--Given the threat of cc to agricultural production and the livelihoods of poor producers, decision-makers should adopt practices that provide the greatest benefits in terms of adaptation, profitability/productivity, and mitigation --Given the positive correlation between soil carbon and crop yield Agricultural practices that improve soil fertility and enhance carbon sequestration also improve yield
HH survey covered 7 districts and 13 divisions of Kenya These sites cover a range of AEZs including arid, semi-arid, temperate and humid zones, as well as production systems and policy and institutional environments The survey covered the areas in which two Biocarbon Fund-supported carbon sequestration projects are operating. These projects, Sustainable Management Services (SMS), Ltd. and Vi Agroforestry, are the only two land-based agricultural mitigation projects in Africa.
While the number of farmers that did not adjust their farming practices in response to perceived climate change (19 percent) may seem high, this figure is relatively low compared to similar data collected from Ethiopia and South Africa, where 37 percent and 62 percent, respectively, did not adapt to perceived changes in climate Apart from planting trees, the adaptive responses reported frequently require little investment to implement—e.g. purchasing new varieties or crop types, receiving training or information on soil and water conservation
The main desired adaptations (irrigation and agroforestry) require a more significant initial investment by farmers; and, in the case of irrigation, access to water is also crucial. When discussing constraints to implementing these measures farmers reported lack of money or access to credit (63 percent) and lack of access to water (26 percent), in the case of irrigation; and lack of money/credit (55 percent), lack of access to land (6 percent) and water (20 percent), lack of inputs (10 percent), and lack of information (5 percent), in the case of agroforestry/afforestation, as significant impediments to adoption. Despite the relatively lower cost of implementation, a large number of farmers (32 percent) also responded that they would like to change crop variety. These farmers reported no money/credit (36 percent), lack of access to inputs (26 percent), and lack of information (24 percent) as the most major constraints to adopting new varieties.
--Given the positive correlation between soil carbon and crop yield Agricultural practices that improve soil fertility and enhance carbon sequestration also improve yield
Transcript of "Barrack Okoba: Agricultural land management: capturing synergies between climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and agricultural productivity"
SYNERGIES AMONG ADAPTATION, MITIGATION, AND PROFITABILITY Elizabeth Bryan, Claudia Ringler, Barrack Okoba, Jawoo Koo, Mario Herrero, and Silvia Silvestri Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9-11 March 2011
Agricultural scenes - Land degradation, reducing livestock,
Background <ul><li>Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, because of their limited capacity to adapt. </li></ul><ul><li>The development challenges in most of the African countries are considerable (poverty rate, labour force dependency on agriculture), and climate change will only add to these. </li></ul><ul><li>Efforts to facilitate adaptation are needed to enhance the resilience of the agriculture sector, ensure food security, and reduce rural poverty. </li></ul><ul><li>Not only is adaptation needed to increase the resilience of poor farmers to the threat of climate change, it also offers co-benefits in terms of agricultural mitigation and productivity. </li></ul>
Background <ul><li>Many of the practices that increase resilience to climate change also increase agricultural productivity/profitability and reduce GHG emissions from agriculture. At the same time, there may be tradeoffs between increasing farm productivity/profitability, adaptation, and mitigation. </li></ul><ul><li>To maximize synergies and reduce trade-offs implicit in various crop, livestock, and land management practices, a more holistic view of food security, agricultural adaptation, mitigation, and development is required. </li></ul><ul><li>Policymakers should aim to promote adaptation strategies that have the greatest co-benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, climate change mitigation, and sustainable development. </li></ul><ul><li>There is little research to date on the synergies and tradeoffs between agricultural adaptation, mitigation, and productivity impacts. </li></ul>
Low High Food Security Prospects Mitigation Potential Source: Adapted from FAO (2009) Synergies and Tradeoffs between Mitigation and Food Security Biofuels Conservation tillage/ residue management Integrated soil fertility management Improved seed Irrigation (low energy using..) Conservation tillage/residue management Improved fallow Overgrazing Soil nutrient mining Bare fallow GW pumping Mechanized farming Low High
CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Linkage between Palmer Drought Severity Index and GDP Growth IFPRI (2006)
SYNERGIES: WHAT THE LITERATURE SUGGESTS Management practices Productivity Variability Adaptation Mitigation potential short term long term Improved crop varieties and/or types ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ Depends on variety/type Changing planting dates ↓ +++ Improved crop/fallow ↓ ↑ ++ High, particularly for rotation with legumes rotation/rotation with legumes Use of cover crops ↑ ↑ ++ High Appropriate fertilizer/manure use ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ High, particularly when underutilized as in SSA Incorporation of crop residues ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ High Reduced/zero tillage ↓ ↑ ↓ + High Agroforestry ↓ ↑ ↓ + High Irrigation/water harvesting ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ when well designed and maintained Low to high depending on whether irrigation is energy intensive or not Bunds, terraces, ridge and furrow, diversion ditches ↓ ↑ ↓ +++ Low, minus soil carbon losses due to construction Grass strips ↓ ↑ ↓ +++ Positive mitigation benefits Sources: FAO 2009, Smith et al. 2008
PROJECT OBJECTIVES <ul><li>Assessment CC and CV impacts on agriculture in Kenya </li></ul><ul><li>Assess HH and community adaptation strategies available </li></ul><ul><li>Identify agricultural land management practices that help address CV and CC, ag mitigation and productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Identify determinants of adaptation </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the feasibility of adaptation options. </li></ul><ul><li>Identify public action to support adaptation options </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
STUDY SITES & DESIGN Project District Agroecological zone Freq. ALRMP and Control* Garissa Arid 134 ALRMP Mbeere South Semi Arid 97 Control Njoro Semi Arid 104 SMS, Ltd. Mukurweini Temperate 95 Control Othaya Temperate 88 Vi Agroforestry Gem Humid 96 Control Siaya Humid 96 Total 710 *The survey covered households in Garissa that participated in ALRMP (66) as well as those that did not (68).
