Agriculture and the UNFCCC

Agriculture in the Climate Change Negotiations

Issue Paper 6 analyses the latest negotiating text for AWG-LCA and AWG-KP.^[1] The Paper identifies the issues that the negotiations need to address on agriculture and poses a number of questions on agriculture that need to be considered.

English

Detailed analyses of the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA text are given in Appendices I to III. These are based on a word search of agricultural terms and an assessment of critical issues for agriculture which may currently be absent from, or little reflected in, the current texts.

Informal Bonn meeting in August ^[2]

During the August meeting the emphasis was on re-ordering and consolidating the negotiating text. There have been few changes to the new AWG-LCA text in items relating to agriculture. While some text has been shifted around there has been no overall change to the meaning. The Bangkok (September) and Barcelona (November) meetings will aim to further consolidate the text. The decisions taken at these meetings on exclusions or inclusions of text could have significant implications for agriculture.

Key messages from Bonn III

Some text details were re-ordered but few substantive changes were made to negotiating texts as this was an informal meeting of the Parties.
Three key areas for agriculture include: food security, adaptation and sustainable agriculture, how agriculture might be brought into mitigation activities (REDD-Plus, LULUCF), and research & development on agricultural mitigation technologies.
Little discussion of agriculture in reference to adaptation.
Financing for agriculture was not discussed at this session. If it is included as a part of REDD-Plus, NAMAs or if the CDM is broadened to include soil carbon sequestration under the Kyoto Protocol, financing for agricultural mitigation will receive a huge boost.
The role, scope, measuring and structure for LULUCF was discussed in detail. Agriculture-related terms are frequently mentioned in LULUCF as an interchangeable phrase e.g. LULUCF and/or Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU).
While land-based accounting is ‘desirable in the long term’, due to the challenges of MRV, many question whether these can be addressed so that land (including agriculture) can be included in the second commitment period (2012 to 2017).
Mitigation: Agriculture is included in discussion on where LULUCF activities should be placed in both NAMAs and CDM. If agriculture is part of NAMAs and/or CDM then for smallholder farmers to benefit sectoral approaches will be needed.
There are discussions on a work programme for agriculture under SBSTA to deal with issues on the measurement and verification of soil carbon, and how to realise the co benefits of adaptation and mitigation.

Background

Agriculture is the mainstay of livelihoods of the majority of the world’s poor. These people are highly vulnerable to climate change. A new climate change agreement will have a major impact on the way that adaptation and mitigation issues relating to agriculture are prioritised and financed. The aim should therefore be to reach an agreement that helps to:

Deliver substantial emission reductions through agriculture.
Increase carbon sequestration through better land^[3] and water management.
Recognise that agricultural management practices and land uses can generate multiple benefits for mitigation, sustainable agricultural development, food security and adaptation.
Ensure that the needs and role of poor people and smallholder farmers are taken into account in future climate change agreements.

Areas of concern for agriculture

From the analysis of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP texts, seven issues arise.

A. Adaptation

Adaptation in agriculture is critical for the most vulnerable farmers, who are dependent on rain-fed agriculture.
A consensus is emerging that adaptation should be country-driven and integrated into national development planning.
Investment over the last 10 to 15 years in agriculture, particularly for the poorest, has declined. This is now changing, but any increas in investment in adaptation needs to be accompanied by an increase in investment in agricultural development.
In the section on Enhanced Action on adaptation, there are only two references to agriculture. These relate to building resilience (para 30 p.52) and insurance (para 42 p.57). This is surprising as agriculture is one of the most climate-sensitive sectors, and is of major importance for food security, poverty reduction and overall economic development, particularly in developing countries.
It is therefore important that agriculture, and other key sectors are mentioned explicitly in a Copenhagen outcome on adaptation.

B. Financing

Financing and emissions targets are major issues for negotiators. Discussions on these did not look at how finance would be apportioned to agriculture or other sectors. In terms of the source of financing, developing countries favour public finance while developed countries favour a mix of public and private financing.
Finance for mitigation in agriculture. The inclusion of agriculture in REDD-Plus may provide opportunities for investment in agriculture. In the section on Enhanced Action on financing, technology and capacity building, agriculture is not specifically mentioned, though REDD is mentioned more than 10 times.
Financing mechanisms are needed for agriculture to help mitigate climate change and generate co-benefits for adaptation, poor people’s livelihoods and food security.

C. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

IPR on seeds and improved varieties are a concern for developing countries. Transfers of seeds, improved varieties and technologies are needed to increase the resilience of crops and livelihoods of those dependent on them. This is currently reflected as an insertion in brackets in the revised negotiating text requiring that plant germplasm relating to adaptation in agriculture must not be patented by multinational or other corporations. It is important that this bracketed text concerning IPR is not lost in subsequent discussions.
There are additional IPR issues linked to technology transfer, and a change of the current IPR legal system may be required to facilitate technology transfer in areas relating to climate adaptation. This could affect agriculture.
For agriculture these issues are addressed under the existing Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Consistency with these will be necessary.

D. LULUCF/AFOLU

The LULUCF agenda has been dominated by forestry, and agriculture is a new topic. There is no conclusion as to whether or not agriculture will be included in the text.
There is no agreement on LULUCF rules in terms of percentages, amounts, accounting procedures, and what will be included (e.g. crops and grasslands).
Land-based accounting – see comment under Key Messages from Bonn.
There is no conclusion on the eligibility of LULUCF under the CDM - whether it can include sustainable land-use management and soil carbon management.
Calls to widen the geographical scope of CDM activities could have positive implications for those most vulnerable to climate change and who depend upon agriculture for their livelihoods, especially in Africa, if agriculture can be classified as a mitigation activity through the agreement.
Draft decisions on other issues identified in paragraph 49 (c) of document FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/8^[4] are in Annex II - how to address definitions, modalities, rules and guidelines for the treatment of LULUCF. While this Annex has not changed there are two important issues for agriculture:
- Agriculture and soil management are seen as options that may or may not be included in LULUCF and in terms of measurement of emissions. Inclusion of cropland management is posed as a choice or an obligation in two options.
- LULUCF will be maintained in the second commitment period, but whether the eligibility of LULUCF will include afforestation/reforestation alone or a greater list of activities (which might include agriculture-based activities) is still to be agreed.
How to deal with the issue of carbon sinks, which are accounted for, then potentially destroyed by non-human induced activity, and the requirement for proof and verification of non-anthropogenic causes is also an issue. Agriculture and soil carbon based sinks are vulnerable here and it will be important to differentiate between anthropogenic and non anthropogenic emissions.
Accounting for carbon pools by Annex I countries including biomass, litter, dead wood and organic carbon. This could be challenging for many developing countries. This is also an potential issue in relation to bioenergy crops. Taking into account carbon sinks from bioenergy production is important and could lead to a change in the way the accounting rules related to agricultural emissions are considered.

E. NAMAs/CDM/Mitigation

The first KP document on amendments to the KP, includes a section detailing potential NAMA aspects of the agreement. NAMAs are seen as a way to help mitigation in non-Annex I countries. Preventing double counting^[5] is important.
In the section on Enhanced Action on Mitigation, under the LCA, NAMAs are referenced as potentially including REDD-plus, including agriculture. The proportion of total GHGs from agriculture is high in developing countries when deforestation is included, as is the potential for technical and economic mitigation. Potential co-benefits from agricultural mitigation can contribute to adaptation, food security and poverty reduction. This should make agriculture a key sector for NAMAs.
Where is the best place for LULUCF activities? In the NAMAs, or the CDM, or both? This was discussed in the meeting. The issue here is that agriculture can be in both CDM and NAMAs.

F. REDD-Plus

The major issues on REDD-Plus are: sources of finance (market/private funds), baseline calculations, issues concerning non-permanence of the emissions reduction, which activities are to be included, and the level of accounting.
Most of the texts refer to forestry as the focus of the REDD-Plus mechanism, though some options include agriculture. If or when agriculture is included, then the issue of MRV of soil and biomass carbon needs to be resolved. One option is to bring agriculture and soil carbon into REDD-Plus at a later date after further research through a separate agriculture work programme.

