Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bistrom (FAO). MICCA - Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Programme. Presented at CCAFS Science Meeting, 1-2 December 2010

1. MICCA – mitigation of climate
change in agriculture programme
Marja-Liisa Tapio-Biström
Senior Climate Change Officer
Natural Resources Management and Environment
Department
FAO

2. Outline
1. MICCA project
2. Agriculture and cc mitigation
3. Agriculture and practice based mitigation
financing
4. Conclusions

3. MICCA (Mitigation of Climate Change in
Agriculture) - Program Goal
Support of efforts for climate change mitigation
through agriculture by moving towards
carbon friendly agricultural practices and
climate smart agriculture
Residue management

4. Output
 Development of emissions database and life cycle
analysis (LCA) & mitigation potentials and costs
 Global economic analysis of mitigation policy options
 Analysis of potential of different practices/technologies/
investments to enhance food security, adaptive
capacity and mitigation benefits
 Technical support to UNFCCC negotiations and
capacity building of developing countries
 Establishment of communities of practice
 Development of 5 smallholder pilot projects

5. Background
 Foundation is a 5 year multi-donor trust fund,
2010-2014 , 10 million US$
 3.8 million US$ for 2 years by Finland
 3 million for three years from Norway for
emission statistics
 Involvement of different technical
departments of FAO

6. 2. AG mitigation basics
 the aim of agriculture is to produce food and
other necessities and livelihoods
 the demand of food will increase some 70 %
by 2050
 GHG are emitted in natural production
processes

7. Basics
 the main goal of agriculture is never to
mitigate climate change
 a major challenge to adapt to weather
variability and in longer term changing
climate
 a very large mitigation potential which should
be tapped – requires adaptation to cc

8. We need
 to
transform agricultural production
systems so that they are more
productive, resilient and minimize
their net emissions per produced
units = climate smart agriculture

9. Agriculture, land use change and forest
degradation - a landscape approach
 increased productivity on existing farming
areas prevents deforestation - with a caveat
– needs carrots and whips
 need to develop integrated food-and energy
systems to reach food and energy security –
prevents forest degradation

10. We need climate smart agriculture
 technical knowledge exists for increased
productivity, resilience and reduction of net
emissions
 we need incorporation of cc issues in
agricultural policies
 we need a lot more investments in agriculture
– BUT to climate smart agriculture

11. Financing for mitigation -The
question:
 How could  What kind of
agriculture tap mechanisms would
existing financing support integration
mechanisms? of mitigation
considerations into
small scale
farming?

12. Logic of mitigation financing
 ex-post payments
 rigorous MRV
 additionality
 separation of mitigation and adaptation

13. Specific for soil-carbon
sequestration
 carbon sequestration is a long process, the
results come gradually- a saturation point
 the impetus for continuing practices that
sequestrate must come from improved
productivity

14. Climate financing for agriculture
 climate financing which support transformation to
climate smart agriculture
 specific funds designed for agriculture and based on
the logic of farming
 investment support to transform practices and tide
farmers over a period of reduced output
 credit systems, support for research, extension etc.
 creative combination of different financing sources

15. What about carbon markets and
small farmers – what could work?
 practice based approach – monitor practices,
which are transformed to emission factors
 aggregation mechanisms key for
management of transaction costs (down)
 we are talking about contracts

16. Actors in mitigation financing
“C MARKET”
“BUYERS”
PRODUCERS

17. MRV- Emission factors with
practice based packages
 emission factor is based on practice
package, soil type, agro-ecological zone and
land use history
 for ex. a package might include for coffee
leguminous shade trees, mulching, fertilizer use
instructions or compost
 different tools have been developed like cool
farm tool, for monitoring purposes the
packages must be well defined

18. How do we establish the emission
factors
 we need better data on emissions from
different farming practices
 we need long term research sites with careful
measurements (USA OK, Africa not)
 we need databases for storing the
information systematically(regional)
 we need development of practice packages
(LCA)

19. Transaction costs - contracts
 existing contract systems as models and
means to decrease transaction costs
 for ex. contract farming, certification systems
for organic agriculture, fair-trade, c-smart
brand
 credit systems – payments back in carbon?
 conditionality for aid
 carbon tax?

20. A bundled contract
 net emissions reduction
 water shed management
 biodiversity

21. Remuneration for farmers
 increased production per unit
 reduced risk
 better price
 new market opportunities
 investment support /credit
 extension service
 better varieties/animal breeds
 investment for irrigation systems
 tenure security

22. Barriers for adoption of cc
practices
 lack of knowledge (extension system)
 lack of suitable genetic material (research extensions
linkages)
 lack of tenure security (long term land use right
arrangements)
 lack of investments (credit, investment support)
 lack of infrastructure (strategic public investment)
 weak farmer organizations (supportive policies)
 lack of market access

23. Buyer perspective
 a ‘coffee company’ can establish a brand –
better price
 can sell the carbon in off-set or voluntary
markets
 off-set its own emissions
 credit institutions can have public or private
funding as capital , can also sell the carbon
 donors can create a climate smart
“conditionality”

24. 5. Conclusions
 agriculture is part of the problem and the
solution to climate change
 climate change and food security must be
addressed together –adaptation and
mitigation are linked
 investments to agriculture must be climate
smart.
 better data on emissions based on farming
practices must be produced

25. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 1
 Lack of statistics and analysis on
emissions and mitigation potential
 What kind of financing systems will enable
climate smart agriculture?
 What is needed to increase mitigation and
adaptation financing links to agricultural
systems?

26. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 2
 How can REDD systems be designed to be
compatible with country dev. objectives/
capacity?
 What are the changes in cropping, livestock,
forestry and fishery systems and policies
needed for adaptation?
 What are the implications for mitigation of
changes to achieve food security from
agricultural systems?

27. KNOWLEDGE GAPS 3
 Where are synergies between food security,
adaptation and mitigation in smallholder
agriculture?
 What institutions and policies are needed at
international, national and local levels to
capture potential synergies?