Platform Issue Paper

No. 1 | June 2009

Platform Issue Papers are intended to share information and knowledge to advance the role and potential for ARD for sustainable and more equitable development. They are to inform and aid current debates and they should not be seen as a formal position of any of its members.

Taking Stock after the Bonn Climate Change Talks: An ARD Perspective
Key message
Bonn saw progress in getting agriculture into the climate change agreements expected at Copenhagen in December 2009. This, however, comes from a low base, with agriculture barely recognised in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol texts, as well as in the more recent Ad-Hoc Working Group session reports. There is thus plenty to do ensure that agricultural and rural development (ARD) issues are sufciently well incorporated into the draft and nal Copenhagen agreement; and even more to do after the event in ensuring agreed provisions are both operational and effective in the eld.

What was achieved at Bonn for ARD?

Ofcial meeting reporters of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin highlighted the difference in approaches between the two main working groups: Although both the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA came into the meeting with text to discuss, and both groups sought to ensure that all parties proposals were adequately expressed therein, the texts evolved quite differently over the course of the meeting. While the AWGLCA text sailed rather uncontroversially through the meeting, with parties simply adding and clarifying proposals and stating views, the AWG-KP texts were discussed in more depth, with attempts to consolidate proposals for LULUCF and Annex I targets, and persistent tension about the breadth of the groups mandate. (IISD 2009)

In the main negotiating texts, the following ARD references were included
Long term Cooperative Action [AWG-LCA]: discussing shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, technology and nance. Crop production and food security are mentioned in rst paragraph as adversely affected by climate change Resilience-building activities mentioned sustainable agriculture Agriculture was mentioned as a sector that might be included in the nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) Emphasis is given to the need for more research and development around mitigation technologies in agriculture especially soil carbon sequestration Acknowledgements: The authors Natasha Grist and Steve Wiggins (ODI) would like to thank Silvia Donato (IFAD) for insights provided during the production of this brieng. Any errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors themselves. In discussing intellectual property rights, there was a call to disallow patenting of species for adaptation in agriculture by corporations Insurance is mentioned to address extreme weather events and risks to crop production, food security and livelihoods Land use may or may not be included in the REDD discussions (options were given in brackets)

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1

AWG-Kyoto Protocol Text 1: on amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, developed country emissions reductions Almost no mention of agriculture in this document Land use was mentioned in the context of bringing this into calculations of emissions if land use change is a net source of emissions AWG-Kyoto Protocol Text 2: on Other Issues notably Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) LULUCF opened the opportunity to include agriculture activities as one of the options, where previously there was only mention of reforestation/deforestation One option is to include soil carbon management in agricultural sequestration as an option for LULUCF Possibilities were proposed by various groups for how to bring agricultural issues and sectors proposed for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Noted that further work is needed to bring this into accounting procedures

Perspectives: how much progress?

More references to agriculture were included than in previous session reports for the Ad Hoc Working Groups, and in the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol themselves. In the Convention and the Kyoto protocol, agriculture is mentioned in broad terms including mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer. The new negotiating texts elaborate in slightly more detail, mentioning several other sector interests, such as insurance, R&D and mitigation, as well as bringing in the concept of resilience into agriculture. This may have been as much as could have been expected: there are limits to how much can be achieved at one moment in complex negotiations. For some observers, there is now a good chance that the agreements at Copenhagen will include sufcient references to agriculture to allow most of the issues in mitigation, adaptation and nancing to be addressed in subsequent deliberations. But there are concerns. While agriculture may be in the text, there is little to reect the wider concerns of rural development. In addition, although mentioned in some side events at the Bonn meeting, it is unclear how far agriculture is seen from the perspective of smallholders in the developing world. Technically, many, often difcult, issues need resolution to ensure effective mitigation and adaptation for agriculture in the developing world (see Issues Paper 2). Politically, it seems that agricultural and forestry interests do not co-ordinate and indeed, there may be competition over the REDD agenda. With good reason, some forestry stakeholders see agriculture, and its related deforestation practices, as the enemy of the forest (Tawney, 2009). Agricultural interests are very complicated, compared to many other sectors. The record of trade negotiations shows that agriculture can be a major stumbling block to wide-ranging trade deals. Might agriculture do to climate change deals what it did to the Doha Development Round of World Trade Organisation trade talks? The negotiating text of the LCA has burgeoned from 53 to over 200 pages, as parties add their comments. This may be getting too unwieldy. Some have called for strong political leadership needed to help to pull this together, not at the COP sessions, but at wider global level such as the UN high level climate change summit in September 2009 and upcoming G20 and G8 meetings. There are many opportunities, therefore, for leaders to meet and hash out areas of divergent opinions.

