Climate Readiness in Smallholder Agricultural Systems

Climate Readiness in Smallholder Agricultural Systems

• 1.
  Climate Readiness inSmallholder Agricultural Systems: Lessons learned from REDD+ Monika Zurek, Charlotte Streck, Franziska Haupt, Stephanie Roe with contributions from Lini Wollenberg and Alex de Pinto Climate Focus BV IFPRI and CCAFS Montpellier March 16-18, 2015
• 2.
  A need for‘Agricultural Climate Readiness’? CSA has as its objectives to: - Sustainably increase agricultural productivity and incomes in order to meet national food security and development goals - Build resilience and the capacity of agricultural and food systems to adapt to climate change; - Seek opportunities to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases and increase carbon sequestration. but how to balance these goals on the ground? Do countries need a structured process to become ‘ready’ to deal with CC impacts and emission reduction options?
• 3.
  In order tobe really ‘climate ready’ A country needs to - decide on its climate priorities for the sector based on specific needs - establish a knowledge base on CSA options and their cost of implementation - consult with stakeholders and other sectors on implementation - overcome financial and institutional barriers to implementing CSA
• 4.
  A few wordson REDD+ • Adopted under the Cancun Agreement 2010 under the UNFCCC • Five activities – Reducing forest degradation – Reducing deforestation – Conservation – Sustainable management of forests – Enhancement of carbon stocks • ‘Readiness’: Describes the status of a country and the process that enables countries to benefit from payments or other support under an intl mechanism that rewards CC action under the UNFCCC • Three phases REDD+ Readiness National REDD+ Strategy Full scale REDD+ Implementation
• 5.
  A few wordson REDD+ (cont.) Most funding for REDD+ channeled via • Phase 1: UN-REDD, FCPF Readiness Fund • Phase 2: FIP, Norway-Indonesia agreement • Phase 3: FCPF Carbon Fund, REDD Early Movers, Amazon Fund, GRIF For this paper we looked specifically at – Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the WorldBank 2015: 47 countries, total contributions of $850 million ($385 million for the Readiness Fund, $465 million for the Carbon Fund) – UN-REDD+ (FAO, UNEP, UNDP) 2014: 56 countries, US$195.7 million disbursed
• 6.
  Readiness Components ReadinessCriteria FCPFandUN- REDDR-PP FCPF Readiness Assessment Framework UN-REDD FCPF Country Assessment WRI Readiness Needs Governance of Forests Principles & Indicators GOVERNANCE 1.Political will ✕ 2. Accountability ✕ ✕ ✕ 3. Transparency ✕ ✕ ✕ 4. Coordination and collaboration ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ 5. Capacity ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ 6. Participation and consultation ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ 7. Feedback and grievance redress mechanism ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ STRATEGYor EQUIVALENT 8. REDD+ strategy, or equivalent policies ✕ ✕ ✕ 9. Policies and measures on drivers of deforestation ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ 10. Carbon, natural resource rights and land tenure ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ 11. Social and environmental safeguards ✕ ✕ ✕ 12. Benefit sharing mechanism ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ MONITORING and EVALUATION SYSTEMS 13. Reference Level and MRV system ✕ ✕ ✕ 14. Registry and accounting system ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ 15. System for monitoring non- carbon aspects ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕
• 7.
  Selected lessons learnedfrom REDD+ with respect to ‘Readiness’ • Need for political commitment from the start and support from highest political levels. • Building the technical and institutional capacities to implement and account for emission reductions requires large resources in finances and knowledge. • Readiness processes have produced important data and created valuable stakeholder involvement processes that allowed formulation of targeted and widely accepted policies. • The international coordination of a ‘Readiness’ process fosters South-South cooperation and intl donor coordination. • So far exact definition and indicators of ‘Readiness’ are lacking though customized approaches to graduating countries from one phase to the next seem to work. • Having a structured process that guides national ‘Readiness’ processes and strategy development has been very useful to inform policy making and assess technical and financial needs.
• 8.
  What can welearn from REDD+ for the agricultural sector? • Objective: What does agricultural climate change readiness mean? What are the differences between the forestry and agriculture sectors and their implications for a readiness process? • Governance: How could an agricultural readiness process be managed? • Scope and Process: What steps do participants need to fulfil to achieve agricultural readiness? • Finance: How should agricultural readiness be financed?
• 9.
  ‘Agricultural Climate Readiness’ We defineas the objective of ‘agricultural climate readiness’ building a country’s technical, institutional and innovation capacities to develop and implement activities that increase agricultural productivity and food security, while balancing this goal with the need to create a resilient and adaptive agricultural sector and decrease agricultural emissions intensities (GHG emissions per unit product) and absolute emissions. needs to be put in the context of broader low emissions development of a country
• 10.
  Differences between theforestry and the agricultural sectors with important for ‘Readiness’ Forestry sector: - emissions from deforestation recognized as significant contributor to CC - reducing emissions from deforestation seen as low cost option to provide short term mitigation benefits, needed to meet intl targets - underfunded sector that hoped to gain new resources for better protection and management - adapting to CC is low priority Agricultural sector: - Emission based incentive framework unlikely to develop as emissions much more dispersed and emission reductions costly to monitor and difficult to measure - CC adaptation much higher priority for the sector - much more funding available to the sector (private investments, government funding and ODA) BUT: how to channel existing funding towards more CSA practices to get ‘climate ready’?
• 11.
  Possible components ofan ‘agricultural readiness process’ Agricultural readiness components Readiness criteria Governance  Political will  Accountability of leading actors and operational framework for institutions  Transparency in decision making on strategies  Coordination mechanisms/ process for agriculture, land-use, and development sectors  Capacity building at the national and local levels, including extension services  Establish stakeholder participation and consultation process  Conflict resolution process Multiple objectives framework  Database on farming systems  Database on potential adaptation and mitigation practices per farming system  Develop assessment tools to identify mitigation opportunities with high co- benefits and low/manageable tradeoffs Strategy  National climate strategy for the agricultural sector or as part of a wider land use climate strategy – with agreed upon vision for the agricultural sector that balances food security, adaptation and mitigation goals.  Sources and drivers of agricultural emissions and agricultural mitigation options consistent with food security and adaptation objectives. Explore linkages with REDD+  Policies and measures safeguards (assess social and environmental impacts)  Benefit sharing mechanism options National Monitoring System and Accounting Framework for Agriculture  MRV system for GHG emissions from agriculture  Develop baseline scenarios to measure GHG reductions in different agricultural systems (activities) or regions (land).  Indicators for assessing agricultural climate vulnerability  Link to monitoring of food security indicators  Accounting framework
• 12.
  Finance options for AgriculturalReadiness Different options could be considered with varying potential for success: – Creation of an international fund similar to REDD+ for multiple donors to support the process – Bilateral funding via • Landscape level mitigation activities incl. Ag • Agricultural ODA – Climate Finance (NAMAs, Green Climate Fund, others)
• 13.
  Conclusions • REDD+ createdan overall coherent structure and process guiding countries towards developing countries towards mainstreaming mitigation activities -> useful for the agricultural sector to think about • Other than REDD+, Agricultural Readiness cannot be driven by expectation of large funding for mitigation -> need to ‘climate proof’ existing agricultural support • A common understanding and policy process for Agricultural Readiness would be useful to promote alignment and coordination across different actors and donors • Learning from REDD+ processes, a process could be structured that allows multiple funders to assist countries in a coordinated manner to set priorities and decide on activities to make the sector ‘climate ready’
• 14.
  Thank you! Please addressquestions to Monika Zurek [email protected]