Challenges, opportunities and priorities for transitioning to low emissions agriculture
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•223 views
"Challenges, opportunities and priorities for transitioning to low emissions agriculture" was presented by Lini Wollenberg at a NUI Galway seminar on January 30, 2020.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Challenges, opportunities and priorities for transitioning to low emissions agriculture
Similar to Challenges, opportunities and priorities for transitioning to low emissions agriculture (20)
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Challenges, opportunities and priorities for transitioning to low emissions agriculture
- 1. Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS NUI Galway seminar, Jan 30, 2020 Challenges, opportunities and priorities for transitioning to low emissions agriculture
- 2. Why mitigation in agriculture and food systems? 1. Significant • 10-12% of global emissions • Agriculture contributes on average 30% of countries’ total emissions 2. Necessary Reductions in other sectors will not be enough to achieve 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets 3. Possible Many practices are compatible with SDGs, hence the possibility of “low emissions development” Agricultureemissions,bycountry Percentofnationalemissionsfromagriculture Richards et al. 2015
- 3. • Paddy rice - alternate wetting and drying (AWD) • Livestock systems - improving feeding, animal and herd management; pasture management • Cereal crops- building soil organic matter, e.g. through integrated soil fertility management; nutrient efficiency through technologies such as urea deep placement; BNI in crops • Perennial crops- transitioning from annual crops or degraded land to agroforestry, forestry or grassland Low emission development options • Avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes (forests, peatlands, mangroves, grasslands) • Reduced food loss and waste- storage, packaging, waste recycling • Supply chain energy use – fertilizer production, cooling, transportation • Dietary shifts- shift to low emissions food products, e.g. beef to chicken
- 4. THE SCALE CHALLENGE Global, net zero emissions by 2050
- 6. How can we make smart interventions?
- 7. Strategic scaling of LED 1. Identify emission hot spots (subsectors, regions) and mitigation priorities 2. Analyze scaling opportunities 3. Select interventions providing the best levers for large- scale change
- 8. 1. Identify emission hot spots (subsectors regions) and mitigation priorities Source: Carbon Disclosure Project. 2015. The Forgotten 10%. London: Carbon Disclosure Project. Available from: www.cdp.net Global emissions sources Livestock is a hot spot!
- 9. Country emissions Agriculture emissions, bycountry Percentof nationalemissions from agriculture Richards et al. 2015 Livestock-producing countries predominate Mostly developing countries
- 10. Mitigation priorities: Paddy Rice in Vietnam Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) Delaying re-irrigation until water level has gone down to ~15cm below soil surface. Reduces CH4 field emissions by ~50%. Fertilizer deep placement Applying fertilizer below the soil surface (often slow release fertilizer). Reduces N2O emissions. Short duration varieties Switching to varieties with a shorter maturity duration. Reduces CH4 field emissions ~proportional to reduced growing time. Sustainable straw management Reduced rates of incorporation and burning of straw. Reduces CH4 field emissions and black carbon emissions. The International Rice Research InstituteLED options Scaling area Mitigation potential Barriers Enabling Conditions - Incentives Co-Benefits AWD large high medium medium medium Fertilizer deep placement medium low high high medium Short duration varieties small low low low high Sustainable straw mngmt large medium medium medium high Slide courtesy of Ole Sander, IRRI
- 11. Regions suitable to Alternate Wetting and Drying in Vietnam • Based on cropping calendar, rice extent and water balance (biophysical factors only, methodology: Nelson et al., 2015) Slide courtesy of Ole Sander, IRRI
- 12. • Policy: Paris Agreement • Leadership: Greta Thunberg • Learning & innovation: farmer field schools, producer coops, digital tools • Finance: markets, investors, development assistance, philanthropy • Alliances, social movements: G77, youth • Information: Media, science • Security/health/disaster: fires, flooding, climate migrants 2. Analyze scaling opportunities Behavior change Drivers Institutions • Government • Market • Civil society • Individuals • Organizations
- 13. Learning from existing large-scale implementation of LED • Review of 24 LED-relevant projects. Seven projects had ten or more years of implementation experience, and eight other projects had five or more years o In China, 2.5 million households received payments for restoring 2 million ha of land. o In Nigeria, 2.5 million farmers used urea deep placement to reduce fertilizer inputs by 25% and increase yields by 18-25%. o Laser leveling in India reduced irrigation times on 500,000 ha, raising yields by 7% and increasing profitability by USD 113- 175/ha/yr. Wollenberg et al. 2019, TCAF/World Bank