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1 What needs to be done in preparation for Copenhagen COP 15 in December 2009?
Two things may realistically be achieved at the Copenhagen talks: one is to ensure that the agriculture references in the texts are agreed and included in the nal drafts; the other is to get a mandate for a work programme on agriculture, perhaps along the lines of the ve year Nairobi Work Programme on adaptation that commenced in 2005. Getting the text markers retained will require lobbying at the three Ad-hoc Working Group meetings1 that remain before Copenhagen. More challenging will be creating a feasible programme of technical work subsequent to Copenhagen that can be mandated.

Sources
Texts analysed: 1. 2. AWG-LCA (2009) Negotiating Text. Produced for Bonn meeting June 1-12th 2009. UNFCCC http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf. AWG-KP (2009) A proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to its Article 3 Paragraph 9. Produced for Bonn meeting June 1-12 2009. UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awg8/eng/07.pdf. AWG KP (2009) A text on other issues outlined in document FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/8. Produced for Bonn meeting June 1-12 2009 UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awg8/eng/08.pdf. IISD (2009) Summary of the Climate Change Talks 1-12 June 2009 (26pp), Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 241 http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30. ENB (2009) Special Report on Land Day, Side Event at Bonn negotiations on June 6th, UNCCCD http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30/enbots/06.html. UN (1998) Kyoto Protocol http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf. UN (1992) Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Background references: FAO (2009) Anchoring agriculture in a Copenhagen agreement: A policy brief for negotiating parties by FAO. http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/data/nrc/policy_brief_sbstabonn.pdf GDPRD (2009) Platform Brieng Note Agriculture and Climate Change Issue 1, May 2009 http://www.donorplatform.org/content/view/257/207. IFPRI (2009) Agriculture and Climate Change: an agenda for negotiation in Copenhagen, 2020 Vision Focus Briefs No 16. http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus16.asp. Tawney, L. (2009) Agriculture: a necessary complication in the climate change negotiations. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-10-agriculture-Bonn-climate

1)

