The document summarizes an expert workshop on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) for climate-smart agriculture. It discusses the FAO's Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Programme and the CCAFS climate change research program. The workshop aimed to support national mitigation planning in agriculture by advancing understanding of NAMAs and the planning and implementation process. Countries represented included Kenya, Colombia, Costa Rica, Brazil, Ecuador, Vietnam, Mongolia and Indonesia. Agricultural mitigation strategies and the role of NAMAs as a tool were also addressed.

1. Expert Workshop on NAMAs:
National mitigation planning and
implementation in agriculture
16-17 July 2012
FAO, Rome
Christina Seeberg-Elverfeldt and
Lini Wollenberg

2. FAO
Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme
at FAO
• Launched January 2010
• Outcome: Developing countries are contributing to climate change
mitigation in agriculture by moving towards climate smart agricultural
practices
• Knowledge generation
• Synergies and Trade-offs
• Pilot Projects
• Support to UNFCCC and Capacity Development
• Monitoring and Assessment of GHG Emissions and Mitigation
Potential in Agriculture

3. CCAFS
Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security Research
Program of the CGIAR (CCAFS)
• Adaptation, risk management, mitigation and
integrated decision making themes
• Partnership of the CGIAR (15 centers) and Earth
Systems Science Program
• Regional focus: E and W, Africa, S. Asia, SE Asia, Lat
Am, 30 benchmark sites

4. Proposed workshop outcomes
• Information for a review of NAMA
experiences
• Steps and decision trees for planning and
implementing NAMAs
• Enhanced knowledge on tools and resources
• Action steps for effective NAMA planning
• Research and capacity development needs

5. Workshop Purpose: Support the development of
national mitigation planning to advance climate
smart agriculture
Objectives
Advance understanding and practice on
• The nature and role of NAMAs: how can national and
subnational policy best advance climate smart agriculture?
• Planning NAMAs: identifying, assessing and prioritizing
options
• Implementing NAMAs: what is needed to secure investments
and finance, policies, technical support & MRV?

6. Countries represented
• Kenya
• Colombia
• Costa Rica
• Brazil
• Ecuador
• Vietnam
• Mongolia
• Indonesia
- Agriculture and environment ministries
+ Resource people and experiences in diverse countries

7. Agricultural mitigation basics
CH4 & N20
~ 1/3 of global emissions
emissions - 10-14%
from agriculture, forests &
land use change (AFOLU)
Net Deforestation - 17%

8. Food Livelihoods
Store C: trees, Security
forest, grassland
Mitigation and
and soils sustainability
Lower GHG /kg food
Intensify
sustainably

9. Many policy avenues for achieving
mitigation
International processes (UNFCCC, NAMAs)
Nationally driven, including subnational
- Climate change policies
- Agricultural and
environment policies
- Rural development
- Finance policies

10. Why National Mitigation Policy for
Agriculture?
Mitigation as agricultural best practice
• Productive and resilient agriculture with mitigation as co-benefit
• Increased efficiencies
Meet targets
• Meet national emissions reductions targets
• Non Annex 1 committed to “substantially deviate “ from baselines
-2020 in selected regions (including LA), 2050 all regions
Vehicle for coordination
• Align national agricultural policy and investment
• NAMAS can help operationalize mitigation action plans
• NAMAS can help access to Green Climate Fund and climate finance (USD
97 billion of climate finance globally in 2010 , 56% from private sector)

11. NAMAs: One tool
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (Bali Action
Plan 2007)
No formal definition
“Any kind of action by government that reduces GHG
emissions” (Situmeang et al, 2012)
- Main vehicle for mitigation in developing countries
- Broad scope: policies to technical interventions
NAMAs are only one tool for mitigation planning; use
here as shorthand.

12. Example of mitigation policy
framework
Governance and processes
Sectoral and aggregated
Technical
Planning Development
input Design and Reporting
BAU and mitigation Options and priorities
implementation
potentials
Stakeholder involvement
Situmeang et al. 2012

13. Screening criteria and priority setting
Screen for
Alignment with national
priorities
• Social and economic
development goals
• Emissions targets
Data availability and quality
Political and social feasibility
Replicability
Situmeang et al. 2012

14. Example of steps
For internal decision making:
GHG reduction, cost , etc.
For government commitment
and identifying donor interest
For finance discussions, with
agreement about delivery
and implementation
(Tilberg et al 2011)

15. NAMA submissions
44 NAMA submissions:
– 18 Agriculture (LA:1 ; AF: 12; AS: 3, Middle East: 1, Europe: 1),
– 29 Forestry (Europe: 2; AF: 17; LA: 5; AS:4; Middle East: 1)
Agriculture actions Countries Count
Agroforestry Ethiopia, Gabon, Mongolia, Sierra Leone 4
Compost Chad, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Sierra Leone 4
Nitrogen fixation Brazil, Central African Republic, Congo 3
Biofuels Brazil, Ghana, Sierra Leone 3
Extension Central African Republic, Chad, Madagascar 3
Seed programs Central African Republic, Chad, Madagascar 3
Irrigation practices Congo, Jordan, Tunisia 3
No-till or min till Brazil, Ghana 2
Methane recovery Jordan, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2
Soil carbon Ethiopia, Eritrea 2
Organic fertilizers Chad, Ghana 2
Renewable energy/
agriculture waste Sierra Leone, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2
incineration
Spot/zero burning Ghana 1

16. Considerations for agricultural
NAMAs
• Potential to upscale climate-smart agriculture
• How to estimate mitigation potentials,
emission reductions & conduct MRV: data
requirements
• Institutional requirements
• Tools, resources & planning required within
national climate policy processes

17. Questions
• Input to a review of NAMA experiences
=> What are your experiences on NAMA developments?
• Decision trees for planning and implementing NAMAs
=> Which steps are required for planning NAMAs?
• Enhanced knowledge on tools and resources
=> Which tools/resources are needed and already
available?
• Ways forward for effective NAMA planning and implementation
=> What actions are required at country/international level
to advance agriculture NAMA planning and
implementation?

18. Questions (cont.)
• Identification of research and capacity development
=> Where do we need more research and capacity building
for countries to plan mitigation policies and actions?

19. EXTRA MATERIAL

20. Why agriculture and climate change
mitigation?
- Agricultural mitigation probably necessary to
stay < 2° C
- 20GT/year target
- But, agricultural emissions currently 5.5-6
GT/year and likely to almost double to 8-10GT/yr

21. Mitigation strategies in agriculture
Reduce emissions - per area and yield
• Reduce CH4 and N20
• Avoid increased future emissions (e.g. anticipated increases in
fertilizer use)
C Storage –timing, C life
• Increase carbon storage
• Protect existing carbon- avoid
land conversion
Lifecycle
• Reduce or replace fossil fuels
• Shift consumption?

22. Three funding sources for NAMAs
• Unilateral (“domestically supported”, “voluntary”)
NAMAs
• Internationally supported NAMAs
• Credited NAMAs
Situmeang et al. 2012

23. NAMA finance options
• Unilateral (“domestically supported”, “voluntary”)
NAMAS
• Internationally supported NAMAS
• Credited NAMAS
Situmeang et al. 2012

24. Examples of criteria for analysing supported
NAMAs for negotiation with donor
Center for Clean Air Policy