- 14. Good practice features for transformational LED project design Principles Features of successful large-scale mitigation projects Technology transfer and infrastructure 1. Strong value propositions for farmers beyond carbon payments 2. Farmer- and local government-driven decisions about practices 3. Effective technical change agents with capacity for large-scale outreach 4. Farmer access to integrated support services (on-line knowledge platforms for climate information services and technical option feasibility and suitability analysis, ICT-based services, carbon accounting linked to project activities, centers for input and service delivery) Finance 1. Subsidy or credit used to catalyze new practices 2. Where offered, result-based carbon payments can create incentives for sustaining projects or incremental improvements 3. Aggregated carbon payments to communities during times of low carbon prices to reduce transaction costs and increase reward size 4. Public-private partnership, with public support to de-risk farmer transitions and private investment, and private funds to drive scale 5. Low entry requirements for participation in enterprises or carbon schemes 6. Low transaction costs for finance delivery MRV 1. Low-cost MRV methodologies specific to practices, e.g. use of existing statistics, such as fertilizer sales or milk yields, remote sensing for agroforestry or AWD 2. Activity-based monitoring 3. Continuously improved modeling and science to verify activity data 4. Automated payments Policy 1. National policy mandate for change in practices (not necessarily climate policy) 2. Inter-ministerial and administrative unit coordination, including between central and local government Wollenberg et al. 2019, TCAF/World Bank
- 15. 3. Select best levers for change Develop priority interventions for achieving large-scale impacts 1. Set targets, commitments and champions, for example 2020 Zero Deforestation commitments; IKEA’s “Food is Precious” initiative, with target to reduce food waste by 50% by the August and monitor progress 2. Build on existing initiatives and build partnerships: SDGs, LDN, 4p1000, 12.3 Champions Initiative 3. Aim for systemic change not just scaling up local practices, e.g. Improve transparency and accountability of finance, mainstream incentives and technologies into government & company policies 4. Use complementary drivers, institutions and scales to build synergy, momentum and reach tipping points e.g. public-private partnerships, incentives for all actors along a supply chain, bottom-up and top down processes 5. Enable learning, innovation, adaptation toward targets
- 16. Key drivers for scaling up LED agriculture Target NDCs and national action Enable private-public finance Mitigation as co-benefit of ag development Largest reductions: avoided deforestation, livestock, soil C protection, beef consumption, food loss Biggest emitters: e.g. US, Brazil, China, India Reduce consumer demand for beef Reliable MRV
- 17. Challenges and opportunities to scaling LED
- 18. • Updating and increasing ambition of NDCs • Carbon trading - Article 6 rules • MRV Challenges
- 19. 14 12 9 8 7 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 12 21 0 5 10 15 20GigatonnesCO2e The countries with the largest agricultural emissions 50% from 4 countries + EU 76% from 12 countries + EU Cumulativeagricultural emissions1990-2010 Challenges
- 20. Are not always the countries planning action 104 countries included mitigation in agriculture in their Nationally Determined Contribution Richards 2018 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handl e/10568/73255 <50% of the top 10 developing countries with the largest opportunities to scale up mitigation included mitigation in their NDC. Challenges
- 21. Buchner et al. 2017 And finance has been poor relative to other sectors Challenges
- 22. Development finance is more substantial than climate change mitigation finance for agriculture 3 8.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 AFOLU mitigation finance Agricultural ODA $billionUSD (FAO AIDmonitor)
- 23. Challenges Carbon payments have not been viable in agriculture Constraints: (1) Need for upfront investment, payments come too late (2) High program costs necessary to deliver significant impacts, (3) Need to reduce risk and uncertainty for all program participants to enable enrollment and long-term participation, and (4) Equity concerns: poorer farmers likely to not benefit Sources: Shames et al. 2012, Engle 2016, Newton et al. 2016, Börner et al. 2018, Keating 2019). High costs occur due to upfront investment needs, transaction costs of dealing with numerous smallholders, carbon credit program complexity and needs for robust MRV. High risk due to uncertain C markets, the long-term nature of carbon sequestration and its impermanence, leakage, poor data for emission factors and activity data and climate change.
