Achieving food security while switching to low carbon agricultureShenggen Fan and Ana Ramirez Citation: Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012); doi: 10.1063/1.3670412 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3670412 View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jrse/4/4?ver=pdfcov Published by the AIP Publishing Articles you may be interested in Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of lignin derived from three agricultural wastes J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 5, 063119 (2013); 10.1063/1.4841215 The budget approach: A framework for a global transformation toward a low-carbon economy J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 2, 031003 (2010); 10.1063/1.3318695 An update of Spanish renewable energy policy and achievements in a low carbon context J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 2, 031007 (2010); 10.1063/1.3301904 A concrete roadmap toward a low-carbon society in case of Kyoto City J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 2, 031004 (2010); 10.1063/1.3290181 Recent progress in agricultural, food and environmental applications of thermal lens spectrometry AIP Conf. Proc. 463, 629 (1999); 10.1063/1.58016

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

Achieving food security while switching to low carbonagriculture

Shenggen Fana) and Ana RamirezInternational Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street NW, Washington,DC 20006, USA

(Received 16 August 2011; accepted 24 November 2011; published online 16 July 2012)

The increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is irreversibly raising the earth’s

temperature, with its effects already being seen across the world, with higher

frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and natural disasters. Agriculture

is extremely vulnerable to these climatic changes, and in most regions of the world,

productivity and yields are likely to suffer from shifting seasons and heightened

weather variability. These changes could lead to higher food prices for the main

food crops and undermine global food security. However, agriculture is also part of

the problem of climate change. Together with land-use change and deforestation, it

is a large contributor to global GHG emissions. In order to face the challenge of cli-

mate change, the carbon intensity of agriculture must be reduced in a way that will

not compromise the food security of poor people. With the right innovations, invest-

ments, and policy incentives in place, low GHG emission agriculture practices can

help mitigate the effects of climate change, reduce emissions while contributing to

food security. Governments and donors must ensure that the switch to low GHG

emissions technologies and practices—referred to as low carbon throughout the arti-

cle, is done in a way that is pro-poor and that meets smallholders’ and women’s

needs. VC 2012 American Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3670412]

I. INTRODUCTION

The increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is irreversibly raising the earth’s tempera-

ture.1 The effects of the increase of such gases as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in

the atmosphere are already being seen across the world, with higher frequency and intensity of

extreme weather events and natural disasters. Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to these

changes, and in most regions of the world, productivity and yields are likely to suffer from shift-

ing seasons and heightened weather variability. These changes could lead to higher food prices

for the main food crops and undermine global food security.2,9 Developing countries, which are

home to 98% of the hungry people in the world,3 will be adversely impacted by the effects of

climate change and are expected to bear up to 80% of its costs.4 Poor people with fragile liveli-

hoods, most of whom live in rural areas, will be the hardest hit.

Agriculture (including forestry and land-use change) is part of the problem of climate

change and contributes more than one-third of global GHG emissions.4 Agriculture is also part

of the solution, as it has a large potential for adapting to and mitigating climate change, thus

contributing to the reduction of GHG emissions. Exploiting fully this potential is increasingly

important in order to create a low carbon (throughout the text, low carbon agriculture is used to

mean low GHG emissions agriculture, including carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions.

This is because nitrous oxide and methane also account for large share of emissions from agri-

culture) agricultural sector that contributes to substantial reductions in hunger and poverty levels,

while emitting less GHG and protecting the environment. However, this potential must be har-

nessed in a way that is pro-poor and that benefits smallholder farmers and women. Farmers,

a)Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: s.fan@cgiar.org. Tel.: 1-202-862- 6496.

1941-7012/2012/4(4)/041405/13/$30.00 VC 2012 American Institute of Physics4, 041405-1

JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

policymakers, scientists, and investors must develop ways for agriculture to contribute to a lowcarbon global economy, while helping to secure long-term food supplies and achieve food secu-

rity on a large scale and in a sustainable manner.

In Sec. II, this paper briefly reviews the threats climate change poses to global food security.

In Secs. III and IV, agriculture is discussed as both part of the climate change problem and part

of the solution. In Sec. V, solutions, including innovations in technology, policy, and investment,

are recommended for transforming agriculture into a low carbon sector, while ensuring food se-

curity and environmental protection. Conclusions follow.

II. CLIMATE CHANGE WILL FURTHER THREATEN GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY

Around the world, 925� 106 people remain undernourished,3 and global food security faces

multiple challenges. These challenges are complexly interlinked and include expanding biofuel

production, rising oil prices, extreme weather events, and harmful trade restrictions, which con-

tribute to high and volatile food prices, threatening the food security of the world’s poorest con-

sumers, who spend up to 70% of their incomes on food.5 The challenge of enhancing global

food security will require decisive action on a number of fronts, including measures that enhance

agricultural growth; minimize food-fuel competition; support transparent, fair, and open trade;

establish strategic emergency food reserves; and promote social safety nets, especially for

women and young children.5

Climate change is expected to further threaten an already stressed global food security sys-

tem.6,7 Various evidences have shown that it will lead to crop yield declines across developed

and developing regions of the world.8–11 Although climate change models differ widely,12 pro-

jections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) signal temperatures

increase ranging between 1.8 �C and 4.0 �C, from about 2000 to 2100.13 At present, models that

link yields to weather data already indicate that global maize and wheat production have

declined by 4% and 5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends between

