Global climate change policy

What should a 2020 global climate agreement look like for agriculture?

What do we need in a SBSTA work program in order to get to 2020 agreement?

What should CCAFS do in Bonn next week?

Outline

• UNFCCC – history and position of agriculture

• Shape of an international agreement that deals with agriculture

• What should happen in SBSTA?

• What should we do in Bonn?

Food production is considered in Article 2 of the UNFCCC

“……stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations …..

…… to ensure that food production is not threatened …….

A painfully slow history Year Actions

1992 UNFCCC signed

1997 Kyoto Protocol (to 2012) signed – legally binding constraints on GHGs for Annex 1 countries: “promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation”; “promotion of sustainable forms of agriculture”.

2001 Need to provide finance to developing countries for their National Adaptation Plans of Actions (NAPAs). Adaptation Fund established.

2005 Forest conservation as a mitigation strategy was first advanced and it was agreed to take it up in SBSTA (May 2006)

2006 Nairobi Work Program (supporting climate change adaptation by developing countries and improving the projects for the “Clean Development Mechanism” - CDM).

2007 Bali Road Map - “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD) was now firmly on the agenda. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) was introduced to get nationally-driven commitments

Agriculture’s recent journey……..

A “work program” on agriculture as part of UNFCCC SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice)

But some progress elsewhere….

• Under REDD+ (as part of Cancun Agreement) – Agriculture as a driver of deforestation is now being considered under SBSTA

• Under KP (as part of Durban Agreement) – requests SBSTA to establish 4 work programs: – “to explore more comprehensive accounting of anthropogenic emissions by

sources and removals by sinks from land use, land-use change and forestry, including through a more inclusive activity-based approach or a land-based approach”

– ”to initiate a work programme to consider and, as appropriate, develop and recommend modalities and procedures for possible additional land use, land-use change and forestry activities under the clean development mechanism …

– “to initiate a work programme to consider and, as appropriate, develop and recommend modalities and procedures for alternative approaches to addressing the risk of non-permanence under the clean development mechanism … “

– “to develop and recommend modalities and procedures for applying the concept of additionality”

And perhaps agriculture can be highlighted under Adaptation

Framework

• National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) – Tools and methods could be developed to make agriculture less

vulnerable

• Nairobi work programme – Currently focusing on two issues: water and ecosystem-based

approaches for adaptation – Should make sure agriculture is considered under both – Parties have been asked to submit their views on potential future

areas of work under the NWP to be considered by SBSTA 38, by 17 September 2012

• Programme on loss and damage – Submissions are requested by 17 September with views on the

possible elements to be included in the recommendations on loss and damage from the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) to COP 18.

Why no/slow progress? 1. Wrong location/UNFCCC structural problem

– Ad hoc Working Group on Long term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) call for a work program under SBSTA

– AWG-LCA under mitigation as per Bali Road Map – BUT

• Actual draft negotiating text includes adaptation • Support by COMESA, many African countries

2. Link with ‘bunker fuels’ – Under AWG-LCA ‘Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions’ – Only other sectoral issue is bunker fuels – BRICS++ in Durban: nothing can be agreed without an agreement on the

overarching framework for cooperative sectoral approaches • There was no agreement on the common language in Cancun and thus agriculture was

not debated • BRICS++ were stressing:

– Common but differentiated responsibilities (read “Annex 1’ vs. others) – Must promote technology transfer in ‘all relevant sectors’, not merely agriculture and

international aviation and shipping – cooperative sectoral approaches shall not lead to new commitments for developing countries

or create barriers and distortions in international trade

Why no/slow progress? 3. ‘Agriculture is too complicated’

– Many negotiators are from environmental ministries – They have been struggling with forestry

4. ‘Agriculture will reduce the funding to forestry’ 5. Annex 1 countries seen to be leading the process of a work

program – this leads to various conjectures about motives (e.g. Stabinsky) – “Whilst Annex I agricultural emissions are high, the possibility of a work programme aimed at

direct emission reductions in their agriculture sectors is unfortunately unlikely” – “These countries are important agricultural exporters and would like not to be bound to

emission reductions in the agriculture sector, so that they might continue or even increase their global share of exports without taking responsibility for the associated emissions and/or costs of reducing them”

– “desire .....for a work programme reflects a strong interest in developing market-based approaches to overall emission reductions – where they would compensate emission reduction or sequestration in developing countries instead of taking steps to cut their own emissions”

– “Work Program is needed for methodology development of MRV in order to support market-based methods”

– “A trade-related reason for a work programme would be to justify continued subsidies to the agriculture sector that might take the form of national-level programmes for carbon sequestration or carbon efficiency in agriculture. National-level carbon-efficiency standards in agriculture could also be used as a basis for protection of domestic commodity production from competition from developing countries, or indeed any country with less carbon-efficient agriculture.”

This is a politically charged arena……. • Annex 1 vs. others still high on the agenda (increasingly

distinction has become difficult to uphold) • Much rhetoric that is difficult to justify ”Developed countries produce two-fold greater

emissions in their agriculture sector than the entire continent of Africa, and three-fold greater in the animal sector”

“ ‘Sustainable intensification’, a euphemism for chemical intensive and industrial monoculture practices that increase per-hectare yields” “GMOs”

“The financial structure of Climate Smart Agriculture is built on evaporating carbon markets”

“There is no verifiable direct link to avoided deforestation that would merit inclusion of agriculture in a REDD-plus scheme”

Agriculture in a 2020 agreement International agreement that covers (this is ambitious!): 1. Compensation to LDCs/Non-Annex 1 (?) for agricultural

loss and damage 2. Mechanism to build adaptive capacity to climate change

in LDCs/Non-Annex 1 3. Mechanism to support the most vulnerable populations

in LDCs/Non-Annex 1 as a result of rising food prices due to climate change

4. Mechanisms to support capacity building and technology transfer for agriculture

5. Mechanisms to support LDCs/Non-Annex 1 to undertake mitigation activities

6. GHG reduction targets that reflect LDC/Non-Annex 1 state of development

What should be part of SBSTA?

1. Establish tools and methods to: • Assess losses and damage

• Measure adaptive capacity

• Measure vulnerability (e.g. to food price increases as a result of direct climate change impacts and rising prices due to mitigation targets)

• Quantify GHG emissions in agriculture

• Assess impacts of climate change on agriculture, food security and GHG emissions

2. Calculate likely levels of international funds needed (for agriculture and other sectors) to cover: (a) losses and damage; (b) enhancing adaptive capacity; (c) social safety nets for the most vulnerable; (d) costs of incentives for GHG reduction

3. Prepare review of agricultural activities that should be incentivised to reduce direct and indirect emissions, and that contribute to adaptation and food security in different agro-ecologies (i.e. clarify trade-offs and synergies in agriculture)

• Keep it simple and positive

• Keep it technical, not political

• Provide evidence on areas where SBSTA can achieve early progress

• Avoid introducing further complexities such as “food system versus food production” or “food security versus food production”

• Topics of interest to negotiators at this stage include (a) feasible adaptation options (b) links between adaptation and mitigation (c) GHG measurement

SO, what should CCAFS do at SBSTA?