- 24. Need for locally relevant interventions Potential GHG reductions as % of baseline (FAO 2018) Regional mitigation options for LED livestock . Challenges
- 25. Opportunities
- 26. 9/8/2020 26 Landscape transitions Crop transitions Rice crops Crops (non rice) Fertilizer Livestock - 4.7M TotalAnnualtCO2e Landscape and crop transitions Management practice improvements Increased emissions Reduced emissions/ increased C sequestration (1,865,626) (905,776) (433,447) (616,320) (32,068) (819,848 ) 435,313 1,723,672 2.1 M Mitigation benefits of USAID’s agricultural development portfolio https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/greenhouse-gas-emission-analyses-nine-agricultural-development-projects-reveal- mitigation#.WqrhAGbMzEY 25developmentprojects,15countries,3continents. Opportunity: Low emissions development
- 27. Mitigation strategy, principles, measurement, and capacity • Green Climate Fund • World Bank • ADB • EU Sustainable Finance • Climate Bonds Initiative Opportunity: Increasing interest by public and private finance
- 28. A strategy for financing the transformation of food systems under a changing climate https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/financing-transformation-food-systems-under-changing- climate#.XjIp7S3MzEY
- 29. • Thai rice production accounts for almost 60% of emissions from agricultural activities (4th largest emitter of GHGs from rice globally) • 5-year NAMA project: low-emission production; policy formulation and supporting measures • 100,000 farmers in 6 provinces • GHG reduction of ~1 million tons of CO2eq • Thai Rice Dep. and MoNRE with the consortium comprising GIZ, IRRI-CCAFS and private sector partners Thai Rice NAMA support project approved for ~ EUR 15 M funding Example: Climate finance
- 30. Private drone companies help scale out technologies for better N management in Mexico • 3 drone companies delivering N recommendations to farmers using NDVI from their drones and an algorithm developed by CIMMYT and collaborators. • Farmers are willing to pay for this service (approx. 3 UDS / ha per flight. • N saving of ca. 60 – 70 kgN/ha Slide courtesy of Ivan Ortiz- Monasterio, CIMMYT Example: public-private partnership
- 31. Manure management in peri-urban areas to reduce pollution: Indonesia, China SIDPI project, Lembang Indonesia https://ccafs.cgiar.org/s ustainable- intensification-dairy- production- indonesia#.WqrnGWb MzEY Example: Urgent actions that have mitigation co-benefits
- 32. Plant-based meat, is ~1 percent of the meat market and expected to increase. Plant Based Foods Association, a trade organization, in 2016 had 22 Beyond Meat stock increased 163% in public offering in May 2019 Industry-led movement Beyond Meat has markets in 50 countries around the world, including Taiwan and Korea and 14 European countries Pat Brown, Impossible Foods, plans “to …completely replace the need for animals in the food system, full stop. This is not a fad, but a necessity.” Sept 2019 Example: Consumption change
- 33. Conclusions for transformational change • Agriculture can help achieve the 2 °C target, but action has been slow • Evidence suggests opportunities for mitigation at scale: Business models, development programs with significant mitigation impacts, multiple projects at scale. • Focus now on delivering large-scale impacts in priority countries and production systems Assess feasibility with suitability mapping, investment cases, policy Catalyze large-scale change in these locations − Work with drivers of agricultural change − Build on design principles from large-scale success cases − Use public finance to leverage ambitious scales of private sector action
- 34. Importance of imagination and challenging existing orders Walper 2016 UNFCCC adopted in 1992, yet emissions have increased Solutions often reflect the society that generated the problem in the first place • Proponents need to “fit in” to have a voice at the table • Solutions need credibility in public discourse • Result is built-in conservatism of approaches There is no discrete solution set and system-level change will be needed for large scale change Imagination and going beyond technical mind sets will be necessary
- 35. Some practical resources for low emissions agriculture FAO-STAT emissions data: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data MRV platform for agriculture: https://www.agmrv.org IPCC Emission Factor Database: https://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php NDC database https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/73255 Financing the Transformation of Food Systems under a Changing Climate https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/financing-transformation-food- systems-under-changing-climate#.XjIp7S3MzEY Examples of CSA business cases https://ccafs.cgiar.org/fr/invest#.XjJPDC3MzEY CCAC Kiosks: Manure management: http://www.manurekiosk.org, Paddy rice https://ghgmitigation.irri.org
- 36. Questions for discussion 1. What kinds of incentives are needed for farmers, input suppliers, policy makers etc. to shift to LED by 2050? What kinds of systemic change could provide these incentives? What are the constraints to such change? 2. What are the potential trade-offs of of focusing on the largest emitters now? Or seeking large scale impacts by 2030 or 2050? 3. Should countries with high domestic agricultural emissions (e.g. >50% of national emissions) be a priority for mitigation? Or only countries with high emissions? 4. What are the pros and cons of public v private finance as a driver for LED? 5. Choose a supply chain in a particular country and identify strategic interventions for LED to achieve zero emissions by 2050.
