The document discusses key issues related to agriculture and rural development in the context of global climate change negotiations. It provides 3 examples of projects that demonstrate opportunities for mitigation, adaptation, technology diffusion, and payments for environmental services that generate livelihood co-benefits for smallholder farmers. It concludes there is a need for clarity on definitions and follow-up processes from Copenhagen, ensuring adequate support for adaptation among rural poor populations.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. We are ready to support a
successful Copenhagen outcome
f lC h t
Please visit:
www.donorplatform.org
10