Technical paper by the secretariat

Landscape of Mount Halimun Salak National Park, West Java
Many different land types exist in this landscape including crops, forests, villages,
pasture, fisheries and private water company plants. Photo by Aulia Erlangga/CIFORLand use related mitigation benefits and cobenefits of policies, practices and actions forenhancing mitigation ambition and options
for supporting their implementation

SummaryThis updated technical paper compiles information on mitigation benefits
and co-benefits of policies, practices and actions for enhancing mitigation
ambition in land use. It also includes examples of options for supporting theimplementation of these policies, practices and actions. The paper is based onpresentations and discussions that took place at the technical expert meetingon mitigation, including the collaboration forum, held during the forty-sixth
session of the subsidiary bodies, and on a review of the latest literature. It isan update of the technical paper contained in documents FCCC/TP/2014/13
and Add.1, and FCCC/TP/2015/4 and Add.1 and 2. For the updated
technical paper on mitigation benefits and co-benefits of policies, practices
and actions for enhancing mitigation ambition in urban environments, see
document FCCC/TP/2017/2.

Contents
Chapter 1Background
A. Mandate
B. Objective
C. Structure

1
2
2
3

Chapter 2 Mitigation potential, progress, benefits, costs and barriers
A. Mitigation potential
B. Benefits
C. Progress
D. Barriers

4
5
7
8
9

Chapter 3 Policy and technology solutions to unlock mitigation potential

12

Chapter 4 Accelerating implementation of
low-emission policies and technology solutions in land use
A. Existing partnerships
B. Role of non-Party stakeholders, including the private sector

16
17
18

Chapter 5 Possible next steps to accelerate implementationin the pre-2020 period
A. Overview of next steps for accelerating actions that
address issues in land use
B. Options for advancing the technical examination process
C. Options for work at the political level to enhance mitigation ambition
D. Possible role of the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action
References

20
21
22
24
25
26

Community in the park
Over 300 communities live in and around Gunung Halimun-Salak
National Park, Java, Indonesia. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR

Chapter 1

BackgroundChapter 1

Background

A. Mandate
1.

This technical paper, prepared in response to the request of the Conferenceof the Parties (COP) at its twenty-first session, focuses on mitigation benefits
and co-benefits of policies, practices and actions in land use for enhancing
mitigation ambition and options for supporting their implementation. This is
an update of the technical paper contained in document FCCC/TP/2014/13
and Add.1. This update does not supersede the previous technical paper; itbuilds on the findings and information contained therein.

2.

This technical paper is based on information provided at the technical expert
meeting (TEM) on mitigation focusing on land use issues held during theforty-sixth sessions of the subsidiary bodies in Bonn, Germany, from 8 to 12
May 2017. It draws on presentations and discussions that took place during
the TEM, including the collaboration forum, and relevant literature.

B. Objective
3.

The objectives of this technical paper are to present compiled information
on mitigation policies, practices and actions to unlock mitigation potential in
the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector; and to facilitatea transition in discussions under the technical examination process (TEP) on
mitigation from policy and action identification to transformational policy
and action implementation. With these objectives, the paper presents policy
options and good practices that can enhance mitigation ambition of pre2020 action and support the achievement of sustainable development. The
experience and lessons learned from implementing policies, practices andactions presented are intended to support Parties and non-Party stakeholders
alike in facilitating the implementation of policies, practices and actions in
the AFOLU sector identified during this process in accordance with nationalsustainable development priorities. To facilitate the achievement of thisobjective, the paper highlights examples of successful policies, actions andapproaches as best practices that provide valuable lessons that may be
replicated and scaled up, in accordance with national circumstances. It alsopresents examples of successful enabling initiatives, practices and cooperationin support of countries, farmers, livestock owners, foresters, other land users
and related stakeholders to address climate challenges, replicate solutions
and overcome barriers to bring climate and sustainable development goals tofruition and achieve transformational policy implementation.

4.

The information presented in this technical paper does not imply consensus
among Parties on the issues or options covered at the TEMs; rather,
it provides an overview of the discussions that took place along with
supplementary information from relevant literature.

2

Chapter 1

Background

C. Structure
5.

Chapter I contains background information on the mandate for, andobjectives and structure of, the technical paper. Chapter II presents
information on mitigation potential, progress, benefits, costs and barriers
to actions in the AFOLU sector. Chapter III provides examples of existing
opportunities, practices, policies and actions in place to achieve mitigation in
relation to land use. Chapter IV provides examples of support available andenabling practices likely to increase the mitigation ambition of implemented
actions in land use. Chapter V concludes by recommending possible next
steps for advancing the TEP on mitigation and increasing the mitigation
ambition of actions in the AFOLU sector in the pre-2020 period.

3

Hillside After Forest Fire, Pang Hoc, Laos
Photo: Adam Cohn

Chapter 2
Mitigation potential,
progress, benefits,costs and barriersChapter 2

Mitigation potential
6.

Emissions from the AFOLU sector are mainly the result of loss of carbon
stocks from the conversion of forests (i.e. deforestation) and forest
degradation, direct emissions from livestock (e.g. enteric fermentation,
manure left on pasture and manure management), and crop production (e.g.
synthetic fertilizer use, rice cultivation and residue burning).

7.

The AFOLU sector is often the principal source of emissions in low-income
countries with limited industrial bases, generating the majority of national
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

8.

