O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

UNFCCC: Agriculture-Dialogue

  • Entre para ver os comentários

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

UNFCCC: Agriculture-Dialogue

  1. 1. Global Text, Ground Examples Bangkok, 29 September 2009 Elwyn Grainger-Jones Executive Co-ordinator Global Environment and Climate Change IFAD on behalf of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development www.donorplatform.org 1
  2. 2. Global Donor Platform for Rural Development D l t • A network of 30 donors international finance donors, institutions and development agencies, formed in 2003; • Common vision that agricultural and rural development (ARD) plays important role in poverty reduction; • Members are committed to achieve increased and more effective aid for ARD, centred on smallholder agriculture; • Proposed Platform outputs:  Coherent and evidence-based advocacy in support of increased and more effective aid i ARD; i d d ff ti id in ARD  Enhanced capacity of member agencies to deliver more effective support for ARD (knowledge management) 2
  3. 3. Presentation Overview – Issue Paper 6 • Miti ti Mitigation – LULUCF and REDD potential to d t ti l t generate co-benefits for rural livelihoods • Adaptation in agriculture: promoting a more sustainable rural development through innovation p g and traditional practices • Technology - diff i h l diffusion, deployment and access to d l d agricultural technologies • Financing adaptation and mitigation in agriculture: the example of PES g p 3
  4. 4. Why do we care? • A i lt Agriculture at nexus of 3 challenges: t f h ll doubling food production by 2050 …while adapting to a warmer and more volatile climate …and while i  d hil increasing carbon i b sequestration • T Too often separated internationally – often ft t di t ti ll ft as one on the ground: – Western Orissa Rural Livelihood Project - DFID Study 4
  5. 5. Mitigation • Still open - conf sion over appropriate level confusion o e app op iate le el of ambition – CDM extension? – REDD+ focus? – NAMAs inclusion? – Sector approaches? • Ground examples - opportunities for p pp harvesting GHGs mitigation co-benefits: – Land-use accounting - FAO-Ex-ante carbon balance tool tool. – REDD - climate change, ecosystems and livelihoods benefits - Pico Bonito Honduras (WB BioCarbon Fund) 5
  6. 6. Adaptation • E h Enhanced A ti d Action on adaptation, t d t ti two references to f t agriculture - building resilience, insurance. • Unique role - potential for mitigation and other co-benefits? How should this be reflected in the text? • Ground examples: – GTZ-Cafédirect "Adaptation for Smallholders to Climate Change": Adaptation strategies with pilot coffee and tea organizations in 4 countries in Latin America and East Africa – IFAD/WFP: Index-based weather insurance in China 6
  7. 7. Financing • Little explicit mention of agriculture in LCA f text, although number of implicit areas: adaptation, adaptation REDD+ • Need to find ways to reward co-benefits if funding streams are divided between eg ada and mit • Ground example: – payment for environmental services - an incentive mechanism. FAO CATIE project mechanism FAO-CATIE promotes silvopastoral practices in Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. 7
  8. 8. Technology • K Key issue for developing countries – t t i f d l i t i text emphasizes coherence of TNA with NAPAs and NAMAs, as well as roadmap that identifies s, e oad ap t at de t es technologies for specific sectors – depends on how agriculture features in main policy platform of NAMAs, NAPAs NAMAs • IPR – possible issue (Global Crop Diversity Trust) • Ground examples: – Deployment and diffusion of technologies: Pilot p j project on "Energy Alternative Sources" gy implemented by the Uganda National Farmers Federation in partnership with Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (Uganda) (Uganda). 8
  9. 9. Conclusions - gaps and needs C l i d d • Clarity on follow up to Copenhagen: getting the right hooks follow-up and follow-up process – esp clarity on definitions and key issues • Depth of inclusion in mitigation section: – Basic language in drafts – which are key bits to protect when shortened? – How would country differenes be taken into account? E.g. in y g implementing NAMAs? – MRV and accounting still unresolved issues. • Questions over how adaptation text should reflect need for additional funds to reach rural poor – many of whom are dditi lf d t h l f h subsistence and smallholder farmers • Synergies and co-benefits – how to reflect these in funding mechanisms? • Are agriculture technology questions for mit and ada identical to wider energy technology debate? If so, how should this be factored the agreement? 9
  10. 10. We are ready to support a successful Copenhagen outcome f lC h t Please visit: www.donorplatform.org 10