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