G. Sectoral Approaches

Previous discussions around sectoral approaches in the LCA mentioned agriculture, aviation, shipping and bunker fuels; the revised text does not mention agriculture along with the other sectors. Many parties do not want mandatory sectoral approaches but, instead, want the sectors to be involved with technology transfer, and want voluntary sectoral emissions reductions to be included within wider targets.
Agriculture sector approaches can deliver on both mitigation and adaptation. It would be a missed opportunity if agriculture was not included as a sectoral approach in the LCA text.

Conclusion and Questions

Agriculture is a unique sector. It is one of the most sensitive to climate change and has essential roles in food security, poverty reduction and overall economic development, particularly in developing countries. It is also a major emitter of GHGs yet has the potential to sequester carbon. Agriculture, therefore, has significant opportunities to achieve co benefits: building resilience to climate change; reducing emissions and sequestering carbon; and helping achieve food security and poverty reduction. Overall global efforts to address adaptation and mitigation are unlikely to be successful without agriculture.

The importance of agriculture is now recognised and consideration of the sector is taking place under both AWG-LCA and AWG-KP. There has been a greater focus on agriculture in the LCA text. Plans for an agriculture work programme under SBSTA are also being raised and there are plans to discuss this at an informal meeting on agriculture in Bangkok. An agriculture work programme could provide the opportunity to deal with current issues faced by the agriculture sector, including monitoring, recording and verification (MRV), soil carbon accounting and biomass. Ideally, these issues should be resolved so that agriculture can be adequately and appropriately reflected in the Copenhagen Outcome and in the next commitment period.

Important questions that need to be considered as the negotiations proceed include:

Does agriculture have a unique role in adaptation because of its potential for mitigation and other co benefits? If so, do we need to ensure that agriculture is including in any sectoral references or given specific mention?
Where agriculture is mentioned, what does this mean for benefits or impact on developing countries and smallholder farmers? Does a pro-poor aspect need to be emphasised when mentioning the sector?
Will activities under LULUCF in the second commitment period include agriculture-based activities, and will these be mandatory or voluntary?
Should agriculture activities be in NAMAs, or the CDM, or both?
What are the best financing mitigation mechanisms for agriculture to help reduce GHG emissions and generate co-benefits for resilience, poverty reduction and food security?
Should agriculture be part of REDD-Plus now, should it be brought in at a later stage after further research through a separate agriculture work programme, or should a new mechanism be developed for agriculture?
What are the technical issues (mitigation and adaptation) that a work programme on agriculture could include?

These questions will be considered and further analysis of AGG-LCA and AWG-KP texts will be undertaken by the Platform after the Bangkok meeting. A further Issues Paper is planned in advance of the Barcelona meeting in November.

Footnotes

In view of the tight timeframe to analyse texts and publish this paper it may contain some errors and omissions.

[1] Glossary of terms used in this paper.
[2] See: ENB (2009) Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol 12 Issue 427 Summary of the Bonn Climate Talks August 2009. IISD, New York
[3] Included carbon sequestered in above ground biomass: trees, crops, and grasslands.
[4] Paragraph 49c details a list of tasks to be undertaken during 2009 by participants relating to the creation of a revised agreement. See Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties, p.10 for more detail.
[5] This is when developed country parties count carbon emissions reductions in their own targets if projects are funded by them overseas, and developing country parties also count these emissions reduction in their own carbon budgets.

Comments

One person has commented on this article.

1. Introducing the Paper
agriculture climatechange, Registered

This paper sets out the issues that need to be considered when agriculture is dicussed at the next round of UNFCCC negotiations which start next week in Bangkok. It finishes by posing questions including:

Does agriculture have a unique role in adaptation because of its potential for mitigation and other co-benefits?

What ill be the benefits or impact on developing countries and smallholder farmers?

Should agriculture activities be in NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions), or the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), or both?

What are best financing mitigation mechanisms that allow agriculture to help reduce GHG emissions and generate co-benefits for resilience, poverty reduction and food security?

What are the technical issues (mitigation and adaptation) that a work programme on agriculture could include?

I hope this paper will be useful to negotiators and to those interested in agricultural development and food security. I look forward to comments and suggestions on the papers contents.

David Howlett - chair of the Platform "text" team.

Posted 2009-09-25 19:13:25

Tackling rural poverty, together