investments, especially improving building energy efficiency and forestry. For example, Bulgaria‘s GIS program emphasizes land-use.

# **VIII. Conclusions**

The agricultural sectors of ECA offer abundant low-cost opportunities to slow the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the Earth‘s atmosphere. Moreover, in contrast to activities in other sectors, mitigation activities in agriculture often generate positive co-benefits rather than stark trade-offs between mitigation and economic growth. Still, most GHG emissions stem from how energy is created and used. As a consequence, the international treaties, domestic policies and the institutions that have grown up around them have been largely shaped by the sector and this, in turn, has influenced the mitigation policy instruments available to governments.

Of particular importance for mitigation efforts in the region are two project-based mechanisms under the UNFCCC, Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. These programs can be leveraged by policy to provide a way for governments and private firms to invest in projects that reduce net emissions in other countries, including ECA countries, and thereby meet a portion of their Kyoto Protocol commitments. The twin mechanisms have been effective in driving investments in mitigation projects worldwide, including projects in agriculture sectors, but they are underutilized by many ECA countries.

Among the low-cost mitigation opportunities identified by researchers and reviewed in IPCCC reports, are two broad classes of agricultural activities of comparable size: the first relates to how residuals and wastes from agricultural processes are managed and used as alternative sources of energy; the second includes landuse activities that sequester greenhouse gases in soils and plants. Projects of the first type are well suited to project-style interventions. This class of projects is a popular investment vehicle in countries outside of the region and there is significant scope for similar projects in the region if a project framework is extended post 2012. Moreover, this potential for this class of projects will likely grow as the commercialization of the region‘s livestock industry continues. Still, closing the gap between the region‘s significant mitigation potential and the currently limited rates of mitigation in agriculture will require tapping the mitigation potential tied to agricultural land, including agricultural land in ECA that has been abandoned.

For many reasons, land projects fit less well into project framework, and there are few successful land projects in JI or the CDM worldwide. For one, the sequestration processes can be reversed by future events, natural or man-made. Moreover, the bio-chemistry of soil sequestration is complex and place-dependent, making exact measurement difficult. Safeguards put in place intended to address reversibility and measurement difficulties add to the cost of implementing land-use projects, as does the frequent need to coordinate land-use activities across many stakeholders. Because of skepticism about the environment integrity of land-use projects, restrictions have been placed on how land-use credits can be used, undercutting demand. Moreover, even in voluntary markets where the effects of formal restrictions are indirect, buyers discount offsets from land-use projects. Taken together, these multiple factors encourage potential investors in offset projects to look elsewhere. What‘s more, activities taken to halt losses from already existing stores of carbon in soils or forests do not qualify for project-based support. This is especially significant in ECA, where large pools of carbon are stored above and below ground on unmanaged lands.

Potentially, current rules governing land-use mitigation and the preservation of carbon pools could be modified, an outcome that ECA countries can influence as Parties to the UNFCCC. One anticipated change is adding incentives to protect against increased emissions due to deforestation, under so-called REDD initiatives. These initiatives could be extended to protect soil carbon as well. Potentially, the rules governing UNFCCC land-use projects could also be modified to lower transaction costs. For example, the same methodologies countries use to calculate the net effects of land-use changes on carbon sinks for national 32