GHG inventories, which in turn influence the net demand for CDM credits, could be adapted to assess the benefits of land-use projects.

Even so, the task of managing land resources perhaps fits best within a cluster of national policies. This is especially the case in ECA, where large spans of degraded land, which create ancillary problems for water and soil resources, could be restored for productive use.

Agricultural policies, natural resource management policies and climate change policies are closely linked, and actions taken with the intent to influence outcomes in one domain often have consequences for the others, which is why a coordinated set of policies can be effective. In the case of good agricultural policy, activities pursued to promote sustainable growth can generate largely unintended mitigation benefits. For example, strengthen land markets can encourage land owners to better manage their cropland and pastureland for their own benefits, but with the consequence that soil- carbon is built up as well. Good natural resource management can work in the same way. For example, setting aside forests in order to preserve endangered plants and animals also prevents the release of carbon stored in the forest‘s plants and soils.

Even so, GHG mitigation efforts are unique, in that they are supported by carbon markets and incentives to invest in mitigation projects, a consequence of the Kyoto Protocol‘s flexibility mechanisms. This opens the door for using mitigation finance streams to supplement the costs of projects designed to deliver multiple pubic goods. Positive lessons on how to do this can be found in ECA countries, where public and private financing has been combined to restore degraded lands. National governments have the largest stake in managing their natural resources, but the global community benefits as well, since these activities promote biodiversity and reclaim land and water resources that sustain a global food system. Natural resource management plans, linked with good agricultural policy and national mitigation and adaptation plans, can help identify local and global needs and benefits and provide a framework for organizing and financing joint efforts.

# **Bibliography**

- Antle, John M. and Bocar Diagana. 2003. Creating incentives for the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in developing countries: The Role of Soil Carbon Sequestration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(5), 1178-1184.

- Antle, John M. and Susan Capalbo. 2002. Agriculture as a Managed Ecosystem: Policy Implications, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(1):1–15.

- Barker, Terry, Igor Bashmakov, Awwad Alharthi, Markus Amann, Luis Cifuentes, John Drexhage, Maosheng Duan, Ottmar Edenhofer, Brian Flannery, Michael Grubb, Monique Hoogwijk, Francis I. Ibitoye, Catrimus J. Jepma, William A. Pizer, Kenji Yamaji. 2007. Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In Metz, Bert Ogunlade R. Davidson, Peter R. Bosch, Rutu Dave and Leo A. Meyer (eds). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climated Change. Canbridge Universtiy Press, Cambridge and New York.

- Bernoux Martial, Vincent Eschenbrenner, Carlos C. Cerri, Jerry M. Melillo, and Christian Feller. 2002. LULUCF-based CDM: too much ado for a small carbon market. Climate Policy 2(4), 379-385.

- Boyd, Emily. 2009. Governing the Clean Development Mechanism: global rhetoric versus local realities in carbon sequestration projects.  Environment and Planning A 41(10) 2380 – 2395.

- Boyd, William and James Salzman. 2011. The curious case of greening in carbon markets. Environmental Law, 41(73), 73-94.

33