This presentation by Dr. Charlotte Schreck from CLIMATEFOCUS explains how agriculture is part of many agendas, what technical mitigation opportunities we have, what the costs are and how CLUA could be mitigated.

1. Mitigation Opportunities
in Agriculture
Identifying Strategies for
Philanthropy
Dr Charlotte Streck
1

2. Background
Climate Focus and California Environment Associates (CEA) have been contracted by the
Climate and Land-use Alliance (CLUA) to produce an analysis of the international opportunities
for agricultural GHG mitigation and the potential role for philanthropy within the context of
existing or planned activities. These slides summarize some preliminary findings.
-
Background:
– Since 2008 CLUA is actively supporting the design and implementation of REDD+ policies
and activities around the globe through collaboration of its member foundations.
– The reduction of emissions from agriculture is an important global mitigation opportunity
comparable in volume to sectors such as transportation, power production and industry (1012% of total global anthropogenic emissions).
– A number of the strategic opportunities offer “triple win” opportunities in that they contribute
to mitigation, adaptation, and food security.
The project started in May 2013 and will be finalized in spring 2014.
Phase 1: Assessment of technical mitigation potential
Phase 2: Strategic Assessment of Promising Agricultural Mitigation Opportunities
Both technical and strategic advisory panels to help guide this work.
2
2

3. Agriculture is at the heart of many agendas
- This analysis is focused on greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities in agriculture.
Yet, we recognize that there is nothing more important to the human species than
producing the food we all eat. Agriculture lies at the intersection of many essential
agendas, including global food security, economic development and poverty
alleviation, biodiversity protection, water availability and resource use, and climate
change adaptation.
– Food security: Over 1 billion people endure chronic hunger, a result of food
insecurity and food prices.1 Efficiencies of production, when paired with
enabling structures, can help to feed the world.
– Development: Agriculture employs 2.6 billion people annually, and in most
developing countries, agriculture accounts for 20-60% of GDP.1 A complicated
relationship exists between agriculture, trade, and equity, where advances in
productivity can be a double-edged sword to poor and vulnerable
communities.
– Water use: 70% of the world’s freshwater use is for irrigation2; water scarcity
is an issue of growing importance, with major implications for food
security, biodiversity, and political stability.
– Land conversion and environmental impacts: Agriculture covers nearly 40% of
the world’s land area.3 The conversion of natural habitats to agriculture, and
ongoing agricultural practices, influences everything from global biodiversity to
biochemical cycles. The long list of secondary effects include impacts to
riparian and marine environments, exposure of humans and wildlife to
chemicals, the salinization of groundwater, and invasive species introductions.
- In laying out a greenhouse gas mitigation plan, we are acutely aware that food
security and development remain the primary concerns of most actors working in
the agriculture arena. While greenhouse gas mitigation is not at the heart of those
agendas, we believe it is possible to pursue and better incorporate a mitigation
agenda that does not undermine these other priorities. There are many
opportunities that could yield “triple win” solutions that address food
3
Sources: 1) UNCTAD 2010. 2) UNWater 2013. 3) Antarctica excluded; calculated from
security, climate mitigation, and climate adaptation.
FAOStat and World Bank database.
3

4. Roughly half of emissions come directly from production. Another half
comes from deforestation and emissions across the supply chain.
Sources of these emissions include land use change (deforestation, peat loss, and
fire), upstream and downstream emissions connected to agricultural supply
chains, and emissions normally attributed to other sectors but related to the
production of agriculture (i.e. energy for water pumping), and direct emissions
from agricultural production.
Mid-estimate, in MtCO e
Agricultural production and food supply chains (varying years)
2
#
Upper estimate
(where
available)
Middle estimate
4654
831
599
Low estimate
(where
available)
Land use change and fire (2008)1
10,650
MtCO2e
532
813
2620
682
~10% total
global GHG
emissions
~20-25%
total global
GHG
emissions
Other
PreDirect
Agric.
Postfires, nonproduction agricultura production
productio
CO2 (ag
(e.g.
l
not usually
n (e.g.
2
waste
fertilizer
production counted in
cold
burning, sava
production)
ag.
chain)
nna and
inventories
Notes: 1) These emissions vary significantly temporally. Fire )
grass numbers are draft; the final estimate will show a range. 2) Not comprehensive – does not include food
4
Deforestatio
n driven by
agriculture
Peat
and peat
fires
processing or preparation. Sources: CEA analysis of many sources , including FAOStat, EDGAR 4.2, FRA 2012, Harris 2012, Blaser 2007, data provided by Paul
West, UMN Institute on the Environment (personal communications), Vermeulen 2012, and others.
4

