest nations, in re-opening the debate ondeforestation with a proposal to allow creditsfor REDD.

The two-year dialogue initiated in Montrealculminated at the COP-13 and CMP-3 in Bali

in December 2007 with the adoption of a wide-ranging negotiating process known as the BaliRoadmap that was intended to result in theadoption of a successor to the Kyoto Protocolin 2009.

The Bali meeting was also marked by therelease of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reporton climate change, which concluded thatthe warming of the Earths climate system isunequivocal, and that human activities arevery likely the cause of this warming.

At the Bali meeting, developing countriesagreed to consider taking nationallyappropriate MRV mitigation actions supportedby technology and enabled by nancing andcapacity-building. Developed countrieswould in addition consider taking mitigationcommitments or actions, including quantiedemission limitation and reduction objectives.However, no country was bound to attain anyparticular outcome.

Echoing the initiative of Papua New Guinea

on REDD at the Montreal COP, the Baliconference adopted a decision encouragingrainforest countries to undertake initiativesin this respect while calling for discussions onwhat form nancial assistance would take.

Among the priorities for future negotiationsreported in the Bali Action Plan were:enhanced national and international mitigationefforts; enhanced national and international


34/96



adaptation efforts; and enhanced nancing

of adaptation and mitigation efforts andtechnology cooperation.

Also at the Bali meeting, the Adaptation Fund(under the Kyoto) was operationalized by thecreation of the Adaptation Fund Board tomanage the funds generated by levies on CDMprojects.

One of the key elements of the Bali Roadmapwas the launch of a negotiating process underthe UNFCCC that would run in parallel with the

negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol, resultingin two negotiating tracks to be pursued underthe newly launched Ad Hoc Working Groupon Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA,under the UNFCCC) and the existing Ad HocWorking Group on Further Commitments forAnnex I Parties (AWG-KP, under the KyotoProtocol). The hope was that the two trackswould converge in a comprehensive post-2012agreement in Copenhagen in 2009.

The COP-15 and CMP-5, which took place

in Copenhagen in 2009, capped two yearsof intense negotiations that followed thepath outlined by the Bali Action Plan. Anunprecedented level of political attention wasgenerated by the Copenhagen Conference asattested by the presence of approximately120 Heads of State and Government who,for the very rst time, met to address climatechange, now perceived as a serious threatto humanity. More than 40,000 peoplefrom more than 21,000 non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and 5,000 mediaasked for accreditation; while the conference

facilities could host only 15,000 people. Asof September 2011, it is estimated that141 countries, including the 27-member EU,are likely to engage, or have engaged, with theaccord.36 (See Tables 2 and 3 on GHG EmissionReduction Targets.)

36 See http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copen-hagen-accord-commitmentsand http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php

As of 12 September 2011,37 16 UNFCCC Annex I

developed economies (including the EuropeanUnion and its member countries) haveestablished GHG emission reduction targetsbetween 5 and 30 percent, with the lowesttargets often being unconditional while highertargets are conditional.

37 See FAO - Information Note - Agriculture, FoodSecurity and Climate Change in Post-CopenhagenProcesses (12 April 2010, 6 pp.), which seems to beupdated every two months. See also http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php(last consulted on 17September 2011) for most recent information and fortargets of other UNFCCC Annex I count

Documents

Agricultura y Cambio Climatico - FAO