Pro-Poor Climate Change Mitigation: <br />LiniWollenberg<br />
WHY ?<br />Long Term: food security v. agricultural mitigation<br /> Competing demands will exceed the 445 Mhaavailable(La...
Pro Poor  Mitigation<br />3.1 Agricultural development pathways<br />Policies supporting low GHG impact & triple win<br />...
Mitigation potentials<br />and technical options<br />
Technical options and mitigation potentials<br />Benchmark site, national, and regional emissions baselines and mitigation...
INSTITUTIONS AND INCENTIVES<br />Pro-poor mitigation <br />What CCAFS outputs?<br />Why are they useful?<br />>> Spotlight...
Test the carbon market<br /><ul><li>Improving benefits from carbon market    </li></ul>     projects  PAR with 6 E. Africa...
 Pre-existing institutions, upfront finance critical
 Monitoring livelihoods not a project priority</li></ul>CGIAR Synergies-Mitigation as co-benefit to agriculture<br />   -M...
Adoption of low climate impact practices<br />Incentives synthesis workshop:  review papers on <br />costs and benefits of...
Major Outputs in 2010<br />Measurement and Monitoring<br />Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38...
Measurement and Monitoring of GHGs<br />Field testing of process models in regions<br />Agricultural GHG quantification (F...
Major Outputs in 2010<br />Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters)<br />Site, national, ...
Major Activities in 2011<br />Regional mitigation planning workshops<br />Road map and synthesis of GHG quantification for...
Review of institutional mechanisms:</li></ul>    maintaining forest-farm boundary<br />
Pro-Poor Mitigation objectives<br />3.1 Identify agricultural development pathways<br /> Evaluate C footprint for<br />-fo...
3.2 Develop incentives and institutions for pro-poor mitigation<br /><ul><li>Test feasibility of carbon market for smallho...
Other incentives and innovations: food value chains, aggregation, risk sharing, micro-finance, landscapes
Assess impacts</li></ul>TOC <br />      - Develop innovative models for projects and policy makers<br />      - Use long-t...
3.3 Develop technological options for mitigation by smallholders<br />    - Test technologies on farms for multiple sector...
Main outcomes<br /><ul><li>2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CCAFS Theme 3 Strategy: Pro-Poor Climate Change Mitigation - Lini Wollenberg

791 views

Published on

Presented by Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS Theme Leader, at CG Contact Point Meeting in Bonn, 9 June 2011.

Homepage: www.ccafs.cgiar.org
Theme 3 page: http://ccafs.cgiar.org/our-work/research-themes/pro-poor-mitigation

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
791
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
46
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ␣4,000 Mha is suitable for rain-fed agriculture. Demand with no deforestation , would have to clear all natural forests to make positive, or substantially deforest
  • Are you sure you need this again, but OK
  • Synergies: where the whole is more than the sum of the parts
  • Wide set of CG and ESSP partners writing book chapters for Earthscan; covering the range of ag sectors including livestock and fisheriesSimilarly full range of lessons from REDD+: technical options, “measurement, reporting and verification” (MRV), finance, institutions, incentives
  • Use scenarios, assessment methods, science-policy dialogs. Benchmark site data used to demonstrate regional and agroecosystem options
  • We need to develop a three year work plan for each Theme – each theme has three objectives. This is objective #1. Each Objective has three Outputs. {Hit} Unfortunately, this text is set in stone. We need to fit the Centre activities into this text.{Hit} Now what we must do. We need Centre-proposed milestones.{Hit} For ICRAF we need 3-5 milestones over all of Theme 3, perhaps just one for Objective 3.1
  • I think it would be better to structure like Jim; sanyway it is not clear that you have your “theory of change” covered.
  • Innovative C footprint assessment tool,Methods field testing and regional networksAssessments of national policy and projectsTrade-off scenarios
  • 400 publications reviewed, cases of ProAmbiente and NRM in australiaBorner: Scope for positive REDD incentives at national level is limited– pre-existing use right restrictions– weak/poorly defined property rights at many forest frontiers• C&amp;C policies much cheaper to implement than PES (&lt;US$700 million versus &gt;US$ 9 billion annually), but with contentious social welfare implications.REDD+ Readiness Proposal (R-PP) submissions to the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, available on the FCPF website, were reviewed. Although 37 countries are participating in the FCPF, only those with enough structure to their REDD+ programmes (either at readiness proposal or readiness plan stages) were reviewed. Furthermore, only those with enough documentation in English were reviewed (thus Central African Republic (R-PP in French), Nicaragua and Peru (R-PP’s in Spanish) were omitted). Indonesia’s UN-REDD National Joint Programme Document submission (dated October 2009) contained more detail than its May 2009 FCPF submission, so the UN-REDD submission was relied upon. The following countries were included in the REDD+ readiness plan review:  Africa: DR of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Uganda  Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia (R-Plan), Lao PDR, Nepal, Vietnam Latin America: Argentina, Costa Rica, Guyana, Mexico, Panama, Suriname Of 20 countries reviewed, 16 report agriculture as the primary driver of D&amp;D. Mention tenure and low productivity, but don’t address in policy
  • CCAFS Theme 3 Strategy: Pro-Poor Climate Change Mitigation - Lini Wollenberg