- 37. Global sources of carbon sinks Afforestation/ reforestation 29% Agroforestry 1% Wetland restoration 12%Forest mgmt 22% Soil carbon 18% Biochar 18% Chart Title A/R Agroforestry Wetland restoration Forest mgmt Soil C Biochar 9.9 – 26 GTCO2e
- 38. A target
- 39. Use of minimum N input requirements in maize (N gaps) by Yara and IFA www.yieldgap.org 50% Yw 80% Yw • Minimum amount of N needed to replace all N taken up in the aboveground maize biomass for target yield (% of water-limited yield potential - %Yw) • (Avoided) GHG emissions estimated for intensification and area expansion scenarios for cereal self-sufficiency in SSA towards 2050 Opportunity
- 42. Action #1: Zero agricultural land expansion on high carbon landscapes THE CHALLENGE: Zero agricultural land expansion in supply chains through 2050 to maintain existing high biomass landscapes • In 2050, land use change due to agriculture will generate 6 GtCO2/yr • Only a few commodities responsible for most deforestation: palm oil, beef, soy, pulp, rubber, cocoa and coffee • 80% of global forest loss is expected to take place in 11 deforestation fronts (2030 projection). S America is a hot spot. The 11 deforestation fronts, with projected losses, 2010– 2030. Source: WWF Living Forests Report (2015). WHERE is action needed ?
- 43. Action #2: Protecting high carbon soils • Peatlands hold 32% - 46% of all soil carbon (~500– 700 Gt) THE CHALLENGE: Avoid soil C loss on 250 million hectares of croplands by 2030, by protecting high soil C landscapes WHERE is action needed? Figure 6. Global soil organic carbon map (SOC t/ha in top 30 cm). Source: FAO 2019.
- 44. Action #7: Reducing beef and dairy consumption for healthy and sustainable climate-friendly diets • Consumption of beef & dairy is the largest single driver of agricultural GHGs globally. • Beef production contributes 2.9 GtCO2e/yr and dairy 1.4 GtCO2e/yr. THE CHALLENGE: Incentivize dramatic reductions in beef and dairy consumption in 15 high- and middle-income countries and all C40 cities by 2030 WHERE is action needed? Figure 8. Meat supply per person, 2013. Source: Our World in Data 2019. C40 cities 80% of global food consumption in 2050 will occur in cities
- 45. Action #8: Reducing food loss and waste The food supply chain contributes ~13.7 Gt CO2e/yr, and 15–45% of food is lost or wasted (2.1 to 6.2 GtCO2e/yr) THE CHALLENGE: Reduce food loss and waste by 50% in five major supply chains where both GHGs and loss or waste are high, such as beef, dairy, intensive fruit and vegetable production. Figure 10. Share of global food loss and waste by region, 2009 (100% = 1.5 quadrillion kcal). Source: Lipinski et al. 2013. WHERE is action needed?