In 2010, the AFOLU sector was the second largest emitter, after theenergy sector, accounting for nearly 25 per cent of global GHG emissions(10–12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (Gt CO2 eq/year))(Edenhofer et al., 2014). Direct emissions from agriculture contributed
10–12 per cent of global GHG emissions (5.4–5.8 Gt CO2 eq) and emissions
from forestry and other land use (including land-use change) contributed
approximately 12 per cent of global GHG emissions (5.8 Gt CO2 eq)(Tubiello et al., 2013; Edenhofer et al., 2014).

9.

From 1990 to 2010, non-CO2 GHG emissions from agriculture increasedby an average of 0.9 per cent per year, with a slight increase in the rateof growth after 2005. Since the mid-2000s, agriculture has been a larger
source of global GHG emissions than deforestation (Tubiello et al., 2013;
Edenhofer et al., 2014). Estimates of CO2 flux from forestry and other land
use indicate that there has been a decline in global emissions from land-use
change over the most recent years largely owing to a decrease in the rate of
deforestation (Edenhofer et al., 2014).

10.

The subchapters below provide more details on the mitigation potential,
progress, benefits and barriers to mitigation action in the AFOLU sector.

A. Mitigation potential
11.

The AFOLU sector harbours significant mitigation potential. At the same time,
the sector, especially through agriculture, plays a central role in food security,
rural livelihoods and sustainable development. In agriculture, mitigation istherefore generally part of broader sustainable development objectives, suchas enhancing productivity, livelihoods and food security.

12.

Speakers at the TEM identified that the potential in the AFOLU sector forlarge-scale mitigation and adaptation is not fully tapped. In addition, there
is a high degree of complexity involved in the measurement, reporting andverification of GHG emissions and removals in the AFOLU sector. Estimating
emissions and removals from land-use activities is challenging because of the
distributed nature of emissions sources, the multitude of processes involved,
and the high level of uncertainty often involved in measuring changes incarbon stocks, in particular for soil organic carbon. Many countries simply use

5Chapter 2

Mitigation potential
aggregate land-use statistics (i.e. activity data) and default emission factors(tier 1 methods), while others have begun to use more advanced methods,
employing a mixture of remote sensing, ground measurements and surveys,
and process-based models (National Research Council, 2010).
13.

Since forests have high carbon reserves, reducing deforestation and forest
degradation holds significant mitigation potential. Examples of international
initiatives aiming to achieve mitigation in relation to forests, for example
REDD-plus,1 were discussed at the TEM. REDD-plus was recognized in
Article 5 of the Paris Agreement and serves as an example of a mitigation
action with multiple sustainable development benefits, and for which there
is considerable momentum for pre-2020 climate mitigation action. For
example, the recently submitted REDD-plus results for reducing emissions
from deforestation in the Amazon biome documented in a REDD-plus
technical annex to Brazil’s biennial update report is an example of thismitigation potential translating to action. The results are the first that havebeen fully measured, reported and verified2 in accordance with the Warsaw
Framework for REDD-plus.3 Based on the forest reference emission level for
deforestation in the Amazon biome,4 Brazil measured emission reductions ofjust over 6 Gt CO2 eq between 2006 and 2015:5 in comparison with theestimates for global emissions from forests for 2010 (5.8 Gt CO2 eq), this isa significant mitigation action, highlighting the potential of the sector.

14.

Wetlands, especially mangroves, tropical peat and coastal wetlands, also deserve
special attention given their high carbon reserves. Protecting and restoring such
ecosystems offers significant mitigation potential. The Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) recently published a supplement on wetlands tothe national GHG inventory guidelines, which may assist a greater number ofcountries in reporting GHG emissions and removals from wetlands, which is anecessary first step for assessing mitigation potential (IPCC, 2014a).

15.

The IPCC (IPCC, 2014b) estimates the future economic mitigation potentialof supply-side measures (i.e. measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions perunit of land, animal or product) for various carbon prices. It is estimated thatby 2030 the mitigation potential in the AFOLU sector will be between 7.18
and 10.6 Gt CO2 eq/year, at a cost of up to USD 100/t CO2 eq: that is tosay, if carbon prices reach USD 100/t CO2 eq in 2030, the AFOLU sector
could abate between 7.18 and 10.6 Gt CO2 eq from global GHG emissions.

1

2
3
4
5

In decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70, the Conference of the Parties encouraged developing country
Parties to contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following
activities: reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation;conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement offorest carbon stocks.
FCCC/SBI/ICA/2015/TATR.1/BRA and FCCC/SBI/ICA/2017/TATR.2/BRA.
http://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/warsaw-framework-for-redd.html.
FCCC/TAR/2014/BRA.
Brazil’s biennial update reports are available at http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_
natcom/reporting_on_climate_change/items/8722.php.

6Chapter 2

Mitigation potential

B. Benefits
16.

Significant experience has now been gained in the implementation ofland-use mitigation options. The options generally fall into one of two
broad categories, which are often linked: (1) resource use and production
efficiency; and (2) GHG emissions and removals (i.e. carbon pool storage
and replenishment). The figure below shows examples of these land-use
mitigation options as presented at the TEM.
The agriculture, forestry and other land use sector can substantially 		
contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions

17.

Yield gains and productivity increases are considered a way to reduce thepressure on natural forests and the expansion of agricultural land (andaquaculture) into valuable natural ecosystems.

18.

TEM participants agreed that GHG emissions in agriculture are underrecognized and that the potential for large-scale mitigation and adaptation
is not fully appreciated. Rice-production mitigation options and the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Climate-smart
Agriculture Programme were cited as just two examples of emission
reduction options offering significant mitigation and adaptation benefits.