    1. 1. Pro-Poor Climate Change Mitigation: <br />LiniWollenberg<br />
    2. 2. WHY ?<br />Long Term: food security v. agricultural mitigation<br /> Competing demands will exceed the 445 Mhaavailable(Lambin 2011)<br />Short Term: Identifying feasible options for smallholder mitigation <br /> -Incentives (C mkt?), MRV, results in practice, trade-offs<br />
    3. 3. Pro Poor Mitigation<br />3.1 Agricultural development pathways<br />Policies supporting low GHG impact & triple win<br />Policy impacts on outcomes and trade-offs<br />Methods and scenarios to conduct analyses<br />Target: policy makers, donors, UNFCCC, NARS<br />Impacts and trade-offs<br />3.2 Incentives and institutions<br />Policy, market, and project design options<br />Feasibility of options: cost effectiveness, benefits for farmers, farmers’ participation, governance<br />Target: Project developers, donors, policy makers<br />3.3 Technical options for smallholders<br />Standards and MRV appropriate to smallholders<br />Systems analysis at farm and landscape levels<br />Technologies on farms<br />Target: standards, national agencies, project developers<br />Gender lens<br />Place-based work<br />Benchmark sites<br />Action research<br />Capacity building<br />Emissions scenarios<br />GHG regional working groups<br />PhD network on methods<br />
    4. 4. Mitigation potentials<br />and technical options<br />
    5. 5. Technical options and mitigation potentials<br />Benchmark site, national, and regional emissions baselines and mitigation potentials (80%+ GHGs from livestock, Ethiopia)<br />National training on modelling mitigation potentials <br />Centers- Technical options (most centers); trade-offs in livestock sector, tool for low C emissions decisions (ILRI); agroforestry suitability maps and sensitivity analysis (ICRAF)<br />CGIAR Synergies<br />Demonstrating feasibility of improved practices and technologies in agriculture, (benchmark sites)<br />Trade-offs analysis (win3 + adaptive)<br />National capacities for decision-making<br />
    6. 6. INSTITUTIONS AND INCENTIVES<br />Pro-poor mitigation <br />What CCAFS outputs?<br />Why are they useful?<br />>> Spotlight on: State-of-the-art agricultural mitigation<br />Earthscan book of current knowledge<br />Lessons from REDD+ for agriculture<br />Maximizing opportunities, avoiding pitfalls in future systems for ag mitigation<br />3<br />
    7. 7. Test the carbon market<br /><ul><li>Improving benefits from carbon market </li></ul> projects PAR with 6 E. Africa projects, w/<br />Ecoagriculture, ICRAF):<br />- Real benefits from yields, not payments ($2/yr) <br /><ul><li> Need to decrease costs and risks
    8. 8. Pre-existing institutions, upfront finance critical
    9. 9. Monitoring livelihoods not a project priority</li></ul>CGIAR Synergies-Mitigation as co-benefit to agriculture<br /> -Models for ecological service payments (PES) (ICRAF, CIFOR, and ?)<br />
    10. 10. Adoption of low climate impact practices<br />Incentives synthesis workshop: review papers on <br />costs and benefits of mitigation options<br />adoption barriers, incentive delivery mechanisms <br /><ul><li>Investment mechanisms (Munden Project + bilateral donors? </li></ul>Centers: Most, IFPRI’s IFAD project <br />CGIAR Synergies<br /> Comparison of benefits and trade-offs among practices<br /> Increasing adoption of mitigation practices: win-win farming practices, learning hubs<br />
    11. 11. Major Outputs in 2010<br />Measurement and Monitoring<br />Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters)<br />Site, national, and regional mitigation potentials and GHG baselines<br />C-market institutional baselines and partnerships for PAR (including role of women)<br />Lessons learned from REDD<br />Livestock synthesis<br />Coffee synthesis<br />Cocoa intensification study<br />
    12. 12. Measurement and Monitoring of GHGs<br />Field testing of process models in regions<br />Agricultural GHG quantification (FAO, Duke U. ++) : (1) General review, (2) Farm-scale and landscape scale tools<br />Regional working groups<br />Centers: Landscape tools for C stock estimates (ICRAF), National training for livestock systems GHG inventories (ILRI)<br />CGIAR Synergies<br /> MRV and standards for smallholders, <br /> Systems methods and analysis: Farm, production system, and landscape<br /> Scientific capacity building<br />
    13. 13.
    14. 14.
    15. 15. Major Outputs in 2010<br />Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters)<br />Site, national, and regional mitigation potentials and GHG baselines<br />C-market institutional baselines and partnerships for PAR (including role of women)<br />Lessons learned from REDD<br />Livestock synthesis<br />Coffee synthesis<br />Cocoa intensification study<br />
    16. 16. Major Activities in 2011<br />Regional mitigation planning workshops<br />Road map and synthesis of GHG quantification for smallholders: Towards standards<br />GHG assessment tool (ILRI)<br />GHG inventory training (ILRI, Nepal, GRA)<br />Comparative evaluation of process models in field (region-led)<br />Action research on technical and economic feasibility of C market for smallholders<br />Review of pro-poor <br /> mitigation incentives<br /><ul><li>Food and REDD