1980 and 2008.14 In the future, with the exception of some parts of the world such as Russia,15

these trends are likely to result in declining yields for key crops such as maize, rice, and wheat

in the world.16–18 Although the impact of climate change on crop yield and food prices needs to

be further studied at the global and regional levels, IFPRI’s IMPACT model confirms yield

declining trends that have been identified by other studies.19,20 Based on the A1B scenario of

the IPCC, scenarios from IFPRI’s IMPACT model show that yields for maize, rice, and wheat

could decline by range of 1%–13% due to climate change from 2000 to 2050, across the world.2

In developing countries, maize could decline by 3%-5%; rice by 0%-11%, and wheat15 by 10%-

13% (Ref. 2). Climate change could also push up the global prices of key crops. In an optimistic

scenario, IFPRI’s IMPACT model projects’ price increases for maize, rice, and wheat to be,

respectively, 87%, 31%, and 43% between 2010 and 2050.2 Where the effects of climate change

are perfectly mitigated, price increases are smaller—about 33% for maize, 18% for rice, and

23% for wheat (see Nelson et al. for an extensive discussion of the model results).2

Due to the cyclical feedback mechanisms between land and the atmosphere, climate change

will also affect land-use choices.21 Indeed, changes in precipitation and temperature increases

have the potential to impact evapotranspiration and soil moisture on a large scale, since 80% of

the world’s agricultural land relies on rainfall.22 In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, climate

variability will affect growing periods and yields, which will affect the ability of land-

management practices to maintain land and water resources.23

If nothing is done, climate change is expected to reduce calorie availability by 2050, declin-

ing by 10% for the average consumer in developing countries relative to 2000 levels.2 This will

have dire consequences on human well-being, especially for children, and will result in many

setbacks from the progress achieved in terms of nutrition and health over the past several deca-

des. Between 2010 and 2050, the number of malnourished children in developing countries is

projected to increase by about 18% under a pessimistic scenario. Relative to perfect mitigation,

this number is expected to increase by an additional 9% in 2050.2 It is estimated that to counter

these effects and raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate

041405-2 S. Fan and A. Ramirez J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

change on children’s well-being and health, global agricultural productivity investments of

US$7.1 billion to 7.3 billion would be needed across the world.24

Rural populations that rely on good climatic conditions to produce food and generate

income will be particularly hard hit by climate change. They represent a large share of the

world’s farmers and include smallholder and subsistence farmers, pastoralists, marginalized

groups such as indigenous people and other traditional societies as well as coastal populations

and artisanal fishermen. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, smallholders account for more than

80% of all farms and a large proportion of the world’s agricultural output. A large part of these

farmers is women, who play a key role in producing food and providing both food and nutri-

tional security to their household, especially children. These populations already face multiple

challenges in producing enough food for their subsistence and generating sustainable incomes:

limited resources, high marketing and transport costs, and insufficient access to technology, mar-

kets, credit, and infrastructure. When developing technological innovations, policy, and market

incentives for low carbon agriculture, governments as well as the private sector must make these

populations, in particular, smallholders and women, their central priority.

III. AGRICULTURE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Agriculture is one of the largest contributors to global GHG emissions. Together with for-

estry and land-use change, it contributes to more than 30% of the world’s GHG emissions.4,25

Although results from studies vary, the IPCC estimates that between 10% and 12% of GHG

emissions come from agricultural production, without taking into account land-use change and

fertilizer production.25,26 Agricultural, forestry, and land-use practices can all result in processes

that release carbon and other GHGs from soils, trees, and vegetation. Changes in tillage and

land-use practices are particularly worrisome since 60%–80% of all earthly carbon is contained

in global soils, according to the World Soil Information.27 Indeed, agricultural and land-use prac-

tices account for between 6% and 17% of global GHG emissions,28 60% of nitrous oxide and

about 50% of methane emissions.25

Globally, both nitrous oxide and methane have increased in similar proportions due to bio-

mass burning, enteric fermentation, and soil emissions, which together account for 88% of this

increase.26 For nitrous oxide, about 38% of emissions come from fertilized soils, 12% from bio-

mass burning, and 7% from manure management. For methane, around 32% of emissions origi-

nate from enteric fermentation and 11% from rice production. Due to the negative effects, these

processes have on the climate and agriculture, farmers should be provided with alternatives that

result in less GHG emissions, while supporting productivity, agricultural growth, and protecting

the environment.