19.

Recent reports and other publications have covered examples of agricultural
mitigation options in detail, including animal health (see FAO, 2016) and soil
carbon sequestration (see FAO 2017; Paustian et al., 2016), which werehighlighted by presenters at the TEM.

20.

While implementing these mitigation options to reduce GHG emissions fromthe AFOLU sector is imperative for keeping global warming below 2 degrees
Celsius, mitigation actions, as previously mentioned, also provide a variety
of sustainable development co-benefits.6 AFOLU mitigation measures can
support the enforcement of sectoral policies (e.g. conservation policies) andcross-sectoral coordination of policies in the AFOLU sector. AFOLU mitigation
measures linked to increased food production (e.g. agroforestry, intensified

6

For example, AFOLU mitigation measures may result in the clarification of land tenure and theharmonization of land-use rights for multiple social groups, including indigenous peoples andlocal communities.

7

Chapter 2

Mitigation potential
agricultural production and integrated systems) can enhance food security.7
Reducing emissions from the AFOLU sector may also improve air, soil andwater quality, benefitting human health and well-being. AFOLU mitigation
measures can also promote the conservation of biological diversity, and often
have positive effects on water resources.
21.

Finally, AFOLU mitigation measures can promote innovation, increasing
agricultural and sylvicultural efficiency thereby potentially freeing land forcarbon sequestration and/or bioenergy production (for a more detailed
discussion of co-benefits, risks and spillovers see Smith et al., 2014).

C. Progress22.

In addition to a growing body of literature on land-use mitigation options
and co-benefits, progress is evident from various country-specific initiatives,
including those presented at the TEM and summarized in chapter III.
Initiatives are also under way at the international level focusing on mitigation
and adaptation in agriculture, reducing emissions from deforestation andforest degradation (REDD-plus), conserving and restoring coastal and marine
ecosystems, and supporting countries in achieving the mitigation potential
detailed in chapter II.A above.

23.

International organizations, programmes and partnerships – such as the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility (FCPF),8 the United Nations Development Programme,
the United Nations Environment Programme, the UNFCCC and the UNREDD Programme – facilitate these initiatives and document progress in theirannual reports (see FCPF, 2016; UN-REDD Programme, 2016).

24.

According to its 2016 report, the UN-REDD Programme supports nationally
led REDD-plus initiatives in 64 developing countries; 14 partner countries
have submitted forest reference emission levels/forest reference levels(FRELs/FRLs), and 10 additional countries have increased their capacities
in and understanding of FRELs/FRLs through training. Forty countries are
putting in place their national forest monitoring systems, several of them

7
8

Other measures (e.g. forest or energy crop plantations) can reduce food production, at least locally.
FCPF is a global partnership of governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples focusedon reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, forest carbon stock conservation,
sustainable forest management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries(i.e. REDD-plus). It has four strategic objectives: (1) to assist countries in their REDD-plus efforts
by providing them with financial and technical assistance in building their capacity to benefit frompossible future systems of positive incentives for REDD-plus; (2) to pilot a performance-based
payment system for REDD-plus activities with a view to ensuring equitable benefit-sharing andpromoting future large-scale positive incentives for REDD-plus; (3) within the approach to REDDplus, to test ways to sustain or enhance livelihoods of local communities and to conserve biodiversity;and (4) to disseminate broadly the knowledge gained in the development of the facility and theimplementation of readiness preparation proposals and emission reduction programmes.

8

Chapter 2

Mitigation potential
generating forest data for the first time. Twenty-six countries are preparing
national REDD-plus strategies or action plans. There has been significant
technical and political support for developing REDD-plus policies andmeasures and numerous other examples of achievements at the national
level. More than 30 countries are developing approaches to meet UNFCCC
safeguards while 9 are each developing a safeguard information system.
Among the many countries addressing governance, tenure and gender issues
related to REDD-plus, 29 have set up mechanisms to promote the inclusionand participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and civil society
organizations in formulating national REDD-plus policies. The UN-REDD
Programme also serves as a major platform for knowledge-sharing (UNREDD Programme, 2016).
25.

In addition, 47 countries selected for FCPF have signed participationagreements. Of the more than USD 1.1 billion total funds committed to
FCPF, USD 370 million is committed to the Readiness Fund and USD 750
million to the Carbon Fund. USD 236 million in readiness grant funding has
been allocated, USD 178 million made available in signed grants and USD
246 million leveraged in non-FCPF investments in readiness. Thirty-nine
countries have signed readiness preparation grants, 19 are in the Carbon
Fund pipeline, and Costa Rica and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
have presented fully fledged emission reduction programmes to the Carbon
Fund and will soon begin receiving payments from FCPF for emission
reductions achieved from reduced deforestation and forest degradation (i.e.
for conserving tropical forests at scale) (FCPF, 2016).

26.

Many countries are showcasing their national accomplishments, whileinternational initiatives, especially related to REDD-plus, are funding progress
and laying the foundations for accelerated mitigation actions for andsignificant emission reductions from the AFOLU sector.

D. Barriers
27.

Despite the significant potential for mitigation and progress in the AFOLU
sector, there are barriers to implementation due to the complexity of driversof land use and land-use change.

28.

