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

1. Pro-Poor Climate Change Mitigation: LiniWollenberg

2. WHY ? Long Term: food security v. agricultural mitigation Competing demands will exceed the 445 Mhaavailable(Lambin 2011) Short Term: Identifying feasible options for smallholder mitigation -Incentives (C mkt?), MRV, results in practice, trade-offs

3. Pro Poor Mitigation 3.1 Agricultural development pathways Policies supporting low GHG impact & triple win Policy impacts on outcomes and trade-offs Methods and scenarios to conduct analyses Target: policy makers, donors, UNFCCC, NARS Impacts and trade-offs 3.2 Incentives and institutions Policy, market, and project design options Feasibility of options: cost effectiveness, benefits for farmers, farmers’ participation, governance Target: Project developers, donors, policy makers 3.3 Technical options for smallholders Standards and MRV appropriate to smallholders Systems analysis at farm and landscape levels Technologies on farms Target: standards, national agencies, project developers Gender lens Place-based work Benchmark sites Action research Capacity building Emissions scenarios GHG regional working groups PhD network on methods

4. Mitigation potentials and technical options

5. Technical options and mitigation potentials Benchmark site, national, and regional emissions baselines and mitigation potentials (80%+ GHGs from livestock, Ethiopia) National training on modelling mitigation potentials Centers- Technical options (most centers); trade-offs in livestock sector, tool for low C emissions decisions (ILRI); agroforestry suitability maps and sensitivity analysis (ICRAF) CGIAR Synergies Demonstrating feasibility of improved practices and technologies in agriculture, (benchmark sites) Trade-offs analysis (win3 + adaptive) National capacities for decision-making

6. INSTITUTIONS AND INCENTIVES Pro-poor mitigation What CCAFS outputs? Why are they useful? >> Spotlight on: State-of-the-art agricultural mitigation Earthscan book of current knowledge Lessons from REDD+ for agriculture Maximizing opportunities, avoiding pitfalls in future systems for ag mitigation 3

8. Pre-existing institutions, upfront finance critical

9. Monitoring livelihoods not a project priorityCGIAR Synergies-Mitigation as co-benefit to agriculture -Models for ecological service payments (PES) (ICRAF, CIFOR, and ?)

11. Major Outputs in 2010 Measurement and Monitoring Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters) Site, national, and regional mitigation potentials and GHG baselines C-market institutional baselines and partnerships for PAR (including role of women) Lessons learned from REDD Livestock synthesis Coffee synthesis Cocoa intensification study

12. Measurement and Monitoring of GHGs Field testing of process models in regions Agricultural GHG quantification (FAO, Duke U. ++) : (1) General review, (2) Farm-scale and landscape scale tools Regional working groups Centers: Landscape tools for C stock estimates (ICRAF), National training for livestock systems GHG inventories (ILRI) CGIAR Synergies MRV and standards for smallholders, Systems methods and analysis: Farm, production system, and landscape Scientific capacity building

15. Major Outputs in 2010 Synthesis book on Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation (38 chapters) Site, national, and regional mitigation potentials and GHG baselines C-market institutional baselines and partnerships for PAR (including role of women) Lessons learned from REDD Livestock synthesis Coffee synthesis Cocoa intensification study

17. Review of institutional mechanisms: maintaining forest-farm boundary

19. Pro-Poor Mitigation objectives 3.1 Identify agricultural development pathways Evaluate C footprint for -food production and adaptation options -energy production -sustainable intensification Assess policy impacts for “triple win” TOC: Develop visions/ evidence with policy makers, UNFCCC and donors to guide agricultural development CGIAR: ILRI, IFPRI

21. Other incentives and innovations: food value chains, aggregation, risk sharing, micro-finance, landscapes

22. Assess impactsTOC - Develop innovative models for projects and policy makers - Use long-term action research; learning networks - Focus where success likely (Latin Am, SE Asia) - Test mitigation among vulnerable populations? CGIAR: IFPRI, CAPRI, ICRAF, World Fish

23. 3.3 Develop technological options for mitigation by smallholders - Test technologies on farms for multiple sectors (all GHG, lifecycle, whole farm, landscape) - Develop cost-effective, simple, integrated MRV - Assess impacts Build on existing trials and work of CG Centers and NARS CGIAR: All centers TOC - Produce data and standards for national inventories, IPCC/UNFCCC, carbon markets - Regional working groups and datasets

28. Innovative C footprint assessment tool

29. Methods field testing and regional networks

30. Assessments of national policy and projects

31. Trade-off scenarios

32. 2015

33. Standards for agriculture MRV

34. Project developers have more options for supporting mitigation via carbon markets, food supply chain actions and other incentives

35. Costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses of options understood

36. 2020

37. Integrated landscape-based mitigation and adaptation models in place

39. Outputs Outcomes Impacts -Country and regional mitigation scenarios -Tool for assessing GHG impact -Mitigation planning group -Lower C agricultural intensification -Mitigation optimized across landscapes -Knowledge of strategic mitigation options -Investment in low C intensified agriculture -Policy support integrated across REDD and agric 3.1 -Synthesis of costs and benefits of mitigation options -Synthesis of institutional mechanisms -Field action research w/C-market projects Poor farmers and women adopt mitigation & earn income from C market -Knowledge of net benefits of mitigation options - Innovative incentives and institutional mechanisms developed 3.2 -Synthesis of GHG quantification methods for smallholders -GHG quantification workshops-farm and landscape -Regional working groups Smallholder mitigation systems established; Reduced leakage -Rigorous, low cost GHG quantification tools and methods for smallholder agric. -Improved knowledge of GHG impacts -Regional technical capacity 3.3

40. Strategic value of improving carbon market projects versus other incentives? Focus on most vulnerable populations or where mitigation potential highest? Making the best of the CGIAR: Appropriate balance of technical mitigation components versus integrated systems approaches? Prioritize by fit with objectives Challenges

42. Cost effectiveness of enforcement in space <US$700 million for enforcement versus >US$ 9 billion annually for PES