The large majority of total agricultural GHG emissions come from developing countries,

which contributed 74% of global agricultural emissions in 2005.25 GHG emissions continue to

be on the rise across the developing world due to growing populations, food demand, and eco-

nomic growth. Latin America has considerably expanded its arable land, due to increased cattle

and biofuel production, leading to an increase in emissions related to land-use change and defor-

estation. In East and South Asia, GHG emissions from animal sources, fertilizer, and manure are

projected to strongly increase in order to meet growing food demands.25 In sub-Saharan Africa,

the Middle East, and North Africa, emissions are projected to increase by 95% by 2020 (forecast

derived for the 1990–2020 period).29 GHG emissions from methane and nitrous oxide are also

on the rise in developing countries, where they have increased by 32% since 1990, whereas they

have actually decreased in developed countries.25

Climate change will place additional pressure on already stressed natural resources such as

water and land. Because agriculture is one of the largest users of these resources, which are vital

for both short-term food production and long-term food security, it will increasingly have to use

natural resources in a sustainable way. In fact, it is estimated that as much as 86% of the amount

of water used around the world is used by the agricultural sector. However, around 39% of the

grain that is produced globally is actually produced using water in unsustainable ways.30 Today,

36% of the global population lives in water-scarce regions and 22% of the world’s gross

041405-3 Food security and low carbon agriculture J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

domestic product (GDP) (at US$9.4 trillion at 2000 prices) is produced in areas that are short on

water.29 Current water management practices could put about 45% of the projected global GDP

at risk and expose 52% of the world population to severe water scarcity by 2050.31 The expan-

sion of cropland will also put pressure on land. As a hectare of cleared land in the tropics

releases twice more tons of carbons than in developed countries, cropland expansion will have

greater impacts in developing countries than in developed ones.32 Even the indirect land-use

changes related to biofuels could in some cases outweigh the carbon savings they offer in com-

parison with fossil fuels. In Brazil, for example, biofuel production from sugarcane and soybean

could contribute to half of the projected indirect deforestation by 2020, creating a carbon debt

that would take about 250 years to repay through biofuels instead of fossil fuels.33

To reduce their contribution as well as to increase their resilience to climate change, both

developing and developed countries will need to implement adaptation and mitigation practices

in agriculture. There is, therefore, an urgent need to find new technologies and market and pol-

icy incentives that can help to reduce agriculture, forestry, and land-use related GHG emis-

sions—and help farmers adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.

IV. AGRICULTURE IS ALSO PART OF THE SOLUTION

Agriculture has great biophysical and economic potential for reducing carbon, nitrous ox-

ide, and methane emissions as well as helping farmers in developing countries adapt to and mit-

igate against climate change. Agriculture’s mitigation potential is cost-efficient and comparable

to other large sectors such as industry, energy, and transport. The global mitigation potential of

agriculture is worth between US$32 billion and US$420 billion (at carbon prices between

US$20 and US$100 (t CO2-eq.-1)).34 Sub-Saharan Africa could sequester from 100� 106 to

400� 106 ton of CO2 a year, at US$10 dollars a ton, which could yield financial benefits rang-

ing from US$1 billion to $4 billion a year.4 Overall, this potential translates into many mitiga-

tion options. Figures 1 and 2 below show the global technical and mitigation potential that agri-

culture can offer.

Land-management practices and farm system design can help to reduce global GHG emis-

sions from agriculture. These include cropland and grazing land management, restoration of

cultivated land, no-till or low-till farming, and improved fertilizer use as well as forest conser-

vation and management.35 Farm systems can be designed to mitigate GHG emissions through

mixed cropping or organic farming, crop rotation, and the use of cover crops.36 By choosing

less intensive and more integrated farming systems, farmers can optimize crop productivity

while limiting GHG emissions.34,37,38 For instance, integrating crops and animals into a single

farm allows recycling waste as a source of nutrients and reducing the use of mineral fertilizers

and pesticides.39 Also, the use of cover crops so that land is permanently covered can improve

soil fertility and crop productivity at the same time as storing GHG emissions. The use of nitro-

gen can be improved through intercropping and under-sowing legumes as well as by using ma-

nure and nitrogen fixing plants. This would significantly reduce nitrogen emissions from fossil

fuel fertilizers, which amount to 2% of total global GHG emissions in 2007.34

Other sources of GHG emissions such as methane from rice and livestock production have

lower mitigation potential in comparison with land-management practices. However, because

methane accounts for about 14% of global total GHG emissions, they are important to consider.

In the case of India’s agriculture, it was found that methane emissions from irrigated rice can

be reduced by temporarily draining the field during the growing period. Indeed, a single mid-

season drying would substantially reduce methane emissions from irrigated rice with only a

small reduction in yields.40 Wetland restoration and peat land preservation can also reduce

methane emissions as well as provide carbon storage co-benefits. Wetlands are the largest pool

of stored carbon, and it is, therefore, important to preserve them.23

Recent studies have shown that low carbon agriculture can offer environmental, mitigation,

and productivity benefits.35,41 In contrast with intensive agricultural production systems, low

carbon agricultural practices can reduce soil erosion, pest resistance, and loss of biodiversity.42

Other studies have found that food production in developing countries could improve through

041405-4 S. Fan and A. Ramirez J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

sustainable use of water and land, crop rotation, cover cropping, agroforestry as well as organic

fertilizer use.40,43 More research, especially on low carbon poultry farming and fruit production,

is needed to identify the trade-offs among low carbon agriculture, productivity, and mitigation.