Barriers to scaling and replicating land-use mitigation actions fall into fourmain categories: (1) socioeconomic; (2) environmental; (3) institutional; and(4) technological. Although not insurmountable, in each context or country
there will be an intersection of socioeconomic, environmental, institutional
and technological barriers that may result in implementation difficulties or
may hinder replication and scaling up. These barriers, as summarized in theprevious version of the technical paper (see document FCCC/TP/2014/13/
Add.1, table 1), include:

9Chapter 2

Mitigation potentiala)Socioeconomic barriers:i)b)Lack of sufficient upfront finance to cover transaction andmonitoring costs;ii) Long implementation time frames requiring significant resource
allocations that are challenging for donors and countries.
Furthermore, long time periods are required to overcome social
resistance, ensure engagement of indigenous peoples andincorporate diverse value systems;iii) Complications resulting from the multiple objectives influencing
the drivers of land use and land-use change from different
economic sectors and policy contexts, such as food security anddevelopment;
Environmental barriers:
i)

c)

d)

29.

Diverse environmental conditions that render the replication andscaling up of mitigation actions difficult;ii) Depletion and degradation of land, which reduces the availabilityof productive land and influences land-use decision-making;Institutional barriers: inadequate subnational and cross-sectoral
integration. Coordination is required for national, subnational and local
implementation. Further, because of complex policy drivers of onforestry and other land uses, cross-sectoral integration is necessary tocreate an enabling environment for implementation;
Technological barriers: complexity of methods for measurement,
reporting and verification, and capacity barriers in implementing thesemethods.

To address these barriers and facilitate the successful implementation of
mitigation actions, there needs to be an enabling environment characterized
by factors including:a)Integrated approaches to land use, balancing agricultural needs for
production and food security with the sustainable management andconservation of forests;b)

Clear linkages between mitigation actions and social, environmental
and governance-related development objectives covering a range ofsustainable development goals;c)High-level government commitment, clear mandates and theinclusion and participation of cross-sectoral stakeholders;d)Sufficient financial support that is tailored to national and local
circumstances;e)Adequate governance through strengthened institutional arrangements
and legal and regulatory frameworks;f)Context-specific local priorities and solutions.

10Chapter 2

Mitigation potential
30.

The successful implementation of mitigation options in the AFOLU sector
requires the establishment of an enabling environment and the considerationof socioeconomic, environmental, institutional and technological factors.
The following chapter provides examples of country-specific implementationand highlights best practice policies, actions and approaches that may be
replicated and scaled up in the context of specific national circumstances.

11Planting Gnetum (okok)
Women preparing the Gnetum (okok) nursery in the village of Minwoho.
Lekié, Center Region, Cameroon. Photo by Ollivier Girard/CIFOR

Chapter 3
Policy and technology
solutions to unlock
mitigation potential

Chapter 3

Policy and technology
31.

This chapter summarizes examples presented at the TEM of opportunities,
practices, policies and actions used to achieve mitigation in relation to land use.

32.

Lessons can be learned from the implementation of successful AFOLU mitigation
initiatives. A number of speakers informed the TEM of how their countries had
implemented effective mitigation actions. Their presentations provided examplesof potentially scalable and replicable climate mitigation actions. Selected
examples are provided in boxes 1 and 2. In addition to showcasing countryspecific mitigation actions, the speakers provided insights based on their country’s
experience, stressing, for example, the importance of institutional arrangements,
tracking and documenting progress, engaging with a broad range of stakeholders,
and links with broader land-use and development plans.

Box 1
Examples of agricultural activities with climate and sustainable development benefits
Botswana: the Botswana Institute for Technology Research and Innovation presented on the scaling-up
of low-cost drought-tolerant fodder crops in Botswana. Lablab purpureus is a drought-tolerant fodder
legume native to Africa. Since it restores soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, it has the potential to reduce
nitrogen fertilizer application and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions.
Brazil: the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply
presented on Brazil’s climate actions in agriculture, including the Low-carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan)and integrated crop–livestock forestry systems. The ABC Plan, launched in 2009, aims to increase agricultural
production, adaptation and resilience, and mitigate carbon emissions. Emission reductions come from pasture
recovery, integrated crop–livestock forestry systems, biological nitrogen fixation, planted forests, no-tillage
systems and manure treatment. For example, integrated crop–livestock forestry adoption in Brazil covered 11.5
million hectares by 2015 and contributed an estimated carbon dioxide (CO2) mitigation potential of 35.1 million
metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in the period 2005–2015. Brazil has expanded the adoption of lowcarbon agriculture beyond the ABC Plan by moving from federal to state and local programmes, from public toprivate financing, and from ABC Plan training courses to widespread technical knowledge-sharing.
Japan: the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in coordination with the Institute for Agroenvironmental
Sciences and National Agriculture and Food Research Organization presented on Japan’s soil carbon
management initiatives, including long-term monitoring of agricultural soils and calculation models for soilorganic carbon stock in cropland (e.g. the modified Rothamsted Carbon model) and for methane (CH4)emissions from rice cultivation (Denitrification–Decomposition-Rice model). Results suggest that mitigation
scenarios aimed at increasing soil carbon inputs will decrease CO2 emissions but increase CH4 emissions fromrice cultivation and N2O emissions from fertilizer application. Therefore, successful mitigation scenarios forJapan (and other Asian countries with similar rice cultivation activities) will need to combine mitigation options
for CH4 and N2O in addition to those for soil carbon. The Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Irrigated Rice Paddies
in Southeast Asia research project, funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, is assessing
the feasibility of greenhouse gas mitigation through alternative wetting and drying in irrigated rice fields, withresults showing an effective reduction in CH4 and N2O emissions without a significant reduction in rice yield.
Kenya: the State Department of Agriculture presented on Kenya’s policies in support of climate mitigation andthe climate benefits of agroforestry activities. The 2010 Constitution of Kenya calls for the maintenance of atleast 10 per cent tree cover, the Farm Forestry Rules of 2009 require that at least 10 per cent of all agriculturalland holdings are under tree cover, and the Forest Act 2015 recognizes the role forests play in soil and water
restoration and climate moderation. Kenya has also established the Natural Resources Benefits Sharing Bill
2014, which shares ecosystem-service benefits between users and the government, and the Agriculture Sector
Development Strategic Plan. Kenya is also in the process of aligning these policies with its Constitution.
Agroforestry offers the highest potential for carbon sequestration (i.e. the highest sequestration factor per unit

