Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS Low emissions agricultureLand Use Perspectives and Climate Change Mitigation, WUR 2016

Food, poverty and climate change mitigation

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Why bother to mitigate agricultural emissions?…especially if we have to solve food and climate

vulnerability problems at the same time?

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part CGIARResearchProgramonClimateChangeAgricultureandFoodSecurity(CCAFS)

Mission:Increasingfoodsecurityinthefaceofclimatechangewhilealsoreducingclimateimpacts

Includesadapatation andmitigation

• 15CGIARcenters• 200+scientistsin20+countries• Pluspartnerorganizations,including

Wageningen University

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

LivestockPlus (CIAT, ICRAF)

Nitrogen fertilizerefficiency and N2O estimates (CIMMYT, WUR)

Avoided deforestation and cattle (CIFOR)

Low emissions development pathways for livestock (ILRI)

Mitigation priorities in rice-dominated landscapes (IRRI)

CCAFS low emissions development: major thematic areas

Food loss and laste (WUR, IFPRI) Global

Sustainablelivestockintensification(WUR)

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part I. Reasons to mitigate GHG emissions in agriculture

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Agricultural GHG emissions matter

globally

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Agricultural emissions are also significant within countries

Agriculture contributesan average of 30% of national emissions-42 countries ≥ 50% -89 countries ≥ 20%

(Data based on National Communications, Richards et al. 2015)

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

Livestock intensification• Improve digestibility of

feed• Reduce numbers of

animals

• Reduces emissions intensity up to 20X for beef, 300X for dairy(without considering LUC, feed)

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

7.50 8.50 9.50 10.50 11.50m

etha

ne -

kg C

O2

/ kg

prot

ein

prod

uced

metabolisable energy (MJ/kg DM)

developed

developing

BRICS

Pastoralist farmers in Chad

Herrero et al. 2013, PNAS

Mitigation can be a development co-benefit: 1. Livestock GHG efficiency

EU, USA

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

2. Nitrogen Use Efficiency

• Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants, e.g. timing, rates, deep placement, microdosing

• Increasing NUE from 19 to 75%, decreases emissions intensity by 56% (12.7 to 7.1 g N2O-N/kg N uptake)

Groenigen et al. n.d.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

3. Water use efficiency

• Alternate wetting and drying can reduce water use by 30% and CH4emissions up to 38% and reduce fossil fuel use

• More than 200 studies, although mostly in China,Japan and Philippines.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part LED Example: Sustainable Cattle Intensification in Brazil

Sustainable intensification programs produced 18% lower GHG emissions/kg beef compared to neighboring farms not in the programs.

Practices: reduced slaughter age and increased stocking rates

Sampled 44 cattle farmers and emissions activity data from 41 farms in Mato Grosso, Amazonas, Rondonia, and Pará; 18 interviewed cattle farmers participated in one of four national projects on sustainable intensification, Guedes-Pinto et al.

2016

Cattle farm survey sites(Bogaerts et al. 2016)

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA Reduced tillage, crop residue burning reduction, nutrient management, AWD• Yield increases of 51% - 149%• AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43%• Reduced burning and residue increased

SOM• Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to

10%

Emissions intensity decreased§ Maize 117%§ Soybean 267%§ Irrigated rice 66%

LED EXAMPLE: Feed the Future USAID Program

Nash et al. 2016

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Demand for mitigation in agriculture: - 119 countries have agriculture in

their mitigation NDC. - 64% are developing countries

UNFCCC

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

II. Why mitigation in agriculture might be difficult

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Tier 1 emissions factors may be misleading

Over-prediction of emissions using default emission factors• Dashed line is a 1:2 line; data

points above this line represent an overestimation by a factor of 2 or more.

• Solid line is a 1:1 line; data points above this line represent an over-estimation of GHG emissions by the calculator.