Despite the fact that trade-offs between low carbon agriculture and food productivity exist,

it is important to explore and develop win-win solutions, on a case by case basis.44 Several ag-

ricultural practices offer “triple wins” in terms of productivity, mitigation, and adaptation. For

example, studies on agricultural management in Kenya and Uganda have shown that soil nutri-

ent management, such as combinations of inorganic fertilizer, mulching, and manure, had strong

triple win potential.26,32,45 Table I below illustrates the synergies and tradeoffs that can exist

between productivity, GHG mitigation, and adaptation, for cropland management practices in

Kenya. However, although it was found that practices that were geared toward enhancing farm

productivity and climate change adaptation were already being implemented, practices that

offered mitigation co-benefits, such as minimum tillage, cover cropping, and improved fallow-

ing, showed low adoption rates. Social and cultural factors,46 including risk aversion or food

preferences could get in the way of implementing low carbon agriculture practices.47,48

Switching to low carbon agricultural practices will present opportunity but can also increase

transaction costs for farmers, especially for smallholders with limited resources in developing

countries.49 If smallholder farmers do not increase their income after bearing the initial costs of

switching to low carbon agriculture, it is likely that the adoption of low carbon agriculture prac-

tices will be low. Public provision of improved seeds and feeds, for example, where low carbon

agricultural practices are not as profitable would facilitate adoption and maximize benefits in

terms of increased productivity and GHG mitigation.47 Implementing low GHG emissions agri-

cultural practices that enhance climate change adaptation and mitigation as well as productivity

and food security will also raising awareness among government, extension service workers, and

farmers on the triple win potential of low carbon agriculture. It also entails building technical

capacity and providing economic incentives for smallholder farms, family farms, and commercial

FIG. 1. Global technical mitigation potential by 2030 of each agricultural management practice showing the impacts of

each practice on each GHG (Ref. 10). Reprinted with permission from P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen,

P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, and O. Sirotenko, “Agriculture,” in Climate Change 2007:

Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, edited by B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. A. Meyer (Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 2007). VC 2007 Cambridge University Press.

041405-5 Food security and low carbon agriculture J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

farms as well as other actors involved in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries to adopt those

practices, without having to bear the transaction costs on their own.

V. INNOVATIONS, INVESTMENTS, AND INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE LOW CARBON

AGRICULTURE

Low carbon agriculture initiatives are already being implemented in different parts of the

developing and developed world. But new policy and expanded market incentives are needed to

encourage farmers, governments, and the private sector to invest in and switch to low carbonagriculture without comprising food security of the poor. Technological innovations that help to

measure, track, and map GHG emissions are needed to better target and monitor the mitigation

potential held in agriculture. These innovations are necessary steps toward making low carbonagriculture a technologically and economically feasible option to farmers across the world.

A. Expand GHG emission reductions markets to agriculture

The United Nations’ programs on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degrada-

tion (REDD and REDDþ) provide financial incentives and technical support to developing coun-

tries in their efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation,

and management as well as by enhancing forest carbon stocks. REDD and REDDþ forest proj-

ects are active in 13 countries across the developing world.50 Since 2006, the Clean Develop-

ment Mechanism (CDM) has helped to developing countries earn and trade emission credits

from activities that result in emissions reduction, but until recently, agricultural projects were

not eligible. Although progress has been made and farmers can now benefit from credits for

methane emissions from irrigated rice, more needs to be done to expand the range of agricultural

practices eligible to international carbon markets.

In order for 2012 post-Kyoto agreement and subsequent CDM methodologies to be widened

to further agricultural and land-management practices, technological innovations must be devel-

oped, tested, and scaled-up. These should focus on carbon sequestration calculation and valida-

tion of baselines as well as carbon storage tracking across farming and land-use systems, all of

FIG. 2. Economic potential for GHG agricultural mitigation by 2030 at a range of prices of CO2-equivalent in US$

(Ref. 10). Reprinted with permission from P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S.

Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, and O. Sirotenko, “Agriculture,” in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution

of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by B.

Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. A. Meyer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

and New York, NY, 2007). VC 2007 Cambridge University Press.

041405-6 S. Fan and A. Ramirez J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

TABLE I. Synergies and tradeoffs between productivity, GHG mitigation, and adaptation benefits for cropland management practices in Kenya (see Ref. 60).

Management practice Productivity impacts Mitigation potential Adaptation benefits

Improved crop varieties or types

(early-maturing, drought resistant, etc.)