Bonn 1014 August; Bangkok 28 September9 October; Barcelona 26 November

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1 Annex: Text references to ARD in negotiation documents at June meeting at Bonn
Texts were searched for a series of agriculture-related terms (agriculture, crop, food, land use/ LULUCF and livestock) and are reported sequentially here with brief context, and highlighted text snippets. 1. AWG Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf Background to text: This document was prepared by the Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) in response to the request from the AWG-LCA at its fourth session. The document presents a negotiating text, contained in the annex, which aims to provide a starting point for the negotiations at the sixth session of the group by reecting ideas and proposals by Parties in a structured and comprehensive but concise manner. The text takes account of ideas and proposals contained in the most recent submissions from Parties received by the secretariat from the end of the fth session up to 5 May 2009, of the ideas and proposals submitted previously, including those assembled in document FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/16/Rev.1, and of the proceedings of the fth session of the AWG-LCA Text snippets and mentions 1.1. Agriculture 1.1.1. In discussing means of implementation on p.14, resilience-building activities mentioned sustainable agriculture: 30. {Agreed} full {incremental} cost coverage should be provided for: (a) Adaptation technologies and stand-alone adaptation projects; (b) Preparation of national adaptation action plans; (c) Implementation of NAPAs; (d) Resilience-building activities based on vulnerability assessments, including for sustainable livelihood, sustainable agriculture, building community capacities and infrastructures, access to technologies and innovations, etc. 1.1.2. Discussing the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), agriculture was mentioned as a sector that may be included: 73. NAMAs may include: (a) Sustainable development policies (b) Low-emission development strategies (c) Programmatic CDM, technology programmes and energy pricing measures; (d) Cap-and-trade schemes and carbon (e) Sectoral targets, national sector-based sectoral crediting baselines; (f) REDD-plus activities and other sectors, including agriculture. 1.1.3. There is emphasis on R&D in mitigation activities based around agriculture, especially soil sequestration, biochar, carbon sinks in drylands: 134. Agriculture Parties shall cooperate in R&D of mitigation technologies for the agriculture sector, recognizing the necessity for international cooperative action to enhance and provide incentives for mitigation of GHG emissions from agriculture, in particular in developing countries. Consideration should be given to the role of soils in carbon sequestration, including through the use of biochar and enhancing carbon sinks in drylands.

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1

1.1.4. Finally, in discussing intellectual property rights, the comment is made that plant and animal species for agricultural adaptation should not be patented by multinationals: 189. Option 3 LDCs should be exempted from patent protection of climate-related technologies for adaptation and mitigation, as required for capacity-building and development needs. Genetic resources, including germplasms of plant and animal species and varieties that are essential for adaptation in agriculture, shall not be patented by multinational or any other corporations. 1.2. and 1.3. Food security /Crop production 1.2.1. In the opening paragraph of the document, crop production and food security are stressed as amongst the most serious adverse effects of climate change. This is thought to be excellent progress in agricultural specialist circles. Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. As assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report, the serious adverse effects of climate change, notably those on crop production and food security, water resources and human health, as well as on housing and infrastructure, are becoming a major obstacle to efforts to promote sustainable economic and social development and to reduce poverty, which are the rst and overriding priorities of developing countries. (p.1) 1.2.2. Mechanisms for risk reduction, risk management and sharing various mechanisms are proposed. Within Option 1, one component suggested is: An insurance component to address climate-related extreme weather events, and risks to crop production, food security and livelihood (p.16) 1.3. Crop Production See 1.2 1.4. Land Use, Land Use change and Forestry 1.4.1. Land Use was mentioned relating to REDD. Its inclusion in brackets means this reference may be omitted: 1. Objectives, scope and guiding principles 106. Developing country Parties contribute to enhanced mitigations actions in the {forestry sector}{land use, land-use change and forestry sector} by reducing emissions, ensuring permanence of existing carbon stocks and enhancing removals, while promoting sustainable forest management (p.105) 2. AWG-KP Text 1: Amended Kyoto Protocol Text http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awg8/eng/07.pdf Background to text: AWG-KP Negotiating Texts on Further Emission Reduction Commitments for Annex I Parties The Chair of the AWG-KP prepared two key documents to be discussed at the Bonn Talks in June that will provide a basis for the group to intensify negotiations on further emission reduction commitments for Annex I Parties. One key document focuses on amendments to the Kyoto Protocol relating to emission reduction commitments of industrialised countries for the second phase of the Protocol (post-2012). A second document covers other related issues, including emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms, and land use, land-use change and forestry. 2.1. 2.2, 2.3 Agriculture, food security and crop production were not mentioned in the text 2.4. Land use

