Koronivia joint work on agriculture – Part 2

Session II of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture consisted of presentations by constituted bodies and financing entities.  Here is a recap:

·       Green Climate Fund (GCF) – Areas of focus include agriculture, forest and land use, and cities.   Supports projects involving capacity building, climate analysis, and project preparation. Goals include reduced exposure and risk, and food security. Metrics include % of food secure households and area (ha) of land made more resilient to climate change through modified agriculture practices. Adaptation investment criteria include impact potential, sustainable development and co-benefits (mitigation, biodiversity, health, etc.), and (interestingly) paradigm shift potential. Lessons learned since 2015 include 1) Ensuring adaptation is the primary driver of projects, instead of projects that are construction-based with adaptation co-benefits, 2) Clearly defining project objectives, and 3) Measuring co-benefits for greater overall project impacts.

·       Global Environmental Facility (GEF) – Have invested $1.8B in adaptation projects so far, with
28 million beneficiaries and 7 million ha of land made climate resilient (three of their metrics). They seek to fund projects that are cross-cutting in addressing mitigation, land degradation, and biodiversity. In assessing adaptation benefits, they use core indicators, measure context specific results, and promote knowledge management, dissemination, and evaluation. Their work is guided and informed by the gender policy.  Example – Project in Mozambique using Farmers Field School Approach. Challenges include the qualitative and indirect nature of adaptation results, lack of universal methods and data, and multifocal projects that generate co- benefits but result in increased costs of implementation and monitoring. Lessons learned include recognizing that not all benefits can be quantified and that common definitions are needed.

·       Adaptation Fund – For adaptation projects, they have invested $870m, of which $201m came from certified emissions reductions (CER) and $655m from developed countries contributions.
They categorize projects by sector, such as risk reduction, food security, water management, forests, coastal zone management, and cities. Project selection criteria include concrete adaptation actions, inclusion of marginalized groups (e.g., the most vulnerable, youth, women), and consistency with national strategies. Countries applying should be party to the Kyoto Protocol and projects should have endorsement by their government. Projects should be linked to the climate threat, not business as usual (BAU). Project examples include: 1) Adaptation in water and agriculture in Eritrea by implementing improved irrigation, soil and water conservation, afforestation, and weather and early warning systems; 2) Protecting oasis zones in Morocco by optimizing flood waters, preserving palm trees, diversifying income sources to improve living conditions, and teaching women weaving, cooking, and other trades; 3) Project in Uruguay that involves youth, builds meteorological and weather stations, and provides training; and 4) Project in the Indian Himalayas that targets marginalized communities, rejuvenates mountain springs, provides drip irrigation, establishes water use groups in each village, and employs resilient horticultural varieties. 

Comments from workshop participants include:

·       Representative of the World Farmer's Organization- Climate discussions can't be about farmers; it must be with farmers. Data is the new gold in agriculture, and even remote farmers have access. He said farmers learn more from other farmers than from anyone else, which is a good point to remember.

·       Teresa Anderson, Action Aid: Agroecology is a very effective form of adaptation. Indicators may include number of trainings, number of farmers using agroecology, and other metrics that can be tracked by farmers and farm organizations, not just consultants tracking carbon. She spoke passionately about using agroecology and commented on the empowerment it provides including in food security and with gender aspects.

·       Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, Guatemala - UNFCCC has recognized the value of indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge. They have concern with large agricultural companies because they contribute to GHGs, destruction of lands, forests and indigenous people, and they affect food security. Often their impacts are hidden. They ask that governments recognize traditional knowledge and practices when implementing agricultural (and other) projects.

·       Soil health is a public, private, and wider societal good. 

·       Need to establish soil health targets for adaptation and mitigation and need stronger integration into NDCs. This will require providing countries with support to raise ambition on soil health-related targets.

·       Recommendations for realignment of subsidies to promote improved soil health and ecosystem services essential for sustainable agriculture.

·       There is a need to improve Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of soil health and soil carbon to reward farmers for positive externalities they generate.

·       Global Environment Facility (GEF)  has seven Impact Programs including Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration (FOLUR).  They take a landscape approach and have Sustainable Forest Management projects in the Amazon, Congo, and drylands. 

·       It can be a challenge aligning different stakeholders (e.g., ministries of environment, agriculture, energy, finance, private sector – getting them all to talk). Consider different approaches with each and find a common way to bring them together.

The third session of the workshop was opened with a plenary by Ronald Vargas, the Secretary of the Global Soil Partnership on Sustainable Soil Management.

·       33% of soils are highly degraded, which means we are losing productivity and producing emissions. Degradation includes soil compaction, erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Soil organic carbon (SOC) loss is the second biggest threat to soil function. There is a lot opportunity to reverse this, if we follow good practices.

·       60% of SOC is comprised of soil organic matter. When good practices are followed, it takes several years to build up the soil organic matter. However, there are multiple co-benefits of sustainable soil management and SOC sequestration.

·       Monitoring occurs through remote sensing and field surveys. Remote sensing is most helpful to determine land use and cover but cannot replace field surveys because information is gained by sampling at depths to determine how carbon is distributed throughout the soil layers.