Increased crop yield and reduced

yield variability

Improved varieties can

increase soil carbon storage

Increased resilience against climate change, particularly

increases in climate variability

(prolonged periods of drought, seasonal

shifts in rainfall, and the like)

Changing planting dates Reduced likelihood

of crop failure

Maintained production under changing rainfall patterns,

such as changes in the timing of rains or erratic

rainfall patterns

Improved crop=fallow rotation=rotation with legumes

Increased soil fertility and yields over

the medium to long term due to

nitrogen fixing in soils;

short-term losses due to reduced

cropping intensity

High mitigation potential,

particularly crop rotation

with legumes

Improved soil fertility and water holding capacity

increases resilience to climate change

Use of cover crops Increased yields due to erosion control and

reduced nutrient leaching;

potential tradeoff due to less grazing

area in mixed crop–livestock systems

High mitigation potential

through increased soil carbon

sequestration

Improved soil fertility and water holding capacity

increases resilience to climate change

Appropriate use of fertilizerand manure

Higher yields due to appropriate

use of fertilizer/manure

High mitigation potential, particularly

where fertilizer has been underutilized,

such as in SSA

Improved productivity increases resilience to

climate change; potential greater yield variability

with frequent droughts

041405-7

Food

security

and

low

carb

on

agric

ultu

reJ.

Renew

able

Susta

inable

Energ

y4,041405

(2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP: 129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

which are lacking in developing countries. Developing countries will also need to build their

technical capacity to implement, trade, and monitor mitigation activities as well as to reduce

transaction costs at the local level. Such efforts will create an enabling environment for agricul-

tural mitigation and are likely to contribute to reducing the associated risks and costs perceived

by farmers and investors.

B. Develop GHG emission reductions measurement tools

In the past, the exclusion of agricultural projects from emissions trading was based on

uncertainties related to measuring the extent of GHG emissions and carbon sequestration as well

as the anticipated high costs of monitoring, reporting, verifying, and organizing farmers. Now

emission quantification tools spanning a wide array of agricultural activities and practices are

available and ready to use.51 Timely, cost-effective, and nondestructive methods, using laser and

infrared technologies, are also being developed and tested to measure the amount of carbon that

is stored in agricultural soils.52 They have been applied in the Brazilian cerrado (savannah) and

Andean wetlands in Peru and could easily be scaled-up in other developing countries.51 Data on

agriculture, land-use change, and deforestation can be sourced in different ways, for example,

through remote sensing or censuses. Each presents advantages: remote sensing can offer high re-

solution and precise spatial definition, and censuses can convey useful and specific information

on crops and farm management.

Cutting-edge innovations that combine spatial technologies and remote sensing, such as geo-

graphic information systems (GIS), have the potential to track and predict actual or avoided

GHG emissions from agriculture, land-use change, and deforestation. Online platforms, such as

ArcGIS,53 now provide an accessible way of organizing and sharing geographic and environmen-

tal data, which can be used to identify regions with actual high GHG emissions as well as those

with mitigation potential. As GIS technologies have improved so has the precision of the data,

allowing the visualization of natural resources and emissions at more disaggregated levels. Initia-

tives such as the regional carbon sequestration partnerships (RCSPs) in the United States use

ArcGIS to build a carbon sequestration map for the United States and Canada, putting together

data on carbon sources, potential storage sites, transportation, and land use. Innovative projects

like these must be scaled-up to agriculture, forestry, and rural areas. The RCSPs are imple-

mented in three phases: (1) the characterization phase, which identifies potential locations for

carbon storage; (2) the validation phase, which tests carbon storage on a small scale; and (3) the

development phase, which involves large-scale field testing involving at least 1� 106 metric ton

of carbon per project.54 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) built a

tropical forest carbon map for Africa, Asia, and Latin America, using data from the Geoscience

Laser Altimeter System lidar on NASA’s ICESat satellite.55 This technology has also been used

to build one of the most precise forest carbon maps available for Gabon’s forests and has the

potential to be used in tropical forests in other developing countries. Innovative emissions mea-

surement tools are a necessary basis in order to build efficient market and policy incentives for

low GHG emissions agriculture.

C. Develop low carbon agriculture policy incentives

The methodological and technological bases discussed in subsection V B enabled the devel-

opment of voluntary emissions schemes and pre-compliance markets for carbon offsets around

the forestry, biomass, and industrial sectors. Similar voluntary schemes for agricultural emissions

trading have been put in place in Australia, China, and New Zealand and should be piloted and

scaled-up in developing countries so that mitigation and economic opportunities are not missed.

In 2011, the Australian parliament approved the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). The CFI

seeks to create legislation to establish a carbon crediting mechanism, to stimulate the develop-

ment of methodologies for carbon mitigation projects, and to develop and disseminate informa-

tion and tools so that farmers can benefit from this opportunity. Table II offers a summary of

some of the key mitigation techniques supported by the CFI, as well as their estimated mitiga-

tion potential. Qualifying carbon mitigation credits include emissions reduction that result from

041405-8 S. Fan and A. Ramirez J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

the capture and destruction of CH4 emissions from landfill or livestock manure as well as soil or

tree carbon sequestration through forest planting and improved soil management. CFI activities

cover both Kyoto activities and non-Kyoto recognized activities. These credits are open for pur-

chase by individuals and companies to offset the emissions they generate and can be used to

meet regulatory requirements or on a voluntary basis, as long as carbon sequestration is addi-

tional to normal=current practices. Offset projects established under the CFI will need to apply

government-approved methodologies, which are can be developed by both the private and public

sectors.56

Low GHG emissions agricultural practices are readily available and implementable, but

they are seldom profitable to farmers. The opportunity costs of switching to low carbon agricul-

ture are high, especially for poor smallholder farmers, who make up the majority of farmers

and manage most of the agricultural lands across the world. Also, perceived risks and costs of

investing in mitigation activities and practices are a considerable barrier to low carbon agricul-

ture. Policymakers must therefore provide incentives to foster change across the board of agri-

cultural stakeholders.