13

Chapter 3

Policy and technologyarea) among the land use options analysed in Kenya’s national inventory report, and while the number of trees
in forests is declining, the number of trees on farms is increasing. In addition, agroforestry has contributed toreduced forest degradation from fuelwood extraction and promoted fuelwood, timber harvesting and othertree products from planted rather than natural forests. Agroforestry has also improved soil health and restoredsoil integrity, provided livestock feed from agroforestry shrubs, and integrated tree cover with annual crops.

A young girl carries her seedling to where it will be planted.
Photo ID 477343. 17/06/2011. Haiti. UN Photo/Logan Abassi.
www.unmultimedia.org/photo/

New Zealand: the Ministry for Primary Industries presented on agricultural activities with climate andsustainable development benefits with a focus on New Zealand’s livestock sector. A high proportion (49 percent) of New Zealand’s emissions are from the agriculture sector and over 40 per cent are CH4 emissions.
While the emission intensity of the economy has decreased by 34 per cent since 1990, the focus is now
on improving agricultural productivity, efficiency and resilience, and reducing the environmental footprint.
For example, the emission intensity related to beef, dairy and sheep farming fell by 30.9 per cent, 24.5 percent and 30.5 per cent, respectively, from 1990 to 2014. These emission intensity reductions reflect thevarious mitigation efforts initiated in New Zealand. For example, the Sustainable Dairy Water Accord, which
established riparian buffers and excluded livestock from waterways, reduced greenhouse gas emissions
by 4 per cent (13 per cent, including land use). New Zealand has invested heavily in mitigation researchand development, including the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centrea and Primary
Growth Partnership.b In addition, New Zealand is engaged in various international initiatives, including the
Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition.
a
NZAGRC, as a partnership between the leading New Zealand research providers working in the agricultural
greenhouse gas area and the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, is a virtual centre and theresearch it funds is carried out by researchers working in their own organizations. NZAGRC was created tobuild on existing research, working with existing organizations to create an effective, trusted partnershipto bring cost-effective, simple solutions to New Zealand farms, and contribute world-leading results tothe international science community.
b
The Primary Growth Partnership invests in long-term innovation programmes in partnership with industry
to increase the market success of primary industries. The partnership aims to: boost productivity, value
and profitability in the primary sector; deliver long-term economic growth and sustainability acrossprimary industries, from producer to consumer; and encourage more private investment in research anddevelopment in New Zealand.

14

Chapter 3

Policy and technology
Box 2
Activities related to forestry and other land use with climate and sustainable
development benefits in Australia, Colombia, France and Indonesia
Australia: the Department of the Environment and Energy presented on Australia’s experience withproject-level land-use sector mitigation. Australia established the Emissions Reduction Fund, which has
contracted 435 projects with an estimated total mitigation potential of 189 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent (t CO2 eq). The estimated mitigation potential includes reductions associated withincreases in carbon stocks (12.2 million t CO2 eq), agriculture (17.7 million t CO2 eq) and savannah burning(13.8 million t CO2 eq). Examples of projects include the human-induced regeneration of native forests,
controlled savannah burning to reduce the risk of wildfires, and projects designed to source least-cost
abatement from across the Australian economy.
Colombia: the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development presented on REDD-plus implementation.
Colombia has achieved a significant reduction (56 per cent) in deforestation rate, from a loss of 282,027
hectares in 2010 to one of 124,035 hectares in 2015. This corresponds to emission reductions of 28,983,527
t CO2 eq for the period 2013–2014.a Colombia’s deforestation control strategy includes: a shared vision forforests; land-use planning and zoning; monitoring, prevention and control; and institutional arrangements,
finance and capacity-building. Colombia has moved from monitoring deforestation to implementing control
actions to prevent deforestation, and proposed various institutional arrangements, including establishing anational council on deforestation for high-level coordination and decision-making, monitoring coordination toprovide criteria and technically sound recommendations, and operational coordination to provide planning andexecution of control actions targeting unauthorized deforestation events.
France: the Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry presented on agroforestry and forestry mitigation activities
in France. France has established a national agroforestry plan, developed a research-development network andsupported farmers with their projects. French agroforestry systems include mixed fields and hedges, silvopasture,orchards with pasture, and alley-cropping, the latter covering 5,000–10,000 hectares nationwide. The soil
carbon sequestration from alley-cropping contributes to France’s “4 per 1,000” soils for food security and climate
initiative.b Forests covered 16 million hectares (or 31 per cent) of France in 2014. In May 2016, France launched
the Sylv’ACCTES project to incentivize forest carbon through collective forest management. The project offers
results-based payments upon the demonstration of mitigation, biodiversity and socioeconomic benefits.
Indonesia: the Ministry of Environment and Forestry presented on REDD-plus implementation and the roleof peatlands in Indonesia. Indonesia’s forests cover 128.9 million hectares (60 per cent of its total landarea), 113.2 million hectares of which are natural. From 1990 to 2012, the deforestation rate was 0.918
million hectares per year and the forest degradation rate 0.5 million hectares per year. Indonesia estimatesthat approximately 96.5 million hectares of forest are potential areas for REDD-plus, including 6.7 million
hectares of forested and 4.4 million hectares of unforested peatlands. Indonesia has already submitted aforest reference emission level and successfully completed the technical assessment process.c In addition,
Indonesia has entered into bilateral and multilateral agreements with various entities, including Norway, theForest Carbon Partnership Facility Carbon Fund, the BioCarbon Fund and the Forest Investment Programme,
which provide support to reach results-based payments.
a
FCCC/SBI/ICA/2016/TATR.1/COL.
b
http://4p1000.org/.
c
FCCC/TAR/2016/IDN.

