Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
-
DocumentUsing Marginal Abatement Cost Curves to Realize the Economic Appraisal of Climate Smart Agriculture Policy Options
Analytical Tools. EASYPol Module116
2012Also available in:
No results found.The AFOLU sector (Agriculture, Forestry, Land Use) is directly linked with climate change issues, on an environmental aspect as well as on an economical and social aspect (food security). Yet, while there is a wide range of technical solutions, it is not immediately apparent which options deliver the most economically efficient reductions in GHG within agriculture. This is why methodologies such as a Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC) have been developed over these past twenty years. MACC als o enables the comparison of the cost-effectiveness of mitigation options between different sectors (e.g. agriculture, power, transport, industry and domestic energy consumption). MACC has become a useful tool for policy makers to prioritize mitigation options. This paper aims at putting forward a methodology to use MAC-curves within the AFOLU sector. It especially targets policy planners and policy makers. The agricultural sector, also called agriculture or AFOLU, encompasses farm-based activiti es (crop production, livestock) as well as forestry and land use. It does not include the downstream agro-industry sector. The first part of these guidelines explains the methodology in order to assess the cost-effectiveness and the mitigation potential of technical practices in agriculture. It also underlines the limits of the MACC approach. The second part looks at a practical MACC analysis example, using the EX-ACT tool. -
Book (stand-alone)Border and related measures in the context of adaptation and mitigation to climate change
The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets (SOCO): Background paper
2018Also available in:
No results found.Although international trade is not specifically mentioned in the Paris Climate Agreement, trade can play a facilitating role in achieving the mitigation and adaptation objectives of signatories to the Agreement. Trade policies can also undermine those objectives. The focus of this paper is on examining how the facilitating role of trade can be achieved. One of the challenges created by the ‘bottom-up’ approach of self-declared national mitigation targets adopted in the Agreement is that if the economic costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are internalized in production and consumption, the implicit price of carbon will differ across countries. This creates the potential for trade distortions. Domestic mitigation policies in importers will almost inevitably result in some carbon leakage, i.e. offsets to reductions in domestic emissions through additional emissions generated in supplying imports. But an important distinction needs to be made between carbon reallocation and carbon misallocation resulting from changes in trade volumes. In the reallocation case, trade leads to a shift in production to lower-emitting producers thereby contributing to global mitigation. In the misallocation case, the opposite occurs. This paper analyses how various border measures, including border tax adjustments (BTAs) might be used to reduce potential carbon misallocation. The conclusion is that technical and legal constraints on the effective application of border measures for food and agricultural products to prevent carbon misallocation are extremely challenging and their use could open the door to protectionism. The use of carbon standards and labelling offers an alternative approach to reducing misallocation and promoting reallocation. It poses fewer technical difficulties and reduces the potential for legal challenges. An added advantage of labelling is that it can help to promote changes in consumption that will be needed to reduce the carbon footprint of food and agriculture. The use of the approach could be facilitated through the adoption of international standards for carbon measurement and labelling, such as those being developed through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Labelling is not a panacea and may have limited effectiveness when consumers base their consumption decisions primarily on the basis of price. For this reason, the use of domestic policy measures that increase carbon efficiency in agriculture (reduce emissions per unit of output) and limit changes in land use that contribute to emissions will also be important for achieving mitigation aims under the Paris Agreement. An increasing number of regional trade agreements (RTAs) have incorporated environmental provisions, with the most common types of provisions focusing on environmental cooperation. Recent agreements recognise the importance of mutually supportive trade and environmental policies, and national commitments to multinational environmental agreements. RTAs could play a supporting role to the Paris Climate Agreement, by fostering international cooperation on climate mitigation measures in the context of freer trade. -
Book (stand-alone)Methodological guide to reduce carbon and water footprints in banana plantations 2018
Also available in:
The World Banana Forum (WBF) publication developed a methodological guide to reduce water and carbon footprints in banana plantations worldwide. Members of the Working Group (WG) on Sustainable Production Systems and Environmental Impact acknowledged the contribution of banana production in the total global GHG emissions and the consumption of freshwater in the economic activity, both stressed in the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21), having the agricultural sector a high mitigation potential. Therefore, the WG wishes to contribute to the global fight against climate change and promote the sustainable use of natural resources, developing practical tools to strengthen the efforts of the global banana industry to reduce its carbon and water footprint (CWF). Since banana farmers are struggling to adapt to climate change, the project aims to mainstream and support the adoption of best climate-smart practices and efficient water management in the banana value chain as part of the environmental strategy of organizations. Efforts to promote CWF reduction programs in the banana industry are still incipient and carried out mostly by multinationals, due in part to the implementation costs, the complexity of the topic for farmers, the lack of user-friendly tools to measure them efficiently, and that is still a B2B-driven strategy not yet recognized by consumers. Even though the need for supporting carbon and water footprint analysis (CWF) in the banana industry remains strong, there is still an apparent lack of sufficient financial incentives by both the governments and the global market.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.