In Brazil, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Production launched a Low Carbon

Agriculture program (ABC in Portuguese) in 2010. It is meant as an incentive to encourage

farmers to adopt technological processes that neutralize or minimize the effects of on-farm GHG

emissions. The program funds the implementation and scaling-up of integrated agriculture sys-

tems with livestock or crop-livestock-forestry systems as well as soil conservation practices,

maintenance of commercial forests, restoration of preservation areas or forest reserves, and other

practices that involve a sustainable production and low GHG emissions.57 The program provides

a credit of US$1.3 billion to sustainable and low carbon farm practices that show a positive bal-

ance between sequestration and carbon dioxide emissions. Resources are guaranteed to farmers

and cooperatives, and the funds are limited to US$600 000 per recipient. Table III summarizes

some key low carbon agriculture techniques that are supported by ABC, as well as their esti-

mated mitigation potential.

D. Plan for and prioritize low carbon agriculture options

Building consensus for and prioritizing among low carbon agriculture options is crucial in

order to achieve low carbon agriculture in a way that enhances food security and helps poor peo-

ple and smallholders meet needs and seize opportunities. For this to occur, policymakers, invest-

ors, and farmers need tools to prioritize, calculate costs and benefits, and implement low carbonagriculture plans. The McKinsey GHG abatement curve on mitigation potential is a good start

TABLE II. CFI supported techniques and mitigation potential (see Ref. 61).

Technique Mitigation potential Hectares covered

Kyoto

Reforestation 1 Mt CO2-e and 2 Mt CO2-e in 2020 66 800 ha

Avoided deforestation 1.5 Mt CO2-e and 6 Mt CO2-e in 2020 10 000 and 20 000 ha

Managed re-growth in deforested areas 170 000 and 355 000 ha

Reducing enteric fermentation 0.2 and 1.3 Mt CO2-e in 2020 —

Nitrous oxide emissions 0.01 Mt CO2-e and 0.2 Mt CO2-e in 2020 —

Manure management 0.03 and 1.1 Mt CO2-e per year —

Rice cultivation 0.03 Mt CO2-e in 2020 —

Field burning residues Negligible

Savannah fire management 0.3 and 0.6 Mt CO2-e in 2020 —

Legacy waste management 0.7 Mt CO2-e and 3.5 Mt CO2-e in 2020 —

Non-Kyoto

Soil carbon on cropping land 0.3 and 0.5 Mt CO2-e per year in 2020 —

041405-9 Food security and low carbon agriculture J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

Table III. ABC supported techniques and mitigation potential (see Ref. 57).

Technique Objective Hectares covered Mitigation potential

Direct planting The technique avoids tilling, prevents erosion, protects the soil,

and reduces water use, increases crop yields and lowers machinery

and fuel costs

33� 106 ha Up to 20� 106 ton of

CO2 equivalent

Recovery of degraded pastures The goal is to transform the land into productive areas worn

out by food, fiber, meat, and forestry production

15� 106 ha Up to 104� 106 ton of

CO2 equivalent

Integrated crop-livestock-forestry The objective is to alternate between agriculture, pasture, and forestry

in a single farm area. It would improve soil fertility

and carbon storage capacity as well as create jobs and increase incomes.

4� 106 ha Up to 22� 106 ton of

CO2 equivalent

Planting of commercial forests The planting of eucalyptus and pine can provide future incomes for

producers and mitigate carbon emissions through the oxygen released by the trees.

6–9� 106 ha Projection not

available

Biological nitrogen fixation The technique aims to develop microorganisms=bacteria to capture nitrogen

in the air and turn it into organic matter for crops, resulting in a reduction of production

costs and improvements in soil fertility.

5.5� 106 ha 10� 106 ton of

CO2 equivalent

Animal waste treatment This technique aims at turning waste from pigs and other animals into gas and

organic compost. This technique would actually benefit from certified emission reduction.

4.4� 106 m3 of waste from pig farming and other

activities, which would avoid

6.9� 106 ton of

CO2 equivalent

041405-1

0S

.F

an

and

A.R

am

irez

J.R

enew

able

Susta

inable

Energ

y4,041405

(2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP: 129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

for identifying the most economically viable options for any given country or region. In a more

specific manner, the IFPRI IMPACT model generates projections on climate change and food se-

curity up until 2050 using human, macro-economic, climate, and natural resource drivers of

change, which are essential when it comes to planning strategically for climate change in the ag-

ricultural sector.2 Finally, priority-setting mechanisms can allow farmers and other rural stake-

holders to plan for climate change and implement mitigation and adaptation actions.58 In order to

harness agriculture’s low carbon potential in a way that is pro-poor and that benefits smallholders

and women, it is crucial that they are included in planning, priority-setting, and decision-making

processes.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Developing countries will have to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change while

at the same time achieve food security and broader development goals. Bold innovations and

investments are needed so that farmers in developing countries can shift to low GHG agriculture

in the very near future. New cost-effective and nondestructive technologies that allow GHG

emissions to be measured and monitored should be implemented in developing countries so they

have the capacity to build and monitor carbon markets. Also, donors and private sector partners

must come together to test, apply, and scale-up the use of these tools in developing countries.