Richards et al.2016

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Smallholders contribute ~32% of agricultural emissions

Country (ranked by emissions from smallholder

agriculture)

Agricultural emissions Mt

CO2e/yr

% land under smallholders

Smallholder agricultural emissions

Mt CO2e/yr

China 818 98% 804

India 647 44% 287

Indonesia 156 55% 86

Ethiopia 89 60% 54

Bangladesh 75 69% 51

Tanzania 44 88% 39

Pakistan 134 15% 21

Egypt 28 58% 16

Colombia* 59 28% 16

Nepal 21 69% 14

Philippines 51 25% 13

Myanmar 64 19% 12

Sum of top 12 2186 1413

Agriculture sectoremissions bysmallholderagriculture intopemittingnon-Annex Icountries 4X the agricultural

emissions of the EU or US

7% come from top 3 countries

Proportion of land under smallholdings:• Data available for

only 61 countries• Old, ranging from

1993 to 2011.

Vermeulen and Wollenberg 2015

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Need for incentives for farmers and those who advise and fund them

Sustainable cattle initiatives in Brazil

Cattle producers joined initiatives primarily to increase production and reduce production costs• Also to learn new practices, access innovations, interest

in sustainability• Only a few found new markets or earned higher prices.

Despite strong regulations and finance, barriers persist:• cost of changing farm practices, 100,000-300,000

Brazilian reais• insufficient technical assistance or capacity, and • difficulty in complying with legal standards

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part III. How much can mitigation practices contribute to the 2 °C policy target?

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

According to integrated assessment modeling, e.g. IMAGE

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part 1 GtCO2e mitigation needed annually in agriculture by 2030 (11-18% reduction)

Wollenberg et al. 2016

Agriculture will need to limit GHG emissions to 6-8 GtCO2e (out of all-sector total of 26 GtCO2e) by 2030

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Feasible?Selected mitigation practices compatible with food production• Cropland management• Grazing land management• Livestock

Not• Rewetting peatlands• Cropland set aside

IPCC AR5 Table 11.2

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

Calculated mitigation with global data sets

1. Bottom-up technology-by-technology estimates (Smith 2007, 2008, University of Aberdeen, IPCC) $20 tCO2

2. Production efficiency gains (trade and location, production system) using integrated assessment modeling (Havlík 2014, IIASA) $20, $50 tCO2

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Contributions of mitigation scenarios compared to the 2°C mitigation goal for agriculture

0.21

0.40

0.92

1.19

1.23

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5Mitigation (GtCO2e/yr)

RCP2.6 (IMAGE) (2)

GCAM2.6 (3)

MESSAGE2.5 (4)

Technical practices USD20/t (8)

GLOBIOM USD20/t (9)

1 GtCO2e/yrmitigation to stay within

2° C

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

0.76

0.31

1.71

1.77

2.00

1.37

4.31

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5

Livestock supply chains

Decrease food waste

Shift dietary patterns

Avoided deforestation by agriculture

Soil carbon

Mitigation (GtCO2e/yr)

A more comprehensive goal fo agriculture-related land use could be up to 4-6 GtCO2e/yr or ~21% of the mitigation needed across all sectors

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

27SAI - GRA

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part Summary of pros and cons for meeting food and climate needs

• Agriculture is probably needed to meet 2°C target

• Major source of emissions and mitigation globally and nationally

• Mitigation options already exist• Mitigation options contribute to

other SDGs, e.g., food security, poverty reduction, and sustainable production

• Integrated approach to land use necessary for accounting

• Difficult to quantify; poor estimates in developing world

• Transactions costs of reaching smallholders

• Technical and policy options insufficient for 2 degree goal

• Lack of direct incentives tied to mitigation alternatives

• Political sensitivity and opposition (BRICS)

Pros Cons

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

Go for the 2° goal?

1. Not mitigating in agriculture will increase the cost of mitigation in other sectors or reduce the feasibility of meeting the 2°C goal. -Compare investment options in nuanced way.

2. Mitigation must be part of sustainable agriculture and land use vision, regardless of 2°C goal

3. Align technical support, finance, MRV for agriculture, forestry and other land uses in both supply chains and public sector jurisdictions.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId24 was not found in the file.

The image part CCAFS data and tools on website• CSA guide and

database

• Climate wizard

• Downscaled climate data

• Mitigation options tool

• Agronomic trial information

• Household surveys (baseline, IMPACT)