Presentation by Alex De Pinto, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) International conference on agricultural emissions and food security: Connecting research to policy and practice 10-13 September 2018 Berlin, Germany

1. Climate-Smart Agriculture:
A Global Outlook
A reductive interpretation of Climate Smart Agriculture
limits its positive effects
Alex De Pinto, Senior Research Fellow
with Nicola Cenacchi, Ho Young Kwon, Jawoo Koo, Shahnila Dunston
Environment and Production Technology Division,
International Food Policy Research Institute
International Conference on Agricultural GHG Emissions
and Food Security , Berlin 2018

2. Purpose of the work and a spoiler
• Given the substantial amount of resources mobilized to promote
CSA globally, we need to understand the effects of widescale
adoption of CSA.
• An “uneasy” feeling about the message that comes across: it just a
matter of having more farmers adopt CSA practices
• We show that, if applied formulaically and if the CSA approach
does not permeate the food production system, it is likely that
the emission reductions will be small to negligible

3. BACKGROUND

4.  Studies have consistently found that under most scenarios significant negative
effects should be expected worldwide (Lobell and Gourdji, 2012; Wiebe et al. 2015;
Mora et al., 2015; Pugh et al. 2016).
 Underdeveloped economic regions where food security is already problematic and
populations are vulnerable to shocks are expected to suffer the worst consequences
(Morton, 2007, World Bank, 2009; Rosegrant et al., 2014).
 When the interaction with other land uses is considered, anthropogenic land
activities contribute more than a quarter of annual GHG emissions, the equivalent of
10 to 12 Gt CO2 e per year, three fourths of which are estimated to originate in the
developing world (Smith et al., 2014).
 Wollenberg et al. (2016) find that the agricultural sector should reduce emissions by
some 1 Gt CO2e per year to meet the goal of remaining below the 2 °C global
warming.
Climate Change: Agriculture as part of the
problem

5. Climate Smart Agriculture
CSA is an umbrella term that includes many approaches, built
upon geographically-specific solutions and characterized by a
continuum of choices all aiming at making the agricultural
sector better suited to handle the challenges of a new climate.
Three objectives:
 Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity to
support equitable increases in farm incomes, food security
and development;
 Adapting and building resilience of food systems and
farming livelihoods to climate change at multiple levels;
and
 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture,
where possible.

6. Climate Smart Agriculture
 Operational aspects of CSA are still under investigation. Local contexts
determine the enabling environment, trade-offs, and synergies between
productivity, adaptation, and mitigation (Below et al., 2012, FAO 2017).
 Farmers must identify what is climate-smart for the biophysical, agricultural,
and socio-economic context of a given place. As a consequence, CSA
approach is knowledge-intensive and can require considerable institutional
support (Neufeldt et al., 2013; Mccarthy et al. 2011).
 The frequent result is that, even when farmers, agrarian organizations, large
scale farmers, and policy maker have embraced the concept of CSA, they
struggle with implementation and tend to look for simple protocols to
follow, which often correspond to a menu of practices and technologies
from which to choose.

7. CSA is widely promoted but….
 A substantial amount of resources has been mobilized to promote CSA and
make sure that CSA is implemented at a scale sufficient to have an impact
globally.
 This can be observed in the number of coalitions, alliances, partnerships and
investments that have been initiated globally, regionally, and nationally
(Dinesh et al., 2017), 31 countries make specific mention of CSA in their NDCs
 While a significant amount of the literature has focused on the agronomic
aspects of CSA, on economic benefits to farmers, on barriers to its adoption,
to our knowledge, no study has analyzed the global effects of widespread
adoption of CSA.

8. MODELING
SETTING

9. Ex-ante Analysis of Global Adoption of
Selected CSA Practices for Food-crop Production
▪ Simulations using IFPRI’s IMPACT system of models and
DSSAT crop model: 2010-2050
• A suite of global water models (i.e.
hydrology, water basin management,
and water stress)
• The DSSAT cropping system model to
estimate crop yield responses under
varying management systems and
environmental conditions.
• A global partial equilibrium, multi-
market food supply and demand
projection model
Robinson et al, 2015

10. Simulation steps
Spatial Production
Allocation Model (SPAM)
Decision Support System for
Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT)
Location of crop production
Yields and
Yield changes
GHG emission Changes
International Model for Policy Analysis of
Agricultural Commodities and Trade
(IMPACT)
Changes in total production
Changes in prices
Changes in calorie availability

11. Global Adoption of Selected CSA Practices
▪ Maize, Wheat, and Rice (~41% of global harvested area; 64%
of GHG emissions from crop production)
▪ Practices: No-till; Integrated soil fertility management;
Alternate wetting and drying; Nitrogen Use Efficiency
deep placement
▪ Two climate models: GFDL and HadGEM, SSP2; RCP 8.5
▪Two adoption rules. All farmers adopt if:
▪ the alternative technology or practice must return a yield gain compared to BAU
and that farmers choose the technology that generates the highest gain.
▪ alternatives generate higher yields than current practices but choose the technology
that decreases emission intensity the most .