- 46. • IRRI and Northwest Focal Area Network (FAN), a agri-food network of various organizations • FAN received Climate and Clean Award 2018 for behavior change • Targets irrigation groups of 10-25 farmers which undergo training and attend learning events on AWD • Reached thousands of farmers since 2017; targets to reach 50,000 despite meager resources • Nationwide TV coverage by Mr. Rezaul Karim Siddique, famous TV agri journalist Mobilizing concerted action for AWD+ outscaling in Bangladesh Example: Grassroots action
Editor's Notes
- What are the most important opportunities? What might be the most efficient? What are realizable approaches/ management options? What are relevant financing options and mechanisms? What are practically applicable MRV options? What should be policy priorities? How is the climate change mitigation objective for terrestrial carbon sinks aligned with country policies and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)? What are the challenges to align the climate change mitigation objectives with other development priorities such as biodiversity conservation, improving agricultural productivity, increasing food security, eliminating poverty, etc.?
- 49Gt CO2e
- Less than 30 years before carbon budget is exhausted (Carbon budget will be exhausted by 2027, assuming 1.5 °C pathway Atmosphere can only absorb 420 Gt CO2 to stay below 1.5°C 42 Gt CO2 is emitted globally every year (Mercator 2018) If 2 °C goal, budget will be exhausted by 2045
- The Group of 77 at the United Nations is a coalition of 135 developing nations
- In the China project, soil and biomass carbon increased to 11.54 and 23.76 MtC (42 and 87 MtCO2e) respectively, in Niger, where 200 million trees were planted on 5 million hectares, and in Ethiopia, where 8 million people (12% of population) mitigated ~3.4 MtCO2e per year through land restoration. Significant experience exists regarding the large-scale implementation of technical practices relevant to CSA involving often millions of farmers and hundreds of thousands of hectares. Agricultural projects have achieved large mitigation impacts, especially through carbon sequestration, as a co-benefit of agriculture activities that generate improved yields or incomes. Main challenges to achieving scale for carbon projects in agriculture have been to: (1) reduce program costs while also delivering significant impacts, and (2) reduce risk and uncertainty for all program participants to enable enrollment and long-term participation (3) secure upfront investment Large-scale projects have been generally effective in facilitating CSA technology transfer and supporting infrastructure, making finance available, establishing GHG and adaptation, accounting and standards systems, and providing national or international policy support National capacities and context can play a strong role in influencing readiness for large-scale project implementation. The private sector can also drive adoption of practices with low entry requirements and solid business cases. Most projects will require upfront investment to catalyze behavior change. Results-based payments will only be possible if such investments are already occurring. This raises the question of how much RBCF facilities such as TCAF should seek mechanisms for funding project development and not just payments for results. While, TCAF is a results-based instrument and should target projects with the strong readiness and capacity for high impacts, it may also need to allow for initial investments or partnerships to establish projects or help a prospective “winner” projects build their capacity. A checklist provides a blueprint of features for transformational CSA projects. The design features are similar to what would be required for effective large-scale agricultural projects, with the addition of MRV.
- Plus Cross-cutting 1. System change at national levels to achieve maximal impact at lowest costs, rather expensive replication of pilot projects 2. Building momentum for participation with low entry requirements, especially for carbon payment projects 3. Setting priorities for large-scale impacts and target countries, production systems, value chains, partners and participants where success is likely 4. Synergies across technology transfer, finance, carbon accounting and standards, and policy 5. Reduced risk and uncertainty by using improved technical information, low-cost loans, grants 6. Building on existing successful large-scale projects 7. Use of meaningful environmental and social safeguards
- Build in flexibility to be adaptive, facilitate learning, readjust to achieve targets, persist e.g. UNFCCC treaties (Kyoto to Paris Agreement), development aid
- At COP24 in Katowice, Poland, countries were unable to include guidance on Article 6 into the Paris Rulebook--except for paragraph 77(d) which stipulates how “a Party participating in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) towards its NDC under Article 4, or authorizes the use of mitigation outcomes for international purposes other than achievement of its NDC” report on such use in the structured summary of the Paris Agreement’s transparency framework. Countries will work to finalize guidance on Article 6 with a view to delivering decision text by the end of COP25. As Article 6 is one of the last pieces of the Paris Rulebook to be completed, increased high-level engagement from Ministers is possible and they require better understanding of the political issues related to Article 6 and the technical ones that still need work in advance of Katowice. This briefing provides a topline summary of CAN-I’s positions on Article 6 and explains key For instance, countries have not yet agreed on an accounting system to avoid double counting and other elements needed to prevent potential environmental integrity risks. http://www.climatenetwork.org/publication/briefing-implementation-guidelines-article-6-paris-agreement-june-2019 http://www.climatenetwork.org/publication/briefing-implementation-guidelines-article-6-paris-agreement-june-2019outstanding technical issues.