33.

The summaries in boxes 1 and 2, drawn from the country-specificpresentations given during the TEM, highlight substantial, successful andpotentially scalable and replicable policies and actions. The examples span
the range of mitigation options previously identified for the AFOLU sector
and show that the implementation of successful AFOLU mitigation initiatives
is possible in a variety of country-specific circumstances and objectives.
The following chapterpresents examples of enabling practices,which are
not specific to country circumstances and objectives,for accelerating theimplementation of low-emission policies and technology solutions.

15

Center in Linneus, MO.
Photo by Kyle Spradley | © 2013 - Curators of the University of Missouri

Chapter 4
Accelerating
implementation of
low-emission policies
and technology
solutions in land use

Chapter 4

Low emission policies
34.

This chapter describes the support available and enabling practices likely
to increase the mitigation ambition of implemented actions. It presents
examples of enabling practices for accelerating the implementation of lowemission policies and technology solutions presented at the most recent
TEMs, including the collaboration forum, held in Bonn from 8 to 12 May
2017, in two thematic areas: existing partnerships; and the role of non-Party
stakeholders, including the private sector.

A. Existing partnerships
35.

As noted above, a number of existing partnerships support a range ofinternational initiatives relating to the AFOLU sector. In addition, effective
and scalable partnerships between the public and private sector havebeen established relating to multiple commodities, soil health and nutrient
management.

36.

Organizations often collaborate to develop technical materials or shareknowledge that equip countries with guidance and tools for mitigation
actions in the AFOLU sector. For example, in the agriculture sector,
notable research programmes and multi-stakeholder initiatives include theConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the
Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA).

37.

CCAFS addresses the effects on agricultural practices, policies and measuresof the increasing challenges of global warming and declining food security
through a strategic collaboration between CGIAR and Future Earth. Led by theInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture, CCAFS is a collaboration among all
15 CGIAR research centres. In addition, there is an ongoing engagement with
Future Earth as a major international partner. CCAFS brings together some of
the world's best researchers in agricultural, climate and environmental scienceand the social sciences to identify and address the most important interactions,synergies and trade-offs between climate change and agriculture. CCAFS willdefine and implement an innovative and transformative research programme toaddress agriculture in the context of climate variability, climate change and thefuture uncertainty of climate conditions.

38.

GACSA is an inclusive, voluntary and action-oriented multi-stakeholder
platform on climate-smart agriculture. Its vision is to improve food security,
nutrition and resilience in the face of climate change. GACSA aims to catalyseand help create transformational partnerships to encourage actions thatreflect an integrated approach to the three pillars of climate-smart agriculture:
productivity, adaptation and mitigation. GACSA fosters learning, knowledgesharing and partnership-building, and provides a space for dialogue and debate.
GACSA works towards three aspirational outcomes: (1) improve farmers’

17Chapter 4

Low emission policies
agricultural productivity and incomes in a sustainable way; (2) build farmers’
resilience to extreme weather and changing climate; and (3) reduce GHG
emissions associated with agriculture where possible. Context-specific priorities
and solutions must be aligned with national policies and priorities.
39.

In addition to the research-based programmes (e.g. CCAFS) and multistakeholder initiatives (e.g. GACSA), there is a number of partnerships that more
directly support the funding and implementation of climate action (e.g. FCPF).

B. Role of non-Party stakeholders,
including the private sector
Farmers, livestock owners, foresters and other land owners are the mostimportant private sector actors whose engagement is required in climate
mitigation actions and implementing solutions on the ground. In addition,
the private sector and public–private partnerships play a key role in providing
finance and supporting solutions.

41.

Attracting private sector engagement is important for achieving ambitious
mitigation actions. The World Farmers’ Organisation stresses that poverty
hinders mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and that longer value chainsin sophisticated markets are important for creating jobs and wealth. Profitable
farmers are able to produce more on less land with decreasing amounts
of inputs compared with poor communities that need more land area. The
private sector can support solutions by providing, for example, finance,technology, knowledge, expertise, skills, education, training and opportunities
for empowerment.
Workers digging an artificial pond. The pond is one of many initiatives
supported by UNDP to bring water and temporary work to thedrought-affected region of Borena in the Oromia region of Ethiopia.
Photo: UNDP Ethiopia

40.

18

Chapter 4

Low emission policies
42.