·       Are countries ready to report following MRV (measuring, reporting, valuation) guidelines? Do we have enough info on SOC dynamics that can be used in decision-making?

·       Challenges and Gaps – baseline soil carbon stocks, ground data, default data for reporting, quality standards and guidelines, uncertainty.

·       Without baseline data, no basis for comparison to measure changes. We need a global soil survey using the same sampling protocol, and then need a global monitoring system based on national systems. 

·       RECSOIL – Recarbonization of Global Soils – a tool/facility to implement the Koronivia decision.

·       Conclusions – need harmonized methodologies, need to scale up good practices, need additional indicators beyond SOC, need incentives for farmers, need to establish a global soil carbon monitoring system, and need to strengthen capacity of member countries.

·       Crop residues are good for soil fertility but concern about attracting pests (e.g., rats).

·       The soil carbon sequestration market is struggling; soil projects not accepted in CDM.

·       While it is expensive to invest in improving soil carbon, you get many benefits (productivity, water retention, soil biodiversity, etc.) that continue after the project.

Mary Sakala, smallholder farmer in Zambia - Changing precipitation patterns impact farmers who rely on rainfed crops. Applying fertilizers and herbicides increase the heat in soils already facing drought; these affect soil microorganisms and ants. Fertilizers tend to focus on NPK exclusively, but micronutrients are also needed; soils often have a deficit of 13 nutrients, which are only obtainable through agroecology methods including minimum tillage, green manure, soil erosion reduction, and using seed, crop and animal diversity. Agroecology is best for adaptation and water management, and the more you use agroecology, the higher the yield (vs the more you use chemicals, the more degraded the soil gets). She also suggested we stop subsidizing fertilizers. 

Workshop agenda and presentations

More information on Koronivia joint work on agriculture

Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture – Part 1

From COP23 in 2017, the SBSTA and SBI were asked to jointly address agricultural issues, considering the vulnerabilities of agriculture and food security to climate change.  At this meeting in Bonn, a series of workshops were held under the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture. 

Talks focused on agricultural soil carbon, health, and fertility. Claire Chenu, Professor of Soil Sciences at the AgroParisTech, gave the keynote presentation on soil carbon as the key to addressing vulnerabilities of agriculture to climate change and food security issues.  She noted that there is three times more carbon in soils than in the atmosphere. Soils provide essential ecosystem services including those related to agriculture, biodiversity, forests, water quality, cultural services, landscaping, and nutrients.  Organic matter in soils provide further ecosystem services including structure, water infiltration and retention, aeration, nutrient provision, and habitat for beneficial organisms.  Protection of soils is important for food security and agricultural resilience, and furthers Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

·       SDG 2.4 (Zero Hunger/Sustainable Food Production),

·       SDG 3.9 (Good Health and Well-Being/Reducing Soil Pollution),

·       SDG 12.4 (Responsible Consumption and Production/Sound Chemical Management), and

·       SDG 15.3 (Protect Life on Land/Restore Degraded Land and Soil).

There are two main strategies in soil protection: 1) Protect existing soil organic carbon stocks (e.g., by avoiding the plowing of grasslands), and 2) Improve soil carbon stocks (e.g., by returning crop residues to the soil).  The size of the organic carbon pool depends on inputs (such as by primary production, and through exogenous organic matter) and outputs (such as leaching, erosion, biodegradation and mineralization).  Options for soil protection include increasing primary production, supplementing soils through organic inputs, reducing tillage, and using conservation agriculture or agroforestry methods. 

There are some noteworthy challenges to modifying soil conservation practices to increase soil carbon stocks. Inputs of water and nutrients may be needed and are not always available. Biological nitrogen fixation can be used instead of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, however. There may also be some negative social impacts resulting from land use change to carbon farming that may lead to pressure on land tenure and family farming. By providing an enabling environment that includes training, capacity building, credit, investment, land tenure security, and incentives, and addressing these challenges from the onset, risks can be reduced, and project benefits maximized.

While various measures may be used to increase soil carbon stocks, eventually carbon storage limits will be reached. However, ecosystem services including improved soil productivity will continue. In response to a question from the audience, Ms. Chenu clarified that these measures are not meant to offset agricultural emissions but to be part of the portfolio of solutions. Enhancing soil carbon stocks is a mitigation and adaptation measure with many worthwhile co-benefits.

Following the opening keynote address, representatives from various countries and organizations provided presentations. The following represents some highlights from the talks.

·       Brazil – Gustavo Mozer:  In the 1970s, Brazil was far from being a food secure country because agricultural practices involved intensive tillage for seed bed preparation and weed management.  Brazil invested in agriscience by establishing six research centers and employing over 650 researchers. They now have programs in tropical agriculture including plant breeding, animal breeding, and advanced soil conservation. Through these programs, they aim to address multiple benefits including carbon balance.  Forty years later, Brazil became a relevant export country. 

