Nationally Appropriate Mitigation

Actions in Agriculture: An International Perspective

Peter A MinangWorld Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) &

ASB Partnership For the Tropical Forest Margins

MINAGRI-SERFOR

GIZ-ICRAF-RA-New Climate Initiative

“iNAMAzonia an integrated approach to agricultural NAMAs for the sustainable management of productive landscapes of the Peruvian Amazon”

December 2, 2014 PABELLON Peru, UNFCCC COP 20, Lima, Peru

• A brief overview of NAMAs especially agriculture?

• Emerging features of NAMAs

• A case study from Indonesia

• A case study from Kenya

• Some issues to keep in mind

• Key challenges

• What is the future?

Outline

What are NAMAs?

• A set of policies and actions undertaken by developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

• Expressed as:– Political commitment (national goals declared as a

commitment under Copenhagen agreement or UNFCCC in general)

– Policy based (regulatory instruments or economic incentives or disincentives)

– Project based (specific investments within sectorial or sub-sectorial or geographic boundaries)

A brief history

• Emerged from Bali Action Plan as part of the “Agreed outcomes”

• Then further adopted and negotiated through COP 16 and 18 – Copenhagen.

– A voluntary / non-binding instrument for non-annex 1 countries

– For reducing GHG emissions to below business-as-usual within the context of sustainable development. Dependent on provision of financing, technical and capacity building support required.

Some features (i)

• Reporting guidance:

– National communications every 4 years

– Biennial Update Reports (BUR) including GHG inventories and mitigation actions

– Process of International Consultations and Analysis (ICA) for consideration of BURs

• NAMA registration – NAMA Registry at UNFCCC

Some features (ii)

• Unilateral NAMAs (supported and financed independently- i.e. domestic resources)

• Supported NAMAs (supported by international resources finance, technical and capacity building)

• Multiple sectors - Agriculture, energy, transport, forestry etc

The state of NAMA development

• 41 registered NAMAs currently in NAMA Registry

• Some 150 NAMA activities in multiple databases worldwide

• 1 match between Georgia NAMA and support from Austria

Agricultural NAMA

How far have we come? • Several Countries:

– Brazil implementing a self-funded NAMA with four agricultural activities targeting emissions reductions by 133-166 Mt CO2e in 2020

– Costa Rica in livestock and coffee, with support from Germany

– Mongolia is seeking a NAMA on grassland management and livestock

– Kenya is exploring NAMA on dairy supply chains

(Wilkes et al. 2013)

Practices for agricultural NAMAs

• Conservation tillage

• Composting

• Restoration of grasslands and degraded agricultural lands

• Fodder crop production

• More efficient nitrogen fertilizer use

• Methane capture from manure

• Improved productivity of livestock

• Biological nitrogen fixation

• Improved coffee plantation efficiency and carbon storage

• Reduced forest conversion forests on agricultural land

(Wilkes et al. 2013)

Agriculture in the current

negotiations• Agriculture in REDD+

– Agricultural intensification investments for sparing forests– Agricultural policy investments possibly through GCF

• SBSTA Work Programme– Agreement on adaptation benefits– Discussions on whether to include mitigation (by 2015?)

• LULUCF for CDM – Potential for landscape approaches (croplands and grazing

lands)

• These are potential opportunities for investments in support of NAMAs in Agriculture

INDONESIA NAMA CASE STUDY

The Indonesia Case (Structure)

• Strong link between REDD+ and agriculture

• National Action Plan on Climate Change (RAN-PI, 2007)

• National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) –Copenhagen declaration on 26% of BAU reductions and 41 % with international support

• National Action Plan for Reducing GHGs (RAN-GRK)- Guidance on NAMA design, investments and implementation

Indonesia commitment on climate

change mitigation

COPENHAGEN 2009Indonesia committed

to 26% emission reduction unilaterally plus

additional 15% through international support by 2020

while retaining 7 % of economicGrowth.

LETTER OF INTENT INDONESIA-NORWAY 2010

A two year suspension on all new concessions for conversion of peat

and natural forest

Unilateral emission reduction

Internationally supported emission reductionC-trade emission transfer

Net emissions

from Indonesia

-26%

-15%- Sale of C-

credits

Reference Emission Level

REDD+ and NAMA

Locally Appropriate NAMA in

Indonesia

• A landuse and emission reduction planning model for use at district and municipal level

• Recommended for use by Government to all provinces and district-level NAMA planning

• ICRAF has trained all 33 Provinces and now helping selected districts to personalize the same

KENYA NAMA CASE STUDY

Structure and Process

06 Dece 2012 18

Overall

Coordination

by CCS/SC9

(MEMR)

TASKFORCE (Chair MEMR)

(GoK Ministries & Institutions/Academia/Private Sector/

CSOs) - Ensures policy coherence and

complementarity

TWGs

Provide Technical support to

consultants to ensure

content & quality

CONSULTANTS

Overall responsibility to

deliver based on their

specific TORs

MINISTERIAL LEVEL COMMITTEE

Ensures policy coherence and complementarity

MEMR ©

2012

Greenhouse gas emissions reference case

Overall low-carbon development pathway

6.4 Low Carbon Climate Resilient Actions in the Agriculture Sector

Agroforestry Conservation agriculture Limiting the use of fire in

cropland and rangelandmanagement

Improved managementof grazing systems

Livestock diversification Breeding of animals to

improve their ability toadapt to climate changeand produce loweremissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Em

issio

ns M

to

n C

O2

-eq

.

Conservation Tillage

Limiting Use of Fire (crop & range lands)

Agroforestry

Globally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (GAMA)

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)

Locally Appropriate Adaptation & Mitigation Actions

(LAAMA)

Landscape approaches to adaptation +

mitigation

1) NAMA vs Global and Local scales

National

District j

Project lVillage k

Region 1 Region 2 Region i

2) BURDEN AND BENEFIT SHARING

DO ALL REGIONS TAKE SAME SHARE OF NATIONAL COMMITMENT?

DO REGIONS TAKE SHARE ACCORDING TO CURRENT PROPORTION OF NATIONAL EMISSIONS?

OR DO REGIONS TAKE ACCORDING TO FEASIBLE EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIAL?

3) Linking agricultural NAMAs to

other development objectives

CHALLENGES

• Technical capacity is lacking: Several developing countries have been found deficient in REDD+ MRV Capacity and land use data deficient in recent assessments (Minang et al., 2014), etc

• Costs are high (data collection, verification, etc)

• Limited investment and competition from other pressing sectors – NAMA support slow to come along

– Emission commitments not in negotiations not growing enough

– Carbon market prices falling

OUR NEW BOOK

ADDRESSES SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES.

WELCOME TO THE LAUNCH

AT: GLOBAL LANDSCAPES FORUM

ON: SATURDAY 6TH

TIME: 12.15 - 13.00

WHERE: Media Room

• AKNOWLEDGEMENT

OF CONTRIBUTORS

– Meine van Noordwijk

– Sonya Dewi

– Lalisa Duguma

– Deborah Murphy

– Valentina Robiglio

– Jonathan Cornelius

– Olivia Freeman

MUCHAS GRACIAS !