Presentation at CCAFS - FAO Workshop on NAMAs: national mitigation planning and implementation in agriculture
 16 - 17 July 2012


1. Developing NAMAS in Kenya: The case of the KCCAP; the agriculture example"
Part 2: Agriculture

2. Mitigation in Agric- Introduction (NCCAP-Kenya)
•The low-carbon analysis in the agricultural sector includes the development of an emissions reference case, business as usual emission projections to 2030, and mitigation options to bring down emissions
• The analysis considers the mitigation of emissions through actions in the subsectors of crops, livestock and agroforestry
•Fisheries – a subsector in the Government of Kenya’s definition of the agricultural sector – is not included in this low carbon analysis because of its low mitigation potential
•The actions proposed in this sector are closely linked to those in Forestry and Other Land-use Sector

3. Kenyan Agriculture Sector
•Agriculture is a key economic sector for Kenya
• It plays a critical role in food security,
•24% Gross Domestic Product
•60% export earnings
•70% employment creation
•70% provision of raw materials to industry

4. Agriculture sector cont’d
•Small scale (less than 10ha) is 60%
•Medium scale (10-60 ha) 25%
•Large scale (more than 60ha) 15%
•98% rainfed
•Low investment levels
•Low access to farm credit
•Low access to farm inputs especially seed for drought tolerant and high value traditional food crops

5. GHG reference case: Methodology, data, and assumptions
•A good proportion of total national emissions are from this sector
•Despite its prevalence data required to calculate greenhouse gas emissions is lacking
•considerable uncertainty remains in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions; in comparison with the energy demand, energy supply, industrial processes and waste sectors.

6. Baseline
•An emissions baseline for the agriculture sector was developed by using a number of Tier 1 approaches from the IPCC 2006 Guidelines
•Four different types of emission sources are considered in the analysis:
- enteric fermentation and manure management from livestock;
- burning of agricultural residues;
- nitrogen fertilizer use; and
- flooding rice.

7. Low-carbon Development options for agriculture
The research and consultation resulted in the following low-carbon development options:
a)Agroforestry;
b)Afforestation of marginal agricultural lands;
c) Conservation tillage;
d)Sustainable Agricultural Land Management (SALM) practices;
e)Limiting use of fire in range and cropland management; and
f)Livestock Substitution (to be included).

8. Analysis of the options
•The results of the analysis are covered in five categories:
a)Scenarios;
b)Mitigation potentials;
c) Costs;
d) Development benefits; and
e) Climate resilience.

9. Climate resilience
•An additional key criterion when selecting low- carbon development options for the agricultural sector was the presence of positive co-benefits in terms of adaptation or resilience to climate changes.
•Positive adaptation benefits are seen in all four low-carbon development options, including the important effect of helping to improve the retention of water in the soils and helping to reduce soil erosion

10. Feasibility of Implementation
•This has been analyzed for all options
Next is to insert actions to realize the options for low emission in Agriculture

11. Building Climate Resilience of Agriculture Production systems
“Climate-smart Agriculture”

12. Climate-smart Agriculture
This entails production systems that combine three aspects of increased productivity/food security, climate resilience and carbon sequestration.
CSA brings out some hidden value in sustainable agricultural production systems; that is the carbon sequestered and / or avoided emissions
Climate-smart agriculture is one viable way of achieving food security and poverty eradication while contributing to mitigating climate change

13. Mechanisms for Climate-Smart Agriculture
The three pillars of CSA are:
•development of an institutional framework, including capacity building, facilitating climate- smart agricultural development;
•development of Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) guidelines for the agricultural sector at national level;
•Identification of financial instruments which have the potential to leading to scaling-up of these investments.

14. Screening of climate-smart public and private investments
-Objective: identify the most promising and potentially successful public and private climate- smart agricultural investments in Kenya
-Method: expert assessment using 10 evaluation criteria with 3 built in filters for
•Poverty impact
•Market size of targeted commodity
•Climate-smartness
-Proxy indicators for each criterion
-10 public, 10 private investments

15. Regional filter
10 investments
4-5 highest scores
Market filter
Climate-smart filter
1.Impact on food security
2.Production potential in location of investment
3.Accessibility of location
4.National market potential
5.Adaptation benefits
6.Mitigation benefits
7.Policy alignment (MTIP, Vision 2030, ESP)
8.Investment capacities
9.Economic return after 5 years
10.Cost of production

16. Objectivity
-Criteria based on:
-50% statistical data (poverty rate, rainfall distribution, accessibility, market turnover) and official policy documents (MTIP, Vision 2023, ESP)
-20% international best practice in assessment of adaptation-mitigation benefits (method used in CAADP screening)
-30% expert judgement by leading agribusiness experts in Kenya (investment capacities, economic return, cost of production)
-Screening carried out by a team of 7 experts

17. CSA Investment Screening

18. Results – public sector top scorers
0
1
2
3
poverty rate
production potential
accessibility
market turnover
adaptation
mitigation
policy alignment
investment …
economic returns
production costs
Beef = 19
Maize = 22
Seed production = 24
Dairy = 20
Fish = 22

19. Results – private sector top scorers
0
1
2
3
poverty rate
production potential
accessibility
market turnover
adaptation
mitigation
policy alignment
investment opportunities
economic returns
production costs
Fish = 19
Maize = 21
Dairy = 22
Banana = 23
Poultry = 20

21. Way forward for CSA Investments
Consensus building on shortlisted commodities
Alignment of shortlisted commodities with private, public and development partner priorities
Climate benefit review of shortlisted commodities
Preparing feasibility study by providing commodity relevant background information
Conducting regional feasibility study to confirm investment screening and elaborate public- private investments

22. Conclusion
•Best to explore options with both adaptation and mitigation benefits
•Priority should be adaptation for resilience with mitigation as a co-benefit
•Poverty alleviation and food security need to be top on priority list
•Adaptation and mitigation in agriculture are not separable in practice in our circumstances