- Looking at cumulative agricultural emissions China, India, Brazil – 32% of emissions There are four countries, plus the EU, that have contributed about half of emissions from agriculture since 1990. And 12 countries + the EU have contributed about 76% of emissions from agriculture since 1990. (8 are developing countries)
- Most countries seek mitigation in livestock and grassland systems or paddy rice interventions. More than 80% of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) refer to the reduction of agricultural emissions, including livestock, in their nationally determined contribution (NDC) to mitigate climate change. Less than 50% of the top 10 developing countries with the largest opportunities to scale CSA practices included CSA interventions in their NDC.
- But, finance for mitigation in the agriculture sector is low. So not only is mitigation a problem, but so is the lack of resources to do it!
- But, finance for mitigation in the agriculture sector is low
- For example, farmer participation in the Australian Emissions Reduction Fund was low for methodologies where MRV expenses were high, potential for increased income was low, uncertainty of the practices’ benefits was high, and there was a need to commit to maintaining practices for the long-term. These challenges have been overcome where projects created sufficient incentives for farmers to adopt new practices and found ways to overcome the high transaction costs of project development and MRV. Linking carbon financing to benefits that farmers valued, such as climate change adaptation, rural development, and ecosystem services, and building on existing developing projects have been key to enabling successful project implementation (Shames et al. 2016). Most programs have been pragmatic in recognizing the need for low entry requirements, low cost MRV and sufficient incentives to encourage program participation. Many have sought to rely on simple, activity-based MRV. The Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project designed interventions based on farmers’ existing practices. Brazil’s ABC program increased the list of eligible practices and reduced loan interest rates in response to initial low enrollment. The Australian Emissions Reduction Fund found that enrollment was highest for vegetative carbon sinks, driven primarily by the ease of MRV (Keating 2019). A common entry point among agricultural carbon projects for introducing new practices has been a local decline in agricultural viability ( payments for ecosystem services (ES) suggest that programs are more successful to the extent they offer a hybrid of outcome and activity-based payments, in-kind rather than cash payments, payments for social value of ES rather than ES provision cost, differentiated payments, short duration payments where profitability is expected in the near term, indexing of payments according to price index correlated with opportunity cost to support permanence, discount for leakage, target low cost, high benefit sites, group payments, spatial coordination through agglomeration bonuses, reduce participation hurdles for poor and support alternative incomes (Engel 2016a, 2016b).
- Natural resource efficiency can, in many cases, be enhanced by conventional productiv- ity improvements. For example, in the past four decades the introduction of advanced genetics, feeding systems, animal health controls and oth- er technologies has enabled industrialized coun- tries to reduce their overall land requirements for livestock by 20 percent while at the same time doubling total meat production. P Mottet et al. (2017) showed that the area needed to produce human-edible livestock feed (cereals, pulses, soybeans and cassava) would shrink by 8 percent between 2010 and 2025 if feed conver- sion ratios improved by 5–15 percent, and this despite a projected 21 percent increase in the de- mand for meat. Wider adoption of existing best practices and technologies in feeding, health and husbandry, and manure management – as well as greater use of currently underutilized technologies such as biogas generators and energy-saving devices – could help the global livestock sector cut its GHG emissions by as much as 30 percent (Ger- ber et al., 2013; Mottet et al., 2016). F
- CCAFS, working with FAO, examined the mitigation co-benefits of IFAD and USAID’s agricultural investment portfolios. This figure shows the USAID analysis, for 25 diverse agricultural development projects and several dozens of practices across 15 countries in 3 continents. You can see that across the entire portfolio,blue is negative emissions, yellow is positive, that ag investments resulted in substantial net mitigation co-benefits, 2.6 MtCO2e/yr. Looking at interventions across categories you can see that the major source of emissions was livestock and secondarily fertilizer use, but that this was offset by land use change and rice and crop management. So current trajectories of agricultural development can yield substantial mitigation co-benefits, especially when considered at the larger portfolio level. That is the good news… ****** Landscape and crop transitions 1) Landscape transitions- Within the agricultural development projects, project interventions focused on both avoided land conversion (avoided change from forest) and active land conversion (agricultural or degraded lands changed to forest). 2) Crop transitions- This area include transitions to perennial crops or agroforestry. Also transitions from flooded rice systems to other crops such as wheat. Transitions land into irrigated rice. (Check why 5802 in positive) Management practice improvements 1) Rice crops- AWD, UDP, Short Duration Rice 2) Crops- Soil, manure, and water management improvements- also includes crop residue burning reduction and perennial management. 3) Fertilizer- increases and decreases 4) Livestock- herd size management, feed quality and breeding improvements. Grassland increases. With better feeding practices and increases in cow weight comes increased emissions.
