Climate Smart Agriculture -ASB World Bank Presentation

958 views
817 views

Published on

Strategic Planning for Climate Smart Landscapes

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
958
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Climate Smart Agriculture -ASB World Bank Presentation

  1. 1. Strategic Planning for Climate- Smart Landscapes
  2. 2. Part I: Climate Smart Agriculture and Landscape Approaches Peter A Minang, Douglas White
  3. 3. About ASB• What is ASB? – Consortium of over 50 Institutions (International, Universities and National) created in 1994 – Research on Forest-Agriculture-Environment interactions along tropical forest margins• Goal – To raise productivity and income of rural households in the humid tropics without increasing deforestation or undermining essential environmental services.• Research Programmes – Landscape approaches to REDD+, Reducing Emissions from All Land Use- REALU – Synergies between Mitigation & Adaptation for Rural Transformations 2-SMART – Swiddens in Poverty Reduction, Climate and Environmental Services- SPACES
  4. 4. WWW.ASB.CGIAR.ORG
  5. 5. Mosaic Landscapes in Indonesia and Kenya: The dominant reality
  6. 6. Why Landscape Approaches for CSA?1. CSA practices and activities will 3. Farm level change is necessary be part of landscapes and but not sufficient. Communal compete against other land uses. use of resources and Hence tradeoffs and synergies associated externalities need to be understood (sedimentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss) requires coordinated social efforts.2. Synergy between REDD+ and CSA Higher level policy is also can lead to greater emission needed to enable scaling-up reductions and multiple productivity and resilience benefits 4. Scaling-up CSA requires cross- sectoral action and policy support at multiple scales
  7. 7. What constitutes Landscape Approaches?• Heterogeneity (Mosaic of Why? Landuses) • For Analyzing and• Integration Understanding REDD+ – Synergies, trade-offs • For Planning and – Multiple sectors, participants Implementing REDD+, – CSA vs REDD vs NAMA vs … CSA and adaptation – Multiple practices – Mitigation and adaptation • Most experience• Scale – Geography – Appropriate Scale? – Biodiversity conservation – Multiple scales (3 nested – Water management…. scales) – What problem?
  8. 8. 1. CSA activities have to be seen as part of a Landscape• CSA Practices and activities will be part of landscapes and compete against other land uses. Hence trade- offs and synergies need to be understood.
  9. 9. Agrarian dynamics: stages & trajectories
  10. 10. Point No. 2: Synergy between REDD+ and CSA canlead to greater emission reductions and multiple productivity and resilience benefits • Some CSA practices can support programs to control deforestation as a sustainable intensification strategy • Therefore CSA could be related to REDD+ as same policy instruments promote both
  11. 11. Intensification of agriculture is necessary, but not sufficient, to stop deforestation Source: Fischer et al. 2008
  12. 12. Can intensification spare forests?• 3 conditions – Yield increases – Price decreases – Area cultivated decreases• Higher yield = more food on same land area• Therefore sparing more land for forest conservation• However, demand is elastic• Therefore potentially resolve Agriculture – REDD conflict?????
  13. 13. Co-financing opportunities exist for both REDD+ and CSAChallenges: Solutions:• Increasing soil and tree • Required investments and carbon takes time – financing could be funded sometimes up to 3 years to through REDD+ agricultural yield benefits intensification approaches;• Some CSA activities such as • It could also be argued that agroforestry systems do not because these CSA generate profits during activities increase initial years of establishment resilience and productivity, they could be funded through adaptation investments in the landscape
  14. 14. Some CSA options do not yield immediate benefits, hence would need start up funding, e.g. Agroforestry 10th CropMaize Yield Gliricidia/maize Relay Fallow Improved Fallows (3-4 tons) intercropping (3-5 tons) intercropping (2-3 tons) 1 year 2 years 3 years Waiting Period before benefit accrual
  15. 15. Point No. 3: Some CSA benefits to water and biodiversity need landscape level engagements• Farm level focus is necessary • Picture of ag in but not sufficient. biodiversity context• Communal use of resources and associated externalities (sedimentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss) requires coordinated social efforts.• Higher level supporting policy is also needed.
  16. 16. Farm-level Productivity & Resilience: Improved Fallow and Drought Mitigation Chipata, Zambia (5-year average rainfall = 811 mm) 3000 2500Yield (kg ha-1) 2000 After maize 1500 After Sesbania 1000 500 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 (1001) (1017) (551) (962) (522)