5. Asia leads direct agricultural emissions
Asia, which possesses 60% of the world’s population and 30% of its land
area, accounts for 45% of global agricultural emissions.
North America & Caribbean
534
Europe
547
Europe
includes
Russia
Includes
Central
America
South America
701
Asia
2169
Asia includes
Indonesia, Turke
y, and the Middle
East
Africa
580
Oceania
136
Region
Ag emissions in MtCO2e
5
Source: FAOStat data from 2010 (accessed 2013); area of pie charts
scaled to regional emissions. Land use change emissions are note
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Manure left on pasture
Rice
Ag soils
Ag soils includes synthetic fertilizers, manure
applied to crops, field application of crop
residues, and nitrous oxide from cultivated
5

6. Geographies and Commodities
Beef, dairy, and rice are the commodities that have the largest emissions from direct agricultural production,
Soy and palm oil have considerable emissions footprints only when deforestation emissions are included.
Note that supply chain emissions (“upstream, downstream”) are not included in this chart.
MtCO2e
LUC, peat, and fire emissions
Rest of world
China
India
Africa
European Union
Brazil
United States
Indonesia
2,200
2,000
2000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
750
750
650
600
600
400
235
200
180
160
250
130
130
65
65
0
EMISSION
Bee
f
Non- Ric
Dair
Pig Othe Whea Chicke Maiz Other Other
y
s
t
n
e animal cereal
cattle
e
r
crops
s
s
ruminant
6
Source: CEA analysis based on fertilizer emissions data from Paul West, UMN Institute on the Environment (personal communication) and all other data FAOStat 2010 (accessed 2013).
s
So
y
Pal
m
S
6

7. Technical mitigation opportunities
Globally, Brazil, China, India, and the U.S. are the largest agricultural emitters (and the largest
agricultural producers). Not surprisingly, these countries present the largest technical potential
for emissions reduction (roughly 55% in aggregate - not including soil sequestration).
Asia –
crop
residue
burning
EU - cattle
(enteric)
EU –
livestock
(manure)
U.S. cattle
(enteric)
U.S. cattle (soil
carbon)
U.S. crops
(fertilizer)
Brazil reduced
pressure
on forests
(cattle
and
crops)
Sahel cattle
(enteric)
China and
Central Asia
cattle (soil
carbon)
India cattle
(enteric)
China livestock
(manure)
China - crops and
supply chain (fertilizer)
Southeast
Asia - rice
India crops
(fertilizer)
Brazil cattle
(enteric)
Additional opportunities
KEY
Increasing opportunity for GHG mitigation

7
Source: CEA synthesis of literature and expert interviews.
Indonesia
reduced
pressure
on forests
(crops)
Australia cattle (soil
carbon)
India, China, Eastern
Africa, Indonesia, Russia crops (soil carbon:
biochar, agroforestry, restorati
on of peatlands)
MITIGATIO
N
7