- Citigroup Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China joined the pledge, which begins by asking the firms to self-assess their sustainability practices. Signers, including top European banks BNP Paribas SA, Barclays Plc and UBS Group AG, According to Cristina Figueres: Transitioning to low-carbon and climate-resilient economies that are aligned with the Paris Agreement requires additional investment of at least $60 trillion from now until 2050
- https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/financing-transformation-food-systems-under-changing-climate#.XjIp7S3MzEY
- - Thailand is the 4th largest emitted of rice-related GHG. Rice production accounts for almost 60% of emissions from agricultural activities. - The 5-year Thai Rice NAMA project will focus on low-emission production (i.e. AWD, laser land levelling, straw and stubble management, site-specific nutrient management, etc.) and policy formulation and supporting measures. - It targets to reach 100,000 farmers in 6 provinces in Thailand, which can contribute to GHG reduction of about 1 million tons of CO2eq. - The consortium of GIZ, SRP, IRRI-CCAFS and public- and private sectors worked closely with the Thai Rice Department under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
- Adresses rate, not timing source or placement
- De Vries M, Wouters AP, Vellinga TV. 2017. Environmental impacts of dairy farming in Lembang, West Java; Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and effects of mitigation strategies. CCAFS Working Paper no. 221. Wageningen, the Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org Using data from a survey of 300 dairy farmers in Lembang in 2016. Total GHG emissions were 33 ton CO2e. per farm/year, and emission intensity was 1.9 kg CO2e per kg of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) and 8.8 kg CO2e per kg live weight. Feeding and manure management interventions evaluated in a scenario analysis in this study changed total GHG emissions by -12 to +24%, Largest reductions in GHG emission intensity were found in the scenarios with maize silage feeding, improved manure management, and an increased amount of roughage in the diet.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/climate/plant-based-meat.html
- Work with Pete Smith and others
- Fertilizer companies (specifically Yara) use the N-gaps published (www.yieldgap.org) in their work on intensification of low-input cropping systems: size of the challenge and potential for improvement International Fertilizer Association (IFA) regards the N-gaps data as vitally important to help the fertilizer value chain developing science-based estimations of climate-smart nutrient requirements for future agriculture in SSA Coordinated joint activities (science-industry-policy workshops, policy briefs, demonstrations) are underway to raise (inter)national political awareness for the size of the intensification challenge and to create enabling environment for intensification of crop production in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania
- ] Expansion of croplands, pastures and forest plantations generated ~2.6 GtCO2/yr from 2010 to 2014 due to the conversion of tropical forests, Pendrill et al. 2019 [ii] Searchinger et al. 2019 [iii] EVIDENCE [iv] Searchinger et al. 201 [v] https://www.tfa2020.org/en/ [vi] https://www.cdp.net [vii] https://www.unilever.com/Images/eliminating-deforestation-position-statement_tcm244-423148_en.pdf [viii] https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/indonesia/
- Countries with high levels of carbon that have also committed to Land Degradation Neutrality targets should be prioritized (Figures 6 and 7). Yet one-third to up to 40% of the world’s soils are Degraded (see Rumpel et al. 2018). Since the industrial revolution, land use change and agricultural cultivation have generated a loss of 214 ± 67 Pg C from soils globally, or about 22 times the carbon emissions from fossil fuels in 2014. Improved agricultural practices can help avoid further loss of and in some places restore SOC, which supports adaptation to climate change as well as mitigation. Improving SOC enhances yield stability, water storage and infiltration, nutrient cycling and biodiversity, and can reduce erosion. The potential for maintaining or improving the organic carbon stocks of the world's agricultural soils differs widely among different climate zones, soil types and associated land use as well as land governance systems. A recent publication estimated that cropland soils worldwide could have the potential to store an additional 0.9 to 1.95 Pg C per year.12 The contribution to lowering global temperatures through soil carbon sequestration has been estimated to be 0.1°C between 2015 and 2100 when achieving a storage rate of 