·       United States - Karen Ross, Secretary of CA Dept of Food and Agriculture: California has the 5^th largest economy in the world and is home to 40 million people and 77,000 farms, producing over 400 crops. They have recently suffered from the most severe droughts and wildfires in history, so they felt compelled to increase their efforts to curtail emissions. They have set a goal of 40% emission reductions below 1990 levels by 2030.  As one of their six strategies to reach this goal, they turned to improved soil management and health and have been working with the agricultural sector on reducing greenhouse gases.  Their Healthy Soils Initiative, a collaboration of partners and state departments, promotes healthy soils on CA farmlands and ranchlands. They also have a program of Climate Smart Agriculture and strive to ensure every farmer has the opportunity to ensure long-term productivity and food security.

·       Philippines on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprised of 10-member states: They represent more than 1/3 of world population, and more than half of the population is under the age of 30. They employ the ASEAN Guidelines on soil and nutrient management to promote climate resilient agricultural production. Included in this is good soil and nutrient management practices, use of the FAO-UNESCO Soil Classification System, and fertilizer amendment labelling compliance.

·       Russian Federation - State Program for the Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Commodity Markets. To reduce risks, they cultivate high yield, climate-adapted crops. Overall, their winter crops are doing well due to warmer winters, but their summer crops are not. They employ forest reclamation and afforestation belts to reduce drought, water loss and wind erosion, increase yields, and protect flora and fauna. They are implementing Stalin’s Plan for Nature Transformation, which includes forest protection, crop rotation, and protection of lakes and ponds. Through these measures, they have seen a decrease in evaporation by 15% and a reduction in soil salinization in agricultural areas. They are in the process of preparing for ratification of the Paris Agreement. 

·       Senegal – Lamine Diatta, Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development; represents countries in Africa. They have a diverse range of soil and land use systems, some comprising very large land areas, some with infertility or low fertility (based on the level of soil organic matter). The government has committed to sustainable resolution of soil fertility loss. They use a national framework for strategic investment on sustainable land management (CNIS-GDT). Agroforestry methods they employ include assisted natural regeneration, protection of grazing areas, improved pasture lands, composting of organic matter, conservation of water to reduce water runoff, and small-scale irrigation programs. They shared lessons learned, including 1) Tradeoffs between soil carbon storage and soil fertility/productivity; 2) Biomass as the main source of carbon inputs, with land degradation is a major driver of loss; 3) Soil lab analyses are costly and challenging; and 4) A need to set up low cost and accurate tools for monitoring and reporting C flux. For information on the models they use to estimate the carbon sequestration potential of Senegal arable soil, please see Century Model - Tschakert, 2004, and RothC model – Loum et al., 2014.

Major Themes of the first week of SB50

              I am attending the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn (SB50) as a delegate (and alum ’94) of Moravian College. As usual, there is a lot happening with plenary sessions, informal consultations, special events, technical expert meetings, side events, and exhibits. The following are some highlights of the first week.

·       IPCC’s 1.5°C Report (Report Home) – There is an active conversation carrying over from the COP24 about whether to welcome, consider or note the report.  There is a small group of countries (including, alas, the US) hesitant to welcome the report because of the implications for implementation into NDCs and otherwise.  There has been an undercurrent of the 1.5°C Report throughout the week including meetings specifically devoted to it and frequent mention of it in presentations and interventions.

·       Biodiversity protection - It is noteworthy that the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was invited to speak at this meeting for the first time. Furthermore, their presentation was the first special event on the opening day of the Conference. Much of the attention was given to their recent report and their important contention that we must focus on the interconnections between climate change action and conservation and not attempt to address them separately. 

·       Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture – This workshop spanned several days and highlighted ways to improve soil carbon sequestration and soil productivity on grasslands and croplands.  (Agenda, see Item 5). It was noted that there is 3x more carbon in soils than in the atmosphere. Projects were highlighted that protect existing and enhance degraded organic carbon soil stocks.

·       Technical Expert Meetings on Mitigation (TEMs-M) (Agenda) – Two days were devoted to discussing the connections between food, water, and energy. Discussions have centered around decarbonizing food production (both the primary production and post-harvest phases), creating a circular economy, and implementing nature-based solutions that integrate energy and water with food production.

·       The Research Dialogue took place with the theme of Science for Transformation. This is an opportunity for Parties to the Conference to interact with the science community. There was a poster session (see photo) and two panel discussions. Through this Dialogue, I developed a few ideas to implement at home. I hope more time can be devoted to this Dialogue in the future because in-depth and meaningful conversations were still in progress when time ran out. 

Poster Session of the Research Dialogue

•  The Gender and Women Constituency has been actively promoting gender-responsive and human rights-based climate policy. Progress thus far on the Gender Action Plan has been reviewed with the goal of producing recommendations for update and renewal by the Conference of Parties (COP) in December. This constituency has noted the lack of gender consideration in the market mechanisms (e.g., who will directly benefit from development projects, who will have access to any jobs created, who will receive the training, who will make the decisions).

·       The Youth have been actively voicing their concerns through the YOUNGO constituency and otherwise. They bring hope and a productive energy to the process. Today they took part in a FridaysforFuture protest outside of the conference center (see photo). 

Youth Protest as part of FridaysforFuture

This is just a snapshot of what was discussed this week. More to come!