82 percent of surveyed countries prioritize agriculture in their climate change adaptation plans. But only 8 percent include agriculture in their national mitigation plans.

Action Aid, 2011; Wollenberg and Nihart, unpublished

Neil Palmer, CIAT

Extra facts

National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)

  • In the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) that countries submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 82 percent (23 of 28 surveyed countries) include agriculture in one or more of their top five priorities (Action Aid 2011).
  • 47 countries submitted NAPAs to the UNFCCC as of 10 May 2012; the UN approved 61 projects in 43 countries. These projects—which focus on immediate needs—are currently being implemented (UNFCCC 2012).

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA)

  • In their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) plans submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), only 8 percent of countries include agriculture (Wollenberg and Nihart unpublished).
  • NAMAs vary across countries and include conservation farming practices such as no tillage (Brazil, Ghana, Sierra Leone), the promotion of nitrogen-fixing species (Brazil, Central African Republic, Congo), an increase in water efficiency (Congo, Jordan, Tunisia) and the promotion of agroforestry (Ethiopia, Gabon, Mongolia, Sierra Leone) (Wollenberg and Nihart unpublished).

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)

  • 340 projects in approximately 52 countries are implementing projects under a third policy instrument, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation)(CIFOR [no date]).
Back To Top

Methods, caveats and issues

  • National adaptation plans (NAPs) were established under the 2010 Cancun Adaptation Framework to help least developed countries (LDCs) build on their NAPA experience. As a new, international-level initiative, comprehensive information is scarce and technical guidance is under preparation. If REDD+ halts deforestation but agricultural expansion is not curtailed, up to 50 percent of avoided deforestation emissions will be canceled out (Creed et al. 2010).
  • The prospect of large-scale, market-based finance for REDD+ has been postponed until at least 2020 (Angelsen et al. 2012).
  • Despite the distinguishing features of REDD+, transformational change is unlikely in the absence of coherent national-level policy and institutional development and improvements in land use planning (Angelsen et al. 2012).
Back To Top


Back To Top