    17. 17. Review of institutional mechanisms:</li></ul> maintaining forest-farm boundary<br />
    18. 18.
    19. 19. Pro-Poor Mitigation objectives<br />3.1 Identify agricultural development pathways<br /> Evaluate C footprint for<br />-food production and adaptation options<br />-energy production<br />-sustainable intensification<br />Assess policy impacts for “triple win”<br />TOC: Develop visions/ evidence with policy makers, UNFCCC and donors to guide agricultural development<br />CGIAR: ILRI, IFPRI <br />
    20. 20. 3.2 Develop incentives and institutions for pro-poor mitigation<br /><ul><li>Test feasibility of carbon market for smallholders
    21. 21. Other incentives and innovations: food value chains, aggregation, risk sharing, micro-finance, landscapes
    22. 22. Assess impacts</li></ul>TOC <br /> - Develop innovative models for projects and policy makers<br /> - Use long-term action research; learning networks<br /> - Focus where success likely (Latin Am, SE Asia)<br /> - Test mitigation among vulnerable populations? <br />CGIAR: IFPRI, CAPRI, ICRAF, World Fish <br />
    23. 23. 3.3 Develop technological options for mitigation by smallholders<br /> - Test technologies on farms for multiple sectors (all GHG, lifecycle, whole farm, landscape)<br /> - Develop cost-effective, simple, integrated MRV<br /> - Assess impacts <br />Build on existing trials and work of CG Centers and NARS<br />CGIAR: All centers<br />TOC <br /> - Produce data and standards for national inventories, IPCC/UNFCCC, carbon markets <br />- Regional working groups and datasets<br />
    24. 24.
    25. 25.
    26. 26.
    27. 27. Main outcomes<br /><ul><li>2012
    28. 28. Innovative C footprint assessment tool
    29. 29. Methods field testing and regional networks
    30. 30. Assessments of national policy and projects
    31. 31. Trade-off scenarios
    32. 32. 2015
    33. 33. Standards for agriculture MRV
    34. 34. Project developers have more options for supporting mitigation via carbon markets, food supply chain actions and other incentives
    35. 35. Costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses of options understood
    36. 36. 2020
    37. 37. Integrated landscape-based mitigation and adaptation models in place
    38. 38. Policy makers understand low carbon options for intensified agriculture</li></li></ul><li>Multilevel and Integrated Analysis<br />Global and regional climate<br />Life cycle <br />Policy<br />Landscapes <br />Whole farm <br />All crops & livestock<br />Food chain <br />All GHGs<br />
    39. 39. Outputs<br />Outcomes<br />Impacts<br />-Country and regional mitigation scenarios<br />-Tool for assessing GHG impact<br />-Mitigation planning group<br />-Lower C agricultural intensification <br />-Mitigation optimized across landscapes<br />-Knowledge of strategic mitigation options<br />-Investment in low C intensified agriculture<br />-Policy support integrated across REDD and agric<br />3.1<br />-Synthesis of costs and benefits of mitigation options<br />-Synthesis of institutional mechanisms<br />-Field action research w/C-market projects <br />Poor farmers and women adopt mitigation & earn income from C market<br />-Knowledge of net benefits of mitigation options<br />- Innovative incentives and institutional mechanisms developed<br />3.2<br />-Synthesis of GHG quantification methods for smallholders<br />-GHG quantification workshops-farm and landscape<br />-Regional working groups <br />Smallholder mitigation systems established; Reduced leakage<br />-Rigorous, low cost GHG quantification tools and methods for smallholder agric.<br />-Improved knowledge of GHG impacts<br />-Regional technical capacity <br />3.3<br />
    40. 40. Strategic value of improving carbon market projects versus other incentives? <br />Focus on most vulnerable populations or where mitigation potential highest?<br />Making the best of the CGIAR: Appropriate balance of technical mitigation components versus integrated systems approaches?<br /> Prioritize by fit with objectives<br />Challenges<br />
    41. 41. Landscape analysis<br /><ul><li> Review of farm-forest boundary institutions (A. Agrawal, Michigan)</li></ul>-Strong impacts: enforcement, projects (not policy)<br />-Strong relationship: livelihoods & forest condition (r=.41, n=98)<br />International policy: Analysis of food security and agriculture in REDD R-PPs (G. Kissinger)<br />Centers: Enforcement v. PES, Amazon (CIFOR), Cacao intensification & REDD, Ghana (IITA), Multiple incentives for REALU, Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ICRAF)<br />CGIAR Synergies<br />Incentives and institutions for managing forest-farm landscapes<br />
    42. 42. Cost effectiveness of enforcement in space<br /> <US$700 million for enforcement versus<br /> >US$ 9 billion annually for PES<br />

    ×