about $US 359 billion, adjusted to 2000 dollars, between 2005 and 2009, while Russia‘s averaged $394 billion. At 8 percent, agriculture‘s share of GDP for the period in Turkey was slightly larger than in Russia where it was 5 percent. However, a recent report by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD, 2011) suggests there may be much greater mitigation potential for agriculture and forestry in Russia than in Turkey.

Based on input from McKinsey and Company, National Economic Research Associates, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the IBRD study reports marginal abatement curves for Turkey and Russia. The MAC curves rely on the assumptions that the policy frameworks in both countries remain unchanged from 2009 to 2030, the period of the analysis. They were built-up using country-specific sector practices and show, on a per ton basis, the incremental cost of switching from a status-quo technology to a less polluting one. Results from selected portions of the baseline MACs for each county are given in figures 8 and 9. The figures report the annualized abatement potentials by 2030 for three low-cost ranges: win-win opportunities where the costs associated from switching technologies are covered from future savings – for example, reduced energy expenditures. The second category includes the mitigation potential associated with low-positive carbon prices, ranging from zero to €20 per tCO2e. The next category shows the mitigation potential triggered by carbon prices ranging from €20 to €100 per tCO2e.

More than 40 million hectares, or roughly 52 percent of Turkey‘s land area is devoted to agricultural uses (FAO, 2011). Yet a striking feature of the figure for Turkey is the relative lack of significant mitigation opportunities in agriculture, despite agriculture‘s significant role in the economy and the landscape. The combined potential for the sector for costs of €100 per tCO2e and below is estimated to be a mere 1.52 MtCO2e.

Although a smaller share of Russia‘s land is devoted to agriculture (about 13 percent), the scale of Russia‘s landscape is vastly different, with nearly 215 million hectares of land used for agricultural purposes. Moreover, the identified potential within the agricultural sector is also of a different scale; the study identifies more than 149 MtCO2e in mitigation potential from the sector. Much of the potential identified for the economy as a whole falls into the win-win category of activities that can be financed via cost savings – including nearly 40 MtCO2e in agriculture. Moving to the low-cost category, most identified projects are in agriculture and forestry, at 108 and 228 MtCO2e respectively. Moreover, the potential in forestry and agriculture are closely linked. Of the low-cost sources of mitigation, more than 80 MtCO2e of agricultural potential is related to managing or restoring soils; of the forestry projects, more than 141 MtCO2e are based on the afforestation and another 33 MtCO2e comes from converting land to agro-forestry purposes. As we explain below, there is great potential for restoring degraded land in many other ECA countries as well.

# <u>Land use, agronomy, livestock waste and aligned resource management objectives</u>

The example of Russia highlights the strong links between mitigation potential and agricultural resource use. Returning to the IPCC report, the study identifies three core areas for low cost mitigation opportunities in agriculture: i) improving agronomic practices; ii) improving land management and restoring degraded lands; and iii) better managing of animal waste products. In this section we look at these types of activities in the context of the ECA countries.

# _Degraded lands_

In 2000, FAO conducted an analysis of lands degraded by agriculture and other human activities. Totals from that report are shown in figure 10 for ECA and other regions (FAO, 2000). In total, degraded land in ECA accounted for 6.8 million km<sup>2</sup> , an area one-and-a-half times the agricultural area of the United States.<sup>9</sup> About

> 9 FAO (2011) reports agricultural area in the United States in 2008 equaled 4.04 million km2.

7