8. There are several approaches to reducing emissions from agriculture
Mitigation in the AFOLU sector can be approached from a number of different
angles:
1) Shifting demand for agricultural products away from high-carbon intensity products such
as livestock or reducing overall demand (e.g., by cutting food waste)
2) Reducing the emissions intensity of agricultural production
3) Increasing the ability of agricultural lands (croplands and grazing lands) to serve as
Reduce GHG emissions from
carbon sinks
agricultural production
Shift/reduce demand for
agricultural products
Reduce biofuel demand
Shift consumer demand
away from high-GHG foods
Reduce food waste
8
Reduce emissions from
livestock and crop production
• Reduce enteric fermentation;
improve manure
management
• Improve nutrient and water
management for crops
Reduce emissions from
upstream and downstream
activities and equipment use
• Improve fertilizer
production efficiencies
• Energy efficiencies of onfarm machinery
• Efficiencies in
transportation and storage
Reduce emissions from
land use change driven
by agriculture
• Increase
intensification of
cropland and grazing
land
• Protect high-C lands
from conversion
• Restore degraded
lands
Sequester more carbon
in agricultural lands
Increase sequestration
of carbon in croplands
Increase sequestration of
carbon in grazing lands
Restore degraded lands
8

9. The cost of mitigation in the agriculture sector
-
Cost data for mitigation in the agriculture sector is extremely limited, and few cost curves
have been published to date either for the globe or by region
o The couple global cost curves are likely out of date (US-EPA 2006, McKinsey
2009), and the best-known McKinsey cost curve does not disclose its assumptions
o There are several newer country-focused cost curves (UK, France, China), as well as
work currently underway by the FAO to produce a global cost curve for the livestock
sector
-
Mitigation options and costs will vary significantly by region due to:
o Variation in local natural resources, the maturity of local markets / distribution
chains, and willingness of national/local govts to subsidize, promote, and regulate
mitigation practices
o Variation in what practices have already been implemented in regional agriculture
systems
-
However, there are a few themes regarding relative cost and potential size of the
mitigation options:
o Nutrient/fertilizer management on croplands was low or often negative cost, with
moderate relative mitigation potential
o Grasslands management was generally low/moderate cost with relatively significant
relative mitigation potential
9o Methane flaring or digestion was generally moderate cost with relatively significant
relative mitigation potential
9

10. Possible Agricultural Mitigation Strategies for CLUA
-
At the national level (targeting specific geographies based on GHG emission
sources)
– Shifting dietary trends (China, US, Europe)
– Dealing with food waste (US, Europe)
– Improving the sustainability of biofuels
– Sustainable intensification of agricultural production (India, Brazil, global
intensification road map)
– Restoration of degraded lands (US, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia)
– Reducing emissions from agricultural production (China, SE Asian
countries, US, Europe)
-
At the international level
– Improving food supply chains
– Changing agricultural finance
– Increasing traceability and MRV systems for agriculture
10
10

11. Example: Shifting dietary trends
•
•
•
Livestock production has a large carbon
footprint, accounting for approximately 50%
to 70% of direct agricultural GHG emissions.
The potential for emissions reductions from
shifting demand for meat range from 10 to
125 Mt CO2e per year by 2030.
Possible interventions:
1) facilitating policy change,
2) mobilizing the private-sector, and
3) influencing consumers.
Figure 1. Carbon intensity of food products1
Figure 2. Carbon intensity of food products2
Source: 1) Alejandro Gonzalez et al., “Protein efficiency per unit
energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential contribution
of diet choices to climate change mitigation”, Food Policy 36 (2011)
562-570. 2) lke Stehfest et al., “Climate benefits of changing
diet”, Climatic Change (2009) 95: 83-102. DOI 10.1007/s10584-0089534-6. These scenarios were generated using an integrated
assessment model (IMAGE 2.4) and Pete Smith et al., “How much
land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without
compromising food security and environmental goals?” Global Change
Biology (2013), doi: 10.1111/gcb.12160.
11
11

12. Parallel and Complementary: Agricultural Readiness
- Climate Focus with the support of CCAFS and IFPRI
assesses the benefits and design of an agricultural
readiness process.
- The objective is to facilitate a process of preparation
and policy development that allows the effective use
of climate finance for climate-friendly agriculture as
well as climate-proving of existing agricultural
programs and investments.
- The process would build on the lessons from REDD+ but
take into account the different circumstances of the
agricultural sector and its exposure to climate change.
12
Title, Presenter

13. DRAFT
13
13

14. Questions
Recommendations
Suggestions
Corrections:
Charlotte Streck
+1 202 684 1455
C.Streck@climatefocus.com
14
Title, presenter