12. RESULTS

13. Percent change in production - compared to
business-as-usual

14. Other effects – compared to business-as-usual
 Fewer people at risk of hunger: 23 to 40 million.
 Decrease in undernourished children: ~ 2,000,000 children.
 Benefits for soil fertility, sustainability, and potentially to resilience in general:
soil organic carbon concentration to grow 0.06 - 0.13 t ha-1 yr-1
 Decrease in harvested areas estimated to be between 8 million and 13 million
hectares
Scenario Maize
(GFDL / HADGEM)
Wheat
(GFDL / HADGEM)
Rice
(GFDL / HADGEM)
Adoption of CSA practices
dependent on increased yields -7.7% / -8.8% -9.1% / -12.3% -27.1% / -27.5%
Adoption of CSA practices
dependent on reduction of
emission intensity and increased
yields
-5.3% / -6.3% -6.6% / -9.6% -25.8% / -26.4%
Percent change in 2050 world prices compared to business-as-usual

15.  For comparison
purposes:
 Maize, wheat and
rice gains expressed
in dry matter and
added.
 Cumulative
abatement of GHG
emissions.
 Recall:
100%adoption
GHG emissions abatement
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 109 Mt
Emission reduction: 44 Mt CO2e
~ 4% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 88 Mt
Emission reduction: 100 Mt CO2e
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.

16.  ~ 2M hectares more of Soybeans, Vegetables, Sugarcane, temperate
fruits which, depending on how they are grown can emit more than the
crops they are replacing.
 Reduced price of grains reduces the price of livestock feed and
increases the number of animals that can be supported globally. The
indirect effects on the cattle industry are such that emissions from cattle
may increase by approximately 3 - 6 Mt yr-1 CO2e by 2050.
 A handful of countries see their total emissions increase even when
they “enforce” a reduction of emission intensity
GHG emissions abatement

17.  More plausible
adoption rates
Sensitivity analysis
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 109 Mt
Emission reduction: 44 Mt CO2e
~ 4% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
Rosegrant et al (2014)
adoption rates.
Production: + 60 Mt
Emission reduction: 13 Mt
CO2e
~ 1.5% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 88 Mt
Emission reduction: 100 Mt CO2e
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.

18.  More plausible
adoption rates
 Reduction in
production costs
from reduce used of
water in AWD
Sensitivity analysis
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Reduction in production costs for AWD
Production: + 88 Mt
Emission reduction: 105 Mt CO2e
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 109 Mt
Emission reduction: 44 Mt CO2e
~ 4% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
Rosegrant et al (2014)
adoption rates.
Production: + 60 Mt
Emission reduction: 13 Mt
CO2e
~ 1.5% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 88 Mt
Emission reduction: 100 Mt CO2e
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.

19. Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Reduction in production costs for AWD
Production: + 88 M tons
Emission reduction: 100 M tons
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 109 M tons
Emission reduction: 44 M tons
~ 4% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
Rosegrant et al (2014)
adoption rates.
Production: + 60 M tons
Emission reduction: 13 M
tons
~ 1.5% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 88 M tons
Emission reduction: 105 M tons
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
 Simulations of
policy options.
Intervention on
increasing adoption
and on enforcing
reduction of emission
intensity.
The role of policies
Role of policies that promote
adoption:
extension, information,
credit, etc.

20. Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Reduction in production costs for AWD
Production: + 88 M tons
Emission reduction: 100 M tons
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 109 M tons
Emission reduction: 44 M tons
~ 4% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
Rosegrant et al (2014)
adoption rates.
Production: + 60 M tons
Emission reduction: 13 M
tons
~ 1.5% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 88 M tons
Emission reduction: 105 M tons
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
 Simulations of
policy options.
Intervention on
increasing adoption
and on enforcing
reduction of emission
intensity.
The role of policies
Role of incentives for reduction
of emission intensity:
policies that promote efficient
pricing of inputs (i.e. water)
price of carbon

21. Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Reduction in production costs for AWD
Production: + 88 M tons
Emission reduction: 100 M tons
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 109 M tons
Emission reduction: 44 M tons
~ 4% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
increase in yields.
Rosegrant et al (2014)
adoption rates.
Production: + 60 M tons
Emission reduction: 13 M
tons
~ 1.5% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
Adoption criterion:
reduction of emission intensity
and increase in yields.
100% adoption.
Production: + 88 M tons
Emission reduction: 105 M tons
~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal.
 Simulations of
policy options.
Intervention on
increasing adoption
and on enforcing
reduction of emission
intensity.
The role of policies
Tradeoffs between
productivity and
reduction of GHG emissions

22. CONCLUSION

23. Some takeaway messages
New technologies, considered typical CSA technologies, appear to be
good on several metrics. It is possible to increase productivity and
reduce GHG emissions
If the CSA approach does not permeate the food production system it is
likely that the emission reductions will be small to negligible
Some unintended effect are possible (we must have an idea of what they
might be and have contingency plans)

24. Some takeaway messages
Fundamental role of policies to make CSA relevant
Must consider interactions between crops, livestock, and other land uses.
These interactions can be crucial in sustainable intensification,
diversification and risk management.
CSA reinforce the importance of a multi-objective approach to
agricultural development and facilitate the necessary dialogs across
ministries that favor the development of coherent policies.

25. Thank you
a.depinto@cgiar.org
▪Dr. Ho-Young Kwon - Research Fellow
▪DR. Jawoo Koo – Senior Research Fellow
▪Mr. Nicola Cenacchi - Research Analyst
▪Ms. Shahnila Dunston - Research Analyst