Moreover, private sector investors and business are in a position to provide
funding for mitigation research and development initiatives and to influence
producer livelihoods, levels of food and fibre production, the exchange of
information and services with producers, and the efficiency of international
operations (e.g. supply chains). Non-Party stakeholders, including the private
sector, appear especially involved in agricultural adaptation and mitigation
working groups around the world.

43.

The WBCSD supports goals to make more food available (e.g. reduce foodwaste) and reduce agricultural and land-use change GHG emissions. To
this end, WBCSD contributed to the creation of the Food Loss and Waste
Accounting and Reporting Standard9 and supports target 3 of Sustainable
Development Goal 12.10 In addition, WBCSD is involved in other landuse related initiatives involving ecosystems and agricultural adaptation andmitigation, partnering with the Global Agri-business Alliance.11

44.

While partnerships between the public and the private sectors are at an
early stage, there are already very positive and scalable examples acrossvarious commodities, soil health and nutrient management. For example,
the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 is a global public–private partnership underwhich partners take voluntary actions, individually and collectively, to reduce
the tropical deforestation associated with the sourcing of commodities suchas palm oil, soy, beef, and paper and pulp.12

45.

Other non-party stakeholders include indigenous communities. For indigenous
communities, the Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon
River Basin stresses that forest and territories must be safeguarded, and theInternational Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change recommends
the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples within all UNFCCC
negotiations, policies, proposals, projects and programmes at all levels,
including working groups, expert meetings, steering committees and all otherpolicymaking and decision-making bodies.

46.

Numerous partnerships exist to support initiatives, enable practices andfacilitate successful cooperation to support countries, farmers, livestock
owners, foresters, other land users and related stakeholders in accelerating
the implementation of low-emission policies and technology solutions in
the AFOLU sector. The following chapter discusses possible next steps toaccelerate implementation in the pre-2020 period.

9 http://flwprotocol.org/.
10 Sustainable Development Goal 12, target 3: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at theretail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including
post-harvest losses”.
11 http://globalagribusinessalliance.com.
12 See https://www.tfa2020.org/en/.

19

Rice fields belonging to local hill tribes in Sapa, Viet Nam.
Photo ID 491876. 23/06/2011. Sapa, Viet Nam.
UN Photo/Kibae Park. www.unmultimedia.org/photo/

Chapter 5
Possible next
steps to accelerate
implementation in thepre-2020 period

Chapter 5

Possible next steps
47.

This chapter summarizes the views presented by Parties and non-Party
stakeholders on next steps in the technical examination of opportunities foraddressing issues in land use in the period until 2020 and views related tofuture political and technical work to enhance the mitigation ambition ofactions in the AFOLU sector.

A. Overview of next steps for accelerating
actions that address issues in land use
48.

Achieving the mitigation ambition required to avoid dangerous climatechange requires the pooling of resources from diverse actors throughmulti-stakeholder partnerships to mobilize and share knowledge, expertise,technology and finance, in particular to support developing countries. TEMs
continue to provide space for Parties and non-Party stakeholders to interact,
identify new opportunities for collaboration and partnership, showcase results
achieved and consider ways to scale up existing initiatives well positioned
to accelerate the global response to climate change in the pre-2020
period, and thereby lay the foundations for the implementation of the Paris
Agreement.

49.

Accelerating actions related to agriculture will require: combinations of
mitigation measures, which are context specific; consideration of a broad
range of measures, such as fighting animal and plant diseases, increasing
resilience and reducing losses of agricultural harvests; farmer-centred,
gender-sensitive plans and measures that engage local communities
and integrate traditional and indigenous knowledge; and farmer-centred
implementation supported by policies, research, communication, training andinvestments, and enabled through partnerships.

50 .

Accelerating actions related to forestry and other land use requires:continued and scaled-up finance for REDD-plus readiness activities; abetter understanding of the drivers of deforestation; the ability to monitor
and evaluate mitigation efforts, consolidate institutional arrangements andstrengthen stakeholder engagement, while linking with land-use planning anddevelopment objectives; the integration of multiple objectives and drivers
into the design and implementation of mitigation actions; the participationof a broad range of actors at all levels, in particular indigenous peoples; andintegrated approaches to land use balancing agricultural needs for production
and food security and sustainable land management, including forest
conservation.

21

Chapter 5

Possible next steps

B. Options for advancing the technicalexamination process
COP 21 appointed two high-level champions to act on behalf of the
President of the COP to facilitate, through strengthened high-level
engagement in the period 2016–2020, the successful execution of existing
efforts and the scaling-up and introduction of new or strengthened voluntary
efforts, initiatives and coalitions. The high-level champions developed theRoad Map for Global Climate Action, presented at a special event during theforty-fourth session of the subsidiary bodies, and issued a call for submissions
on the road map in May 2016, inviting views from Parties and non-Party
stakeholders.

52.

The COP further decided to conduct in 2017 an assessment of the TEP with aview to improving its effectiveness. Although there was no call for submissions
launched to invite views on the conduct of the assessment, the submissions
from Parties and non-Party stakeholders received in response to the call of thehigh-level champions mentioned in paragraph 51 above contained views on
aspects and actors in the TEP, including on the role of TEMs.

53.

In response to the call for submissions on the Road Map for Global Climate
Action, Parties underscored that the TEMs provide a valuable platform forsharing good practices and promoting cooperation, and supported the viewof the high-level champions that the TEMs should evolve to take account of
the road map. In this regard, Parties made the following proposals:
Farmer Harvests Sorghum Seeds in Sudan 11/12/2006. Nyala, Sudan.
UN Photo/Fred Noy. unmultimedia.org/photo/

51.