METHODS TO ASSESS SYNERGIES/TRADEOFFS <ul><li>Descriptive analysis of land management practices and adaptation strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Just and Pope production function to show yield and yield variability implications of management strategies </li></ul><ul><li>The CERES-Maize 4.5 model and DSSAT-CENTURY module to simulate maize growth/yield and soil organic matter dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>ILRI livestock simulation model </li></ul>
WHAT LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE FARMERS USING ON CROPLAND?
ARE FARMERS AWARE THAT AGRICULTURE CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE? <ul><li>67% of farmers stated that they are aware </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extensive media reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Government campaigns and speeches related to climate change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 st Ag Carbon Mitigation project located in Kenya </li></ul></ul>
FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES THAT REDUCE CLIMATE CHANGE (%)
ABOVE GROUND CARBON STOCK BASED ON SATELLITE IMAGES
YIELD AND SOC UNDER ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (GARISSA-SAND)
YIELD AND SOC UNDER ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (GARISSA-CLAY)
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT INCREASE SOC (DSSAT MODELING) <ul><li>Crop residues increase SCS considerably </li></ul><ul><li>Inorganic fertilizer only increases SOC when applied with manure, mulching and/or crop residues </li></ul><ul><li>Intercropping of maize and beans or rotation of maize and beans—a key management practice used in much of Kenya—has only limited SCS benefits (insufficient biomass generation) </li></ul>
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT INCREASE SOC (DSSAT MODELING) <ul><li>Soil water conservation technologies—represented as increased soil water availability prior to planting—show mixed results regarding carbon sequestration, even under a drier future, but are important in Arid areas </li></ul><ul><li>Results are similar under dry and wet climate scenarios </li></ul>
ARID ZONE SUMMARY <ul><li>In the arid site, maize yields under rainfed conditions are very low due to limited water availability </li></ul><ul><li>Irrigation is essential to achieve reasonable yield levels. </li></ul><ul><li>In particular, yields are maximized when SWC and irrigation are combined </li></ul><ul><li>Results are similar for both soil types and maize varieties </li></ul>
SEMI-ARID AND TEMPERATE ZONES SUMMARY <ul><li>In the semi-arid sites, water is somewhat limited </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, SWC management practices and irrigation increase yield levels </li></ul><ul><li>However, yield improvements are much larger from higher nitrogen inputs from both fertilizers and manure </li></ul><ul><li>Results are similar in the humid/temperate sites </li></ul>
HUMID ZONE SUMMARY <ul><li>In the sub-humid sites, water is readily available in general, while nitrogen is limited. </li></ul><ul><li>As a result: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effects of SWC techniques are limited </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Irrigation lowered the average yield across all management packages, possibly due to the increased nitrogen leaching from the soil </li></ul></ul></ul>
POLICY IMPLICATIONS <ul><li>Win-win-win strategies among adaptation, mitigation, and profitability do exist, but have yet to be strategically exploited </li></ul><ul><li>To do so will require capacity building at national level to ensure that agricultural productivity and food security strategies and policies explicitly include climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects (including NAMA preparation) </li></ul><ul><li>Better dialogue between Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment (UNFCCC focal point) can support triple-win strategies </li></ul>
POLICY IMPLICATIONS <ul><li>To exploit agricultural mitigation potential requires </li></ul><ul><li>Development of measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) guidelines at national levels and development of baselines </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity building for researcher and advisory agents, including development of MRV systems, </li></ul><ul><li>Generation and dissemination of triple-win technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Advice to farmers based on demand-driven approaches </li></ul>
POLICY IMPLICATIONS <ul><li>To exploit agricultural mitigation potential requires </li></ul><ul><li>Support to project developers of climate-smart/carbon projects in form of project development and implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation and application of MRV systems, risk management aspects (e.g. guarantee or loan to be paid back upon ER delivery) </li></ul>
POLICY IMPLICATIONS <ul><li>Many options for financial support: </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon markets </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptation funds </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation funds/NAMAs with less strict MRV requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Financial instruments such as guarantees/loans to private sector (and other institutions) </li></ul><ul><li>Micro-finance </li></ul>
<ul><li>CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL – “so far, our adaptive gears are getting undermined, we need help” – future farmers in Arid Kenya </li></ul>THANK YOU
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.