1. SLM Adoption Costs and Barriers
Up-front financing costs can be high, whilst on-farm
benefits not realized until medium-long
term
Local credit markets very thin
Local insurance options very limited
Tenure Security Management of Common-
Pool Resources
Limited Access to Information, e.g. Research
Extension
Risk management and need for flexibility –
especially with uncertain/changing climate
conditions – decisions to make permanent
changes more costly Photos: FAO Mediabase

2. Value of ag. mitigation potentially
significant
Mitigation potential from agriculture, Annex I
(Developed) and Non-Annex I (Developing) countries
Cropland
Management
Grazing land
Management
Restore
cultivated
organic soils
Restore
degraded lands
Developing countries: $30 billion @$20/TCO2eq from top 4
mitigation actions

3. But only a small share of
what is needed
Source: FAO (preliminary estimates)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Current
investment
Meeting demand
in 2050
Public
Private
US$ billions per year (gross)
142
209
30
Additional
Funding for
Mitigation

4. Options for capturing synergies
Linking mitigation finance to FS
Carbon Benefit
T/Ha/Yr
D(T/Ha/Yr)

5. Options for capturing synergies
MRV costs vs Ag benefits

6. Principles to guide crediting
Main objective of crediting soil carbon sequestration (mitigation) in
smallholder agriculture is to support food security/ag. development
State of science, institutional capacity, buyer’s demands, high
heterogeneity and needs of smallholders suggests market based
offsets (CDM approach) ‘not widely applicable’
One potential area to focus on: Pilot for scaling up based on
farming systems units looking at means, costs and benefis (to
productivity, resilience and sequestration) of increasing carbon in
system and directly tied to agricultural financing/development
institution and under umbrella of NAMA.
Also needed: Building up coordinated set of soil carbon
measurement stratified by agroecosystem and major farming
system transitions another key requirement.