Agricultural intensification for climate change
adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Copenhagen, Denmark – 2 May 2012
Piet van Asten, Peter Läderach, Jim Gockowski
2
PRESENTATION
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Problem statement
Climate change adaptation
Climate change mitigation
Synergies and trade-off examples
Cocoa
Coffee
Challenges
Research
Policies and trade
Conclusions/Outlook
3
PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION
Climate change may cause (a.o.):
Increased drought stress
Increased pest- and disease
pressure
→ Yields decrease
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Jaramillo et al 2011
4
NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION
Example: Arabica coffee
• Areas reducing
• Areas shifting
• Suitability reducing
MAXENT approach assuming current practices and varieties
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Laderach et al., 2011
5
NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Laderach et al., 2011
6
PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION
Adaptation is required – primarily five options
Improved drought and pest-resistant varieties
Adaptation of micro-climate through shade systems
Irrigation systems
Switch to other crops
Develop new areas
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
© www.deansbeans.com
This requires investment!
Smallholder farmers may
not invest in long-term
solutions if these do not
generate short term
returns on investment
7
PROBLEM STATEMENT– CC MITIGATION
Agriculture itself contributes to GHG emissions In 2005, 1.4–1.7 gigatons of carbon (GtC) emissions, equivalent to 10–12% of
total anthropogenic GHG emissions
38% of this is N2O released from soils due to nitrogenous fertilizer
38% of this is CH4 from livestock, enteric fermentation, manure management
11% of this is CH4 from cultivation of rice
13% of this is N2O from burning of organic residues
Beyond direct emissions, agricultural drives emissions in the industrial and
energy sectors through production of fertilizers and pesticides, production and
operation of farm machinery, and on-farm energy use
Carbon footprint per unit produce is becoming marketing tool
Agriculture is biggest driver of clearing of forests In 2005, 1.5 GtC emissions was accounted for by forest removal
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
8
CLASSIFICATION FOR EAST AFRICAN COFFEE
Coffee – banana
intercrop
Unshaded
monoculture
Coffee – tree
system
Coffee
garden
Wild
coffee
Smal
lhold
er
farm
ing
Shaded
monoculture
Unshaded
monoculture
Est
ates
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
9
SMALLHOLDER COFFEE YIELDS IN EAST AFRICA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01000
20
00
30
00
40
00
coffee system
yie
ld (
kg
/ha
)
1: Arabica x banana
Unshaded (Uganda)
2: Arabica x banana
Shaded (Uganda)
3: Robusta x banana
Shaded (Uganda)
4: Arabica monocrop
Unshaded (Kenya)
5: Arabica monocrop
Unshaded (Uganda)
6: Arabica monocrop
Shaded (Uganda)
7: Robusta monocrop
Shaded (Uganda)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
→ in low input systems, shading is not decreasing yield
10
SYNERGIES AT PLOT LEVEL
Microclimate: shading reduces temperature by 2-5
Celsius
Shade plants increase revenue and food security
Shade biomass increases carbon stock → CC mitigation
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
11
CARBON FOOTPRINT – example LA
Sum = 3.7
Sum = 3.9
Sum = 9.2
Sum = 9.4
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Trad-poly �Com-poly Shad-mono �Unshad-monokg C
O2
-e/k
g-1
pa
rchm
en
t co
ffe
e
Carbon footprint per unit product
Pesticide production
Gas use
Diesel use
Electricity use
Off-farm transport
Crop residue managment
Waste water production
Fertiliser induced N2O
Fertiliser production
C sequestration in trees
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Carbon footprint of intensive systems 2-3 times higher, but
primarily caused by differences in post-harvest processing.
12
SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
↑ Data from CRIG – Ghana, presented by Joel Joffre at COPAL meeting
Gockowski and Sonwa, 2010 →
Highest yields achieved with fertilizer input and no-shade
13
SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Plot level functions Full sun monocrop
Shade tree monocrop
Banana / food intercrop
Polyculture system
Forest system
Yield quantity
Yield quality
External input use
Nutrient recycling
Production risks
Plantation life
Food security
CC adaptation
Carbon stock
Ecological services light color = low → dark color = high
Shaded systems: adaptation and mitigation synergies
Adoption constraint: short term returns on investment
Shade → lower max yield → less $
14
MITIGATION IN COFFEE
Markets increasingly focus on carbon footprint
Price incentives for farmers to plant/maintain trees in agric fields
GHG attribution along the value chain is a challenge (LCA)
Trade-offs at landscape and global level are less obvious
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Certification bodies Retailers
15
TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
→ low yields requires more area (Burney et al,
2010)
→ clearing for small-scale agriculture is the greatest cause of African deforestation (IUFRO, 2010)
→ cocoa intensification could have reduced deforestation by 21k ha in West Africa (Gockowski & Sonwa, 2010)
→ better land sparing than land sharing for biodiversity (Ben Phanal et al, 2011)
Agriculture is major driver of deforestation and GHG emission
→
16
THE TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Coffee and cocoa area should not expand or shift to preserve forests?
Possible changes in land use and crops induced by climate change
2300m
1400m
1000m
Mountain
forest
Arabica
Robusta
Cocoa / Oil palm Lowland Forest
sea level
Change crop and move up
• Lowland forest → Cocoa / Oil palm
• Robusta coffee → Cocoa / Oil Palm
• Arabica coffee → Robusta coffee
• Highland forest → Arabica coffee
17
CHALLENGES
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
• Research
• Quantify carbon costs along value chain
• Attributing carbon ‘opportunity costs’ when
not intensifying
• Balance smallholder needs at plot level
(e.g. low risk, low dependency on external
input, high sustainability) with ecological
aims at global level (e.g. forest
conservation).
• Find adaptation practices that yield short
term returns to investment but decrease
climate change vulnerability in the long
term
• Develop tools for trade-off modeling
18
CHALLENGES
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
• Policies and trade
• Make intensified agricultural systems a
viable alternative to deforestation and forest
degradation
• Develop and implement policies to prevent
higher yielding and more profitable
production systems to accelerate
encroaching at local scale
• Develop strategies for land sparing, rather
than focus too much on land sharing
• Attribute carbon ‘opportunity costs’ when
not intensifying production
• Review carbon footprint calculations?
• Encourage building in adaptation practices
19
CONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK
Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
• Adaptation to CC nearly always requires additional investments
• Farmers will not adopt if investments don’t pay off in the short term
• Building in resilience (e.g. plant shade trees, acquire new germplasm) may need to be combined with improved fertilizer input to pay off investments
• Intensification may be required to encourage adaptation at plot level
• Intensification may be required to encourage climate change mitigation at landscape level
• Technical solutions have to be supported by development, public, and private sector
• Policies and trade have to consider trade-offs across scales