Although a switch to low GHG agricultural practices is easily implementable, new low

GHG technologies and carbon storage practices must be developed in order to expand the scope

of low carbon options for farmers. The adoption of low carbon agricultural practices in devel-

oping countries is likely to have transaction costs for farmers. Developing country governments

should therefore put into place policy and financial incentives that encourage the adoption of

low carbon agricultural, land management, and forestry practices.59 The ABC program in Brazil

and the CFI in Australia are good examples that could be replicated and scaled-up in numerous

developing countries. Capacity-building in low carbon agriculture technologies, practices, and

policies in developing countries should be encouraged across all levels—from farmers to minis-

tries—and across all sectors, from the private energy sector to public extension systems. This

will help developing countries analyze, plan, and prioritize technology, practices, and policy

options as well as better identify low carbon opportunities that are a win-win to mitigate

against climate change and achieve food security. In order to take advantage of these opportuni-

ties in a way that is pro-poor, and that benefits smallholder farmers and women, planning, pri-

ority setting, and decision making processes must be inclusive and focus on the poorest and

most vulnerable populations.

1IPCC, An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 2007).

2G. Nelson, M. W. Rosegrant, A. Palazzo, I. Gray, C. Ingersoll, R. Robertson, S. Tokgoz, T. Zhu, T. Susler, C. Ringler,S. Msangi, and L. You, Food Security, Farming and Climate Change to 2050 (IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2010).

3FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World, Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises (FAO, Geneva, 2010).4World Bank, World Development Report, Development and Climate Change (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2010).5S. Fan, M. Torero, and D. Headey, Urgent Actions Needed to Prevent Recurring Food Crises IFPRI Policy Brief 16(IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2011).

6D. S. Battisti and R. L. Naylor, Science 323, 240 (2009).7A. Iglesias, S. Quiroga, and A. Diz, Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38(3), 427 (2011).8M. Invanic and W. Martin, AgBioForum 13(4), 308 (2010).9A. Evans, “The feeding of the nine billion: Global food security for the 21st century,” Chatham House Report (The RoyalInstitute of International Affairs, London, 2009).

10P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, andO. Sirotenko, “Agriculture,” in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch,R. Dave, and L. A. Meyer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 2007).

11J. Olesen and M. Bindi, Eur. J. Agron. 16, 239 (2002).12T. Carter, R. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L. O. Mearns, B. O’Neill, M. Rounsevell, and M. Zurek, “New assess-

ment methods and the characterisation of future conditions,” in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulner-ability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, edited by M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007), pp. 133–171.

041405-11 Food security and low carbon agriculture J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

13IPCC, “Summary for policymakers,” in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by S. Solomon,D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 2007).

14D. Lobell, W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts, Science 29, 616 (2011).15J. Gornall, R. Betts, E. Burke, R. Clark, J. Camp, K. Willett, and A. Wiltshire, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 365,

2973 (2010).16Y. Li, W. Ye, M. Wang, and X. Yan, Clim. Res. 39, 31 (2009).17T. Wheeler and M. Kay, Outlook Agric. 39(4), 239 (2010).18Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

edited by M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 2007).

19R. Cruz, H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh, in Asia.Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assess-ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof,P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007), pp. 469–506.

20M. Boko, I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Githeko, M. Medany, B. Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo, and P. Yanda, in Africa.Climate Change, 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assess-ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof,P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007), pp. 433–467.

21E. Nkonya, N. Gerber, P. Baumgartner, J. von Braun, A. De Pinto, V. Graw, E. Kato, J. Kloos, and T. Walter, The Eco-nomics of Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought, IFPRI Discussion Paper (IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2011).

22“Climate change and water,” in Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by B. Bates,Z. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. Palutikof (IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 2008).

23R. Lal, Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change 12, 303 (2007).24G. Nelson, M. Rosegrant, J. Koo, R. Robertson, T. Sulser, T. Zhu, C. Ringler, S. Msangi, A. Palazzo, M. Batka, M. Mag-

alhaes, R. Valmonte-Santos, M. Ewing, and D. Lee, Climate Change Impact on Agriculture and Cost of Adaptation(IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2010).

25P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, andO. Sirotenko, “Agriculture,” in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch,R. Dave, and L. A. Meyer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 2007).