0.68 Pg carbon per year, which could potentially be achieved with current management approaches and would not entail decreasing the area for food production. Avoiding further loss of soil carbon from peatlands and croplands, the latter of which comprise about 1.5 billion hectares globally, is a priority both for ensuring food security and for the climate. This will require not only protecting specific high carbon landscapes (especially peatlands) but also slowing the rate of soil carbon loss in cultivated croplands by supporting additional carbon sequestration where possible. Soils that have already lost huge amounts of carbon historically can also be considered as hotspots for restoration, however, these efforts are likely to be more costly and will require long-term interventions. Interventions to increase SOC should not increase net GHG emissions, due to for example increased nitrogen fertilizer or fossil fuel use. Zomer et al. 2017 https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions Mayer et al. 2018 (Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq0932) TO BE CHECKED IF RELELEVENT. Outcome document “Unlocking the potential of Soil Organic Carbon” available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/b-i7268e.pdf; for example the global Conservation Agriculture Community of Practice (CA-CoP), led by FAO; see Zomer et al. 2017 (available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15794-8); see correction for Sandermann et al. 2017 (available online at: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/7/E1700) 250 mil ha About double the agricultural land of Russa, of if you combine any two countries of the top four, you have it covered: US, India, Russia, China, Brazil Agricultural land areas 1United States174.45 million hectares20052India159.65 million hectares20053Russia121.78 million hectares20054China103.4 million hectares20035Brazil59 million hectares20036Australia49.4 million hectares2005South Asia average47.26 million hectares20057Canada45.66 million hectares2003Group of 7 countries (G7) average37.12 million hectares20058Ukraine32.45 million hectares20059Nigeria30.5 million hectares200310Argentina27.9 million hectares2003 Country land areas Or a bit smaller than Argentina and larger than Algeria or Kazakhstan or Denmark or DRC
- Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome. Projections Springman et al. 2016 Kiff et al. 2016; Stehfest et al. 2013
- The Rangpur Division in Northwest Bangladesh is one of the country’s most vulnerable areas due to scarce irrigation water and drought which makes it difficult to produce specifically the Boro rice (dry season irrigated rice). Boro rice accounts for over half of the country’s rice production. Additionally, the rising cost of fuel for pump irrigation aggravates the plight of the resource-poor rice farmers. Under the “'No-regret mitigation strategies in rice production project” being supported by CCAFS and CCAC, IRRI’s partnership with the Northwest Focal Area Network (NFAN) has been reaching thousand of farmers in the 8 districts and 17 locations in Rangpur Division in terms of social mobilization, information dissemination, capacity building, and field testing activities towards AWD adoption despite the meager resources. IRRI’s long-standing collaboration with FAN—a rice-based multi-sectoral network in northwest Bangladesh comprising farmers’ organizations, academe, development NGOs and government agencies—has opened doors for AWD outscaling to thousands of farmers in the region. Farmers and private owners of shallow-tube wells are organized in irrigation groups of 10-25 farmers, which cover roughly 15-20 acres of paddy field. Each group is trained on AWD techniques, data collection, and record-keeping, and field testing activities are being implemented. The NFAN AWD+ outscaling is an effective model of how different stakeholders can and should work collectively towards a common goal of helping improve the rice sector and the lives of the rice farmers even with limited resources. To illustrate: the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, and IRRI provide the technical know-how and information materials to extension officers; the Department of Agriculture Extension trains the farmers; the North Bengal Institute of Development Studies and Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University conducted baseline surveys and data management; the Barind Multipurpose Development Authority (BMDA) helps in technology dissemination; and the Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service (RDRS) serves as the network secretariat and coordinator for farmer mobilization. Achievements of the NFAN work so far have also been covered extensively by Mr. Rezaul Karim Siddique, a famous TV agricultural journalist.