  17. 17. An Landscape Example from Indonesia: RUPES at Lake Singkarak• Prospects for bringing CSA as part of a landscape approach
  18. 18. Lake Singkarak Landscape
  19. 19. CO-BENEFITS: Cocoa Intensification, increased productivity, biodiversity, and income diversification • In E. Ghana, shaded cocoa recorded more than 3x avian &, mammalian species, 4x butterfly species and 30 times plant species than full sun (Ofori-Frimpong and Asase, 2005). • In Cameroon 286 plant species counted (Sonwa et al. 2006) • Important for biodiversity in buffer zones Gockowski et al., 2006
  20. 20. Point No. 4: Promoting and developing CSA activities would not be complete• Other sectoral • An enabling legal and policy interventions may be environment would be necessary needed to enable the full – to enable cross-sectoral planning, scale carbon, resilience – with a functional and viable and productivity benefits extension system for enabling CSA from CSA – for tree rights and ownership• Policy frameworks that (e.g., landscape transformations allow emission reductions in Niger and Mali) (e.g. REDD+) and – for investments in physical and adaptation investments in market infrastructure necessary CSA would provide a great for handling (e.g. processing) opportunity. increased crop and tree products from CSA
  21. 21. Why multiple sectors and policies in Landscape approaches to CSA? Briamoh, 2012
  22. 22. Part II: Tools for integrating CSA into Landscape Approaches Doug White, Peter A Minang
  23. 23. Analytical tools• Synergies & tradeoffs amongst land uses – ASB experience – CSA and all land uses
  24. 24. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 users defined1.2 63 units of 10 73 45Logged forest 123 analysis and criteria 10 66 1.2 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 scientists devised metrics and conducted 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 measurements that fill cells 1.4 10 1069 7 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11 tC, plant NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  25. 25. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11 tC, plant NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  26. 26. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11 tC, plant NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  27. 27. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity Other qualitative storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 measures can be 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 used such as: 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 •Soil structure42 4734 296Oil palm 41 •Nutrient export 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 •Crop protection 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 Participatory soil 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 quality measures8 -11 tC, plant can also be used NPV 30y, NPV 30y, workdaysUnit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  28. 28. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity Other qualitative storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 measures can be 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 used such as: 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 •Soil structure42 4734 296Oil palm 41 •Nutrient export 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 •Crop protection 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 Participatory soil 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 quality measures8 -11 tC, plant can also be used NPV 30y, NPV 30y, workdaysUnit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness Measures of Resilience? White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  29. 29. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11 tC, plant NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  30. 30. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11 tC, plant NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  31. 31. ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon Evaluation criteria Agronomic Global environment National policy Smallholder sustainability Carbon Soil bulk Available Returns to Employ- Returns toLand useLand uses Biodiversity storage density Phosphorus land ment landForest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11 tC, plant NPV 30y, workdays NPV 30y,Unit (per ha) AG,time- species g/cm3 ppm 5% discount per year 15% discount averaged richness Are criteria salient, credible and legitimate? White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.
  32. 32. An example landscape tradeoff: Carbon – Profits 300 CocoaPrivate perspective profits (NPV, $/ha) 250 Agriculture 4yr 200 fallow 150 Oil palm Selective logged Agriculture 8yr forest (80% Dense forest 100 fallow canopy) (95% canopy) 50 Improved Logged forest pastures (65% canopy) 0 Degraded 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 pastures -50 Above-ground Carbon (tC/ha)