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1

2.4.1. In terms of bringing in calculations into the emissions if land use change is a net source of emissions for Annex I (developed countries) (same statement on this in both the options presented here from pages 17 and 18 in the text): Option 1 The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 7 of Article 3 of the Protocol: 7 bis. In the second quantied emission limitation and reduction commitment period, [from [2013 to 2017][ending 2018 to 2022][2013 to 2018][2013 to 2020][2013 to V], the assigned amount for each Party included in Annex I shall be equal [or more] to the percentage inscribed for it in the third column of the table contained in Annex B of its aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A in 1990, or the base year or period determined in accordance with paragraph 5 above, multiplied by ve][six][eight][Y]. Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount.] Option 2 The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 7 of Article 3 of the Protocol: 7 bis. By 2020, T and U, respectively, the assigned amount for each Party included in Annex I shall be equal to the percentage inscribed for it in the third column of the table contained in Annex B of its aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A in W, or the base year or period determined in accordance with paragraph 5 above, which is P.5 Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from landuse change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount. 3. AWG-KP (2009) Text 2: Other issues http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awg8/eng/08.pdf.

3.1. Agriculture 3.1.1. This text discusses placing soil carbon management in agriculture sequestration as one of the options for LULUCF (page 5). 3.1.2. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses are proposed as follows by one group of developing countries:

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1

And by the EU as (a more detailed group):

3.1.3. It was noted that further work is needed to bring agriculture into accounting: [Agriculture, forestry and other land use and aggregate sources and non-CO2 emissions sources on land] *Note: The bracketed text reects the main changes introduced for this sector in the 2006 IPCC guidelines (LULUCF vs. AFOLU). The main difculty at this point in time as regards the bracketed text is the lack of agreement on LULUCF accounting. The unbracketed parts are those categories that reect the agriculture categories currently included in Annex A with some small additions (p. 43) 3.1.4. Cropland management was mentioned in terms of accounting for source/sink. 3.2. and 3.3 food and crops are not mentioned in the document 3.4. LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forests) 3.4.1. Options given for including wider issues than just reforestation/deforestation in LULUCF open the opportunity for inclusion of agriculture activities. However, note that Option 1 does not allow for this (p. 21):

3.5. Livestock is mentioned in terms of livestock grazing land management in denitions of LULUCF expanded activities 4. From IISD Summary of Bonn June 1-12th meeting http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12421e.pdf Text snippets 4.1. Agriculture 4.1.1. and 4.2 Need to include agriculture and food security in the shared vision: Context of Shared Vision Switzerland said the shared vision should call for urgency, and provide a synthesis of medium- and long-term aims. He said language on a paradigm shift to low-emission development pathways should be reected in the text, as should limiting temperature rise to

Platform Issue Paper | No. 1

well below 2C. He requested mention of agriculture, reecting links between land use and sustainable development, mitigation and adaptation, and particularly in the context of food security and poverty reduction. (p.9) 4.2. Food see above 4.3. Crops not mentioned 4.4. LULUCF 4.4.1. LULUCF in or out of emissions targets: EU: On Annex I parties aggregate emission reductions, the EU supported an aggregate reduction of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. He explained that this proposed target is based on modelling showing a 50% probability of limiting global temperature to below 2C, and claried that although there would be an overshoot beyond 500 ppm, concentrations would come down to 450 ppm later in the century. He also said that the target assumes the continuation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but does not consider LULUCF. (p.12) AOSIS: AOSIS stated that they had aggregated the numbers, and presented updated aggregate gures showing a 9-14% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, without LULUCF, and 8-13% with LULUCF. At the request of a number of parties, the Secretariat prepared a non-paper compiling and aggregating the emission reduction targets proposed by some Annex I parties. The nonpaper showed a range of 17-26% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, excluding LULUCF but including deforestation, and 16-24% including LULUCF. (p.12) 4.4.2. LULUCF spin off group: Parties agreed to focus on LULUCF at this session and to create a spin-off group. Within this group, using the new non-paper as a basis, parties focused their discussions on wetlands, natural disturbances, non-permanence, bar accounting and harvested wood products (HWP).

For further reading and up-dates please visit: www.donorplatform.org