26T. Garnett, Food Policy 36, 23 (2011).27See http://www.isric.org/global-issues for world soil information, accessed on August 8, 2011.28J. Bellarby, B. Foereid, A. Hastings, and P. Smith, Cool Farming: Climate Impacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Poten-

tial, Greenpeace (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008).29US-EPA, “Global anthropogenic emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases 1990–2020” (2006), http://www.epa.gov/clima-

techange/economics/downloads/GlobalAnthroEmissionsReport.pdf.30A. Y. Hoekstra and A. K. Chapagain, Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources (Blackwell,

Oxford, 2008).31See http://www.veoliawaterna.com/north-america-water/ressources/documents/1/19979,IFPRI-White-Paper.pdf for veo-

lia water whitepaper, accessed on August 8, 2011.32P. West, H. Gibbs, C. Monfreda, J. Wagnere, C. Barford, S. Carpenter, and J. Foley, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

107(46), 1 (2010).33D. Lapolaa, R. Schaldacha, J. Alcamoa, A. Bondeaud, J. Kocha, C. Koelkinga, and J. Priesse, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U.S.A. 107(8), 1 (2010).34E. Bryan, W. Akpalu, C. Ringler, and M. Yesuf, Global Carbon Markets: Are There Opportunities for Sub-Saharan

Africa (IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2008).35E. F. Lambin and P. Meyfroidt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108(9), 3465 (2011).36FAO, Low Greenhouse Gas Agriculture, Mitigation and Adaptation Potential of Sustainable Farming Systems (FAO, Ge-

neva, 2009).37C. Badgley, J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vazquez, A. Samulon, and I. Perfecto, Renew-

able Agric. Food Syst. 22(2), 86 (2007).38M. Dumas, E. Frossard, and R. Scholz, Chemosphere, 84(6), 798 (2011).39H. Sandhu, Stephen D. Wratten, and R. Cullen, Environ. Sci. Policy 13(1), 1 (2010).40G. Nelson, R. Robertson, S. Msangi, T. Zhu, X. Liao, and P. Jawajar, “Greenhouse gas mitigation, issues for Indian

agriculture,” in IFPRI Discussion Paper (IFPRI, Washington, DC, 2009).41D. Lynch, R. MacRae, and R. Martin, Sustainability 3, 322 (2011).42J. N. Pretty, J. I. L. Morison, and R. E. Hine, Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 95(1), 217 (2003).43N. Uphoff, Int. J. Agric. Sustainability 1, 38 (2003).44Organic Crop Production—Ambitions and Limitations, edited by H. Kirchmann and L. Bergstrom (Springer, Dordrecht,

The Netherlands, 2008), 240 p.45E. Kato, E. Nkonya, F. Place, and M. Mwanjalolo, An Econometric Investigation of Impacts of Sustainable Land Manage-

ment Practices on Soil Carbon and Yield Risk, a Potential for Climate Change Mitigation (IFPRI, Washington, DC,2010).

46J. Zhang, Y. Hui Sui, Y. Zheng, and X. Biao Geng, Adv. Mater. Res. 1105, 361 (2011).47J. Beddington, Philos. Trans. Soc. London 365, 61 (2010).48M. Yesuf and R. Bluffstone, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91(4), 1022 (2009).49A. Balderas Torres, R. Marchant, J. Lovett, J. Smart, and R. Tipper, Ecol. Econ. 69(3), 469 (2010).50See http://www.un-redd.org/AboutUNREDDProgramme/tabid/583/Default.aspx for United Nations REDD, accessed on

August 8, 2011.

041405-12 S. Fan and A. Ramirez J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29

51Leading Carbon Ltd., ClimateCHECK Corporation, and KHK Consulting, “Agriculture sector greenhouse gas practicesand quantification review from agriculture projects M-AGG” (2010).

52D. Milori, A. Segnini, W. da Silva, A. Posadas, V. Mares, R. Quiroz, and L. Martin-Neto, Emerging Techniques for SoilCarbon Measurements (CGIAR, Washington, DC, 2011).

53See http://www.arcgis.com/home/ for ArcGIS, accessed on August 8, 2011.54See http://www.esriro.ro/industries/climate/casestudies.html#national_carbon_sequestration_panel for ESRI, accessed on

August 8, 2011.55See http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release¼2011-165 for NASA, accessed on August 8, 2011.56See http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initative.aspx for Australian Department of

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, accessed on August 8, 201157Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, http://www.agricultura.gov.br/desenvolvimento-sustentavel/programa-abc “Fisheries

and production agricultural plan 2010–2011.”58World Bank, Building Response Strategies to Climate Change in Agricultural Systems in Latin America (World Bank,

Washington, DC, 2009).59B. M. Khan and D. Zaks, Investing in Agriculture: Far-Reaching Challenge, Significant Opportunity (Deutsch Bank Cli-

mate Change Advisors, Frankfurt, Germany, 2009).60E. Bryan, C. Ringler B. Okoba, J. Koo, M. Herrero, and S. Silvestri, “Agricultural management for climate change adap-

tation, greenhouse gas mitigation, and agricultural productivity insights from Kenya” (IFPRI Discussion Paper, June2011), Washington, DC, 2011.

61Carbon Farming Initiative, Preliminary Abatement Estimates (Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Effi-ciency, Canberra, 2011).

041405-13 Food security and low carbon agriculture J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 041405 (2012)

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

129.93.17.81 On: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29