Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
No.1: Taking Stock after the Bonn Climate Change Talks: An ARD Perspective

No.1: Taking Stock after the Bonn Climate Change Talks: An ARD Perspective

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33 |Likes:
The status of ARD in the climate change negotiating texts of the June 2009 Bonn Meeting.
The status of ARD in the climate change negotiating texts of the June 2009 Bonn Meeting.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Global Donor Platform for Rural Development on Nov 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/12/2013

pdf

 
1
Platform Issue Paper
Platform Issue Papers areintended to share informa-tion and knowledge to ad-vance the role and potentialfor ARD for sustainable andmore equitable develop-ment.They are to inform and aidcurrent debates and theyshould not be seen as aformal position of any of itsmembers.Acknowledgements: Theauthors Natasha Grist andSteve Wiggins (ODI) wouldlike to thank Silvia Donato(IFAD) for insights providedduring the production ofthis briefing. Any errorsand omissions remain theresponsibility of theauthors themselves.
Taking Stock after the Bonn Climate ChangeTalks: An ARD Perspective
Key message
Bonn saw progress in getting agriculture into the climate change agreements expected at Copen-hagen in December 2009. This, however, comes from a low base, with agriculture barely recog-nised in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol texts, as well as in the more recent Ad-Hoc WorkingGroup session reports.There is thus plenty to do ensure that agricultural and rural development (ARD) issues are suffi-ciently well incorporated into the draft and final Copenhagen agreement; and even more to do af-ter the event in ensuring agreed provisions are both operational and effective in the field.
What was achieved at Bonn for ARD?
Official meeting reporters of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin highlighted the difference in ap-proaches 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 expressedtherein, the texts evolved quite differently over the course of the meeting. While the AWG-LCA text sailed rather uncontroversially through the meeting, with parties simply addingand clarifying proposals and stating views, the AWG-KP texts were discussed in moredepth, with attempts to consolidate proposals for LULUCF and Annex I targets, and per-sistent tension about the breadth of the group’s 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, tech-nology and finance.
Crop production and food security are mentioned in first paragraph as adversely af-fected by climate change
Resilience-building activities mentioned sustainable agriculture
Agriculture was mentioned as a sector that might be included in the nationally ap-propriate mitigation actions (NAMAs)
Emphasis is given to the need for more research and development around mitigationtechnologies in agriculture especially soil carbon sequestration
In discussing intellectual property rights, there was a call to disallow patenting ofspecies for adaptation in agriculture by corporations
Insurance is mentioned to address extreme weather events and risks to crop produc-tion, food security and livelihoods
Land use may or may not be included in the REDD discussions (options were given inbrackets)
No. 1
|
June 2009
 
2
Platform Issue Paper | No. 1
AWG-Kyoto Protocol Text 1: on amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, developed country emissionsreductions
Almost no mention of agriculture in this document
Land use was mentioned in the context of bringing this into calculations of emissionsif 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 anoption for LULUCF
Possibilities were proposed by various groups for how to bring agricultural issuesand 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 HocWorking Groups, and in the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol themselves. In the Convention andthe Kyoto protocol, agriculture is mentioned in broad terms including mitigation, adaptation andtechnology transfer. The new negotiating texts elaborate in slightly more detail, mentioning sev-eral other sector interests, such as insurance, R&D and mitigation, as well as bringing in the con-cept of resilience into agriculture.This may have been as much as could have been expected: there are limits to how much can beachieved at one moment in complex negotiations. For some observers, there is now a good chancethat the agreements at Copenhagen will include sufficient references to agriculture to allow mostof the issues in mitigation, adaptation and financing to be addressed in subsequent deliberations.But there are concerns. While agriculture may be in the text, there is little to reflect the wider con-cerns of rural development. In addition, although mentioned in some side events at the Bonnmeeting, it is unclear how far agriculture is seen from the perspective of smallholders in the de-veloping world.Technically, many, often difficult, issues need resolution to ensure effective mitigation and adapta-tion for agriculture in the developing world (see Issues Paper 2).Politically, it seems that agricultural and forestry interests do not co-ordinate and indeed, theremay be competition over the REDD agenda. With good reason, some forestry stakeholders seeagriculture, 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 tradenegotiations 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 WorldTrade Organisation trade talks?The negotiating text of the LCA has burgeoned from 53 to over 200 pages, as parties add theircomments. This may be getting too unwieldy. Some have called for strong political leadershipneeded to help to pull this together, not at the COP sessions, but at wider global level such as theUN 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 opin-ions.
 
3
What needs to be done in preparation forCopenhagen COP 15 in December 2009?
Two things may realistically be achieved at the Copenhagen talks: one is to ensure that the agri-culture references in the texts are agreed and included in the final drafts; the other is to get amandate for a work programme on agriculture, perhaps along the lines of the five year NairobiWork Programme on adaptation that commenced in 2005.Getting the text markers retained will require lobbying at the three Ad-hoc Working Group meet-ings
1
that remain before Copenhagen. More challenging will be creating a feasible programme oftechnical work subsequent to Copenhagen that can be mandated.
Sources
Texts analysed:
1.AWG-LCA (2009) Negotiating Text. Produced for Bonn meeting June 1-12
th
2009.UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf.2.AWG-KP (2009) A proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to its Arti-cle 3 Paragraph 9. Produced for Bonn meeting June 1-12 2009. UNFCCC.http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awg8/eng/07.pdf.3.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.4.IISD (2009) Summary of the Climate Change Talks 1-12 June 2009 (26pp), Earth Nego-tiations Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 241http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30.5.ENB (2009) Special Report on “Land Day”, Side Event at Bonn negotiations on June6
th
, UNCCCDhttp://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30/enbots/06.html.6.UN (1998) Kyoto Protocolhttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf.7.UN (1992) Convention on Climate Changehttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
Background references:FAO
(2009) Anchoring agriculture in a Copenhagen agreement: A policy brief for negotiat-ing parties by FAO.http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/data/nrc/policy_brief_sbstabonn.pdf
GDPRD
(2009) Platform Briefing Note Agriculture and Climate Change Issue 1, May 2009http://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 negotia-tions.http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-10-agriculture-Bonn-climate
 
1)
Bonn 10–14 August; Bangkok 28September–9 October; Barcelona2–6 November
Platform Issue Paper | No. 1

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->