reduce emissions (Croatia), or constrain them at base year levels (Kazakhstan, Russia and the Ukraine). Turkey‘s relationship within the UNFCCC has shifted over time. As part of the OECD, Turkey was originally listed in the Kyoto Protocol‘s Annex I and Annex II, but did not commit to emission reductions. Turkey became a party to the UNFCCC in 2004 and a party to the Kyoto Protocol in 2009. Turkey was removed from the Annex II list in 2007. Consequently, Turkey is an Annex I signatory of the Kyoto Protocol not included in Annex B.

# _Projects outcomes under Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism_

As discussed, under current rules, the only formal way that developed countries can tap mitigation opportunities in developed countries and transition economies to meet their Kyoto commitments is through project-based mitigation efforts under Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. This is especially important for agriculture since, according to IPCC, most low-cost mitigation opportunities are located in developing countries (recall table 6).

In the aggregate, the two project-based programs have successfully encouraged global investments in mitigation projects in developing countries and economies in transition. In fact, the CDM has exceeded projections made reported in the peer-reviewed literature before its launch (Rahman, Dinar and Larson, 2010). Still, analysis reported in Larson, Dinar and Aaparis (2011) suggests that the CDM was able to tap less than 3 percent of the low-cost agricultural potential in developing countries identified by the IPCC. In this section, we look at project-based investments in the ECA region relative to the full set of global investments. We do so with the expectation that the programs, or alternative project-based programs, will continue in some form beyond 2012, which is the end of the first-commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

The first step in the analysis is settling on a definition of what constitutes an agricultural JI or CDM project. There is some confusion in reported studies since the classification systems used by the IPCC in the mitigation reports discussed earlier differ from how the United Nations Environment Programme Risoe Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development (Risoe) reports projects in their widely used project data base.

Indeed as of July 1, 2011, there were no JI projects and only two active CDM projects classified by Risoe as agricultural.<sup>28</sup> This is superficial since many of the projects do relate to agriculture; however Risoe‘s classification choices are also indicative of the energy-sector focus of climate change policy discussions. Projects related to land use, the primary focus of the IPCC chapter on agriculture, are included under afforestation/reforestation projects, which we refer to as land-use-forestry projects.<sup>29</sup> Other projects related to agriculture – for example systems to manage animal wastes or projects that use agricultural waste products to generate energy -- fall into other aggregate categories in the Risoe classification system, such as biomass energy or methane avoidance; however, these groups include non-agricultural projects as well. Consequently, we are left to sort the projects in a way that better suits our purpose.

In this we follow the lead of the United Nations‘ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and define an agricultural project as a project that uses agricultural residuals, outputs or agricultural processes to directly or indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2010a). This definition is broad enough to include projects that sequester carbon in soils. We include projects that reduce methane emissions from composting agricultural waste products and also include waste water projects when the projects are linked to agricultural products – for example palm oil, cassava or distilleries. In general, the use of ethanol or biodiesel made from

> 28 The two projects are, using Risoe project identification numbers, CDM6938 and POA0011.

> 29 In UNFCCC parlance, the class of mitigation projects that sequester carbon in soils and forests are known as land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects, since the net mitigation comes from changing how land is used.

15