22

Chapter 5

Possible next stepsa)Ensure coherence between the road map and the TEMs;b)

Foster cooperation between the high-level champions and the
UNFCCC secretariat on the selection of TEM topics;c)

Narrow the focus of TEM sessions to allow participants to engage inmore in-depth technical and practical discussions;d)Focus the TEM sessions on scaling up existing initiatives, taking
forward opportunities for greater multi-stakeholder cooperation, andovercoming barriers to implementation;e)Organize TEM sessions in smaller breakout groups to facilitate
interactivity and learning;f)Invite speakers for and make information on the focus and objectivesof each TEM session available well in advance;g)

Support the participation of developing country experts, including
through webinars and other forms of virtual participation;h)Organize TEM sessions at the regional level in coordination with
the UNFCCC secretariat, constituted bodies such as the Climate
Technology Centre and Network, and host countries.

Parties also recognized the importance of the active engagement of nonParty stakeholders in driving concrete and innovative climate action, including
through their participation in the TEMs, and invited Parties to engage nonParty stakeholders at the national level.

55.

The views expressed in the submissions of non-Party stakeholders echo theviews of Parties in considering TEMs to be a valuable platform for dialogue

Rice Harvest in Timor-Leste
Photo ID 325558. 04/02/2009. Timor-Leste.
UN Photo/Martine Perret. www.unmultimedia.org/photo/

54.

23

Chapter 5

Possible next steps
between governments and non-Party stakeholders and in wishing to see
the TEMs evolve to become oriented more towards solutions and result intangible changes to domestic policy informed by real-world experience inpioneering climate action and catalysing further ambition from the private
sector. To achieve such change, non-Party stakeholders suggested thefollowing:a)Increase the participation of non-Party stakeholders in the TEMs,
including subnational authorities, the private sector, industry experts
beyond international organizations, technology providers andprofessional associations;b)

Provide more time for questions and answers and dialogue between
non-Party stakeholders and policymakers, using a round-table format
to encourage interaction and dialogue;c)Organize regional TEMs on the margins of existing sectoral events at
the regional level to cover topics of regional interest.

C. Options for work at the political level toenhance mitigation ambition
In the Road Map for Global Climate Action, the high-level champions
proposed to ensure a durable connection between the Convention and themany voluntary and collaborative actions by:a)Engaging with interested Parties and non-Party stakeholders alike,

Farm in Chimaltenango Guatemala
Photo: Maria Fleischmann / World Bank

56.

24

Chapter 5

Possible next steps
including furthering the voluntary initiatives of the Lima–Paris Action
Agenda by: building on existing initiatives, and supporting new andmore geographically diverse initiatives; connecting initiatives andcoalitions with national action plans such as nationally determined
contributions; and enhancing transparency, tracking results anddemonstrating credibility;b)

Providing guidance to the secretariat on organizing TEMs, and working
with the Executive Secretary and the current and incoming Presidentsof the COP to coordinate annual high-level events.

D. Possible role of the Marrakech
Partnership for Global Climate Action
57.

In November 2016, the high-level champions launched the Marrakech
Partnership for Global Climate Action as a way for future high-level
champions to catalyse and support climate action by Parties and non-Party
stakeholders in the period 2017–2020. The Marrakech Partnership aims to,among other things, enhance the connection and coherence among TEMs
and ongoing regional activities to support and accelerate implementation.

58.

In May 2017, the high-level champions published a document outlining theirapproach to realizing the objectives of the Marrakech Partnership until 2020.
A series of high-level round tables will be organized to facilitate enhanced
high-level engagement at COP 23 (November 2017). These round tables
will build on discussions at the TEMs held during the forty-sixtth sessions of
the subsidiary bodies.

25References
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2016. Peste desPetits Ruminants Global Eradication Programme. Rome: FAO.
FAO. 2017. Soil Organic Carbon: The Hidden Potential. Rome: FAO.
FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility). 2016. 2016 Annual Report. Available
at https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2016/Sep/
FCFP%20Annual%20Report%20FY16.pdf.
Grassi G, House J, Dentener F, Federici S, den Elzen M and Penman J. 2017. The
key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible
mitigation. Nature Climate Change. 7: pp.220–226.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014a. 2013 Supplement
to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands. T Hiraishi et al. (eds.). Switzerland: IPCC. Available at http://
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/index.html.
IPCC. 2014b. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution ofWorking Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. O Edenhofer et al. (eds.). Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/
ar5/wg3/.
National Research Council. 2010. Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to
Support International Climate Agreements. Washington DC: The National
Academies Press.
Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle S, Reay D, Robertson GP and Smith P. 2016. Climatesmart soils. Nature. 532: pp.49–57.
Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, Haberl H,
Harper R, House J, Jafari M, Masera O, Mbow C, Ravindranath NH, RiceCW, Robledo Abad C, Romanovskaya A, Sperling F and Tubiello F. 2014.
Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: IPCC. 2014. Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. In: O Edenhofer et al. (eds.) Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf.
Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A, Fitton N and Smith P. 2013. The
FAOSTAT 19 database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
Environmental Research Letters. 8(1). Available at http://iopscience.iop.
org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009/pdf.
UN-REDD Programme. 2016. Key Achievements of the UN-REDD Programme
2008–2016. Available at http://www.unredd.net/documents/reddpapers-and-publications-90/un-redd-publications-1191/15996-keyachievements-of-the-un-redd-programme-2008-2016.html.

26