Masiga Economic social evaluation national GHG mitigation

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

EVALUATION OF NATIONAL GHG

MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR

AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN

EAST AFRICA

Moses Masiga - ENR Africa Associates

CCAFS/FAO Expert Workshop on NAMAs: National mitigation planning and implementation in agriculture, Rome, Italy 16-17 July 2012

CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

OUTLINE

1. Introduction

2. Methodology: Data sources & Analytical Approaches;

3. National Scenarios – Agricultural Sector Model

4. Current stage of study


INTRODUCTION

The study contributes (CCAFS) Pro-poor Climate Change

Mitigation: to identify climate change mitigation strategies

that reduce poverty among the rural poor in developing

countries.

Balancing the need for precise and accurate information with

realistic expectations for the effort and expense that can be

dedicated to monitoring, reporting and verification costs.

Compatibility with national goals for food security, economic

development and trade i.e. sustainable food production &

tangible benefits to farmers

Work taking place in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Scenarios - What practices, more than others, enhance GHG

mitigation in agricultural landscapes and contribute to current

and future national economic development?

2. Costs - Which agricultural GHG options are more cost-

effective, per unit area or livestock of investment in GHG

mitigation, than others, including the projected baseline

scenario?

3. Social/ economic efficiency - What agricultural greenhouse

mitigation options provide increased economic efficiency,

based on SROI, and NPV at national level, above a projected

baseline scenario?

4. Stakeholder benefit - What combinations of actions, actors

and regulatory arrangements lead to a higher value of benefits

being captured at sub-national & national level than others,

including projected baseline scenario? CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

Overall Instrument design

• Scenario analysis compares a projected baseline scenario

against technically feasible agricultural landscape GHG

mitigation practices (2020 & 2030);

• Cost-effectiveness analysis for mitigation options;

• Social Return on investment (and Net present value) for

technically feasible options;

• Value/Supply Chain Analysis for GHG mitigation options;

• Agricultural Sector Strategy/model for GHG mitigation

versus national economy.


Emerging mitigation options

Kenya & Uganda Ethiopia (Climate Resilient Growth)

Crop & soil management

•Sustainable agriculture land

management;

•Nutrient management

(fertilisers);

•Tillage & residue

management;

•Agroforestry;

Soil nutrient and crop management

•Tillage/residue management

•Watershed-based integrated farming

•Agroforestry?

Yield increasing techniques

•Improved seeds

•Irrigation

•Organic and inorganic fertiliser

Livestock and grazing land

management

•Grazing intensity –

intensification and reduced

herd size (productivity)

•Rangeland & pastureland

mgt

Livestock and grazing land

management

•Enhancing and intensification of

animal mix diversification

•Value chain efficiency improvements

•Rangeland and pastureland

management CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

Data sources

Databases: Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock

Development; KARI & Ministry of Environment & MD;

NEMA (Kenya); Ministry of Agriculture & Rural

Development; Environment Protection Agency (Ethiopia);

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries; CCU;

NEMA; MWE (Uganda); Statistical bureaus

Review of available information on measurement of

mitigation potential of agricultural practices (CGIAR, &

others), limited awareness & low confidence in monitoring

of agricultural interventions has limited progress of

agriculture in climate change policy & emissions offset

markets. CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

The Social Return on Investment

Steps Status

Establishing scope; Identify stakeholders;

Involve stakeholders (farmer groups, different farming

systems, stakeholder differences)

Completed

Reporting on scope; Identify inputs; Determine value

of inputs; Identify outputs; Identify outcomes from

GHG options ; Potential financing options or

mechanisms

Started

Establish indicators to outcomes; Collect data on

outcomes; Establish impact time of outcomes;

Valuation of outcomes

Phase II (2012/July-

December)

Attribute & Establishing impact of mitigation option;

preliminary SROI & NPV estimates

(2012/July-

December)

Completing other components of the study 2013 Jan - June CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

1. Projected scenarios

Scenario analysis based on quasi-experimental design

A projected baseline scenario as the control.

Alternative scenarios one or a combination of

feasible/viable adjustments in agricultural landscape

GHG mitigation practice.

Using a farming systems, based on regional approach

(where a typical farming unit – soils, inputs, outputs and

policy environment can be characterised for dynamic

scenario building using mathematical programming)


Livelihood Zones of Kenya


Value chain Analysis: Feasible value chains for managing

GHG in agricultural landscapes


Flows inward and outward

Production

planning:

(actors,

supporting

legal/institu

tional

framework

Production:

Labour,

capital, land

and other

inputs &

costs

Inputs:

acquisition

and

extraction:

source (local

or otherwise),

unit cost

Sale: food,

timber,

wood fuel,

carbon

credits

Use: Local

& after sale

use: food,

timber,

wood fuel,

carbon

credits

End

of

life

Recycling feedback

Integrating GHG mitigation into Agricultural Sector

Strategy

1. Describe potential mitigation options/ strategies will be defined. These strategies include crop and livestock production options.

2. Data will be needed on GHG emission levels for all feasible mitigation strategies – Brown et al. 2011; and current study.

3. Agricultural activities will need to be made compatible to mitigation strategies e.g. nitrous oxide mitigation through reduced fertilization.

4. Mathematical structure of the ASM model will need to be modified. This will involve setting up GHG emission & sink accounting equations, validation of baseline emissions & baseline cropping/livestock management practices, and building a GHG policy modules (Schneider and McCarl (2003).

5. Preliminary analysis of policy scenarios e.g. desired tax or subsidy levels, markets for GHG emissions, and monitoring and verification.


What we expect to achieve?

Through publication, stakeholder engagement, capacity building events:

1. Show scenarios of GHG mitigation for agricultural landscapes

2. Show the cost effectiveness of GHG mitigation in agricultural landscapes in East Africa

3. Show the social/economic efficiency of GHG mitigation in agricultural landscapes – SROI & NPV;

4. Show the potential contributions/benefits of stakeholders to the process;

5. Propose national policy framework/model for public policy interventions in the agricultural sector for GHG mitigation

Current Study Technical Team

1. Eric Mungatana University of Pretoria

2. Alex Alusa Prime Minister’s Office – Kenya

3. Assan N’gombe UNDP – East and Southern

Africa

4. Paul Isabirye Climate Change Unit – Uganda

5. Alice Ruhweza Independent/ Technical Editing

6. E. Wollenberg CCAFS

7. Tadesse Woldemariam

Gole

Research team

8. Michael Gachanja Research team

9. Moses Masiga Research team CCAFS/ENRAfricaAssociates

THANKS...


Science

Masiga Economic social evaluation national GHG mitigation