WG3 release Charlotte Streck 16 apr 2014


Published on

Presentation at:
Meeting global food needs with lower emissions:
IPCC report findings on climate change mitigation in agriculture
A dialog among scientists, practitioners and financiers

April 16, 2014
World Bank, Washington, DC

Following the April 13th release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Mitigation, including Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU), this event will provided an opportunity to listen to IPCC authors summarize their findings and for all participants to join in a dialog with practitioners and financiers to discuss actionable steps for mitigation in the agricultural sector.

The event was a joint effort of the World Bank, the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, and the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Published in: Science, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Amy: I edited this a bit in an attempt to make it less outliney – not sure I’ve succeeded. We still need some more thinking about how all of the pieces hang together and what an overarching intro/summary/exec sum looks like.
  • LUC = 4.5 Ag = 4.5Supply chain – almost 2
  • Numbers will change a bit
  • WG3 release Charlotte Streck 16 apr 2014

    1. 1. Strategies for Mitigating Climate Change in Agriculture Recommendations for Philanthropy
    2. 2. INTRODUCTION 2
    3. 3. GoalandApproachoftheProject Goal • Give strategic advice to the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) on grant making to catalyze work on GHG emission reductions from the agricultural sector globally. • Climate Focus and California Environment Associates (CEA) have produced an analysis of the international opportunities for agricultural GHG mitigation and the potential role for philanthropy within the context of existing or planned activities. 3
    4. 4. Consultedpeoplefortheproject 4 TECHNICAL AND STRATEGIC ADVISORY PANEL Barbara Bramble, National Wildlife Federation Bruce Campbell, CCAFS Tony Cavalieri, Gates Foundation Achim Dobermann, International Rice Research Institute Mario Herrero, CSIRO Jon Hillier, University of Aberdeen Leslie Lipper, FAO Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, ICSDT David McLaughlin, WWF Michael Obersteiner, IIASA Marc Sadler, The World Bank Philip Thornton, CCAFS Jan Kees Vis, Unilever Paul West, University of Minnesota Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS PEER REVIEWERS OF INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ANALYSES David Blandford, Pennsylvania State University Robert Boddey, EMBRAPA Leonardo Fleck, Moore