  33. 33. REDD+ benefits and costsPolicy and programoptions evaluatedaccording different Benefits Costsenvironmental Efficiencyequity and Carbon rents Opportunityeconomic criteria: Environmental Implementation service Transaction Water compensation Biodiversity Economic Air/Climate Livelihoods & income Socio-cultural Environmental rights & traditions Equity
  34. 34. CSA and REDD+ CSA Benefits Costs improved Efficiency productivity Carbon rents Opportunity Environmental Implementation enhanced service Transaction climate Water compensation resilience Biodiversity Economic Air/Climate Livelihoods & (Soils) income increasedmitigation and Socio-cultural Environmental rights & traditions carbonsequestration Equity
  35. 35. Planning a Land Use StrategyHelpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMAKey steps:1. Diagnose contexts – Stakeholder – Existing technologies, practices, policies and institutions
  36. 36. Stakeholder interests & land use Political administrations (national, sub- Forestry national) ministry NGOs Agriculture CBOs ministry Private Environmentindustry ministry Private Finance citizens ministry Export Loggers ministry Energy Farmers Defense ministry Hunter- Transport ministry ministry gatherers
  37. 37. Existing policies affecting land use Policy intervention Peru Promotional RestrictiveEconomic Regulation &sector Subsidy Tax break Taxes & fees penalty Research & extension Concession fee (e.g., reduced impact per haForestry / logging – RIL) Illegal timberTimber Management confiscation & fine Timber export plan fee marketing Tax m3 harvest Research & extension Seeds/plantsAgriculture/ Coca plantRanching (oilpalm, cocoa) eradication Processing facilities (oilpalm) FuelAmazon Road construction Capitalregion Mining Land tenure investment (machinery)
  38. 38. Planning a Land Use StrategyHelpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMAKey steps:1. Diagnose contexts – Stakeholder – Existing technologies, practices, policies and institutions2. Develop a results framework – With economic, equity, environmental criteria
  39. 39. Land Use Policy Performance Criteria Environmental Sustainability• Climate Emission reduction, carbon stock increase• Soils Fertility, health• Water Quality, flow regulation• Biodiversity Plants & animals
  40. 40. Land Use Policy Performance Criteria Environmental Sustainability Social Equity• Climate Emission reduction, carbon stock increase • Income distribution• Soils Fair opportunities and earnings Fertility, health • Self-determination• Water Participation and influence in policy process Quality, flow regulation • Cultural identity• Biodiversity Livelihood traditions, community social capital Plants & animals
  41. 41. Land Use Policy Performance Criteria Economic growth • Agriculture Farms, ranches • Forest Timber, firewood, hunting & gathering • Mining Metals and energy Environmental Sustainability Social Equity• Climate Emission reduction, carbon stock increase • Income distribution• Soils Fair opportunities and earnings Fertility, health • Self-determination• Water Participation and influence in policy process Quality, flow regulation • Cultural identity• Biodiversity Livelihood traditions, community social capital Plants & animals
  42. 42. Planning a Land Use StrategyHelpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMAKey steps:1. Diagnose contexts2. Develop a results framework3. Identify scenarios4. Estimate policy impacts – Stakeholders – Clarify methods and assumptions5. Identify stakeholder roles – Selecting priorities – Fulfilling contract commitments (e.g., REDD+)
  43. 43. Land Use Planning for LoW Emission Development Strategies- LUWES • A set of tools for incorporating emission reductions from all land uses including CSA, REDD+ and others with Sustainable Development Benefits • Dewi et al. 2012 @ ASB / ICRAF Indonesia
  44. 44. Summary of key messages• Synergies and tradeoffs – Many performance criteria and measurement methods – Need to address different perspectives and priorities• Overlap of CSA, REDD+, NRM, breeding, agronomy, farming systems research, environmental service compensation, rapid rural appraisal, participatory research…
  45. 45. Summary of key messages• For climate smart landscapes, attention is required of – Genetic resources • Improved plant germplasm / animal breeds and practices – increased yields build trust and ability to take on longer term and collaborative efforts – Fitting into existing farming systems – Soil and water resources • Investment - not mining, management - not use – Green manure, compost, runoff erosion control • Diversification – crop rotation, agroforestry, silvopastoral – animal manure management, fodder banks
  46. 46. Summary of key messages• For climate smart landscapes, attention is required of – Genetic resources – Soil and water resources – Human resources • Improved farm management practices • Participation in R&D and policy – community/watershed scale – environmental service compensation – sub-national/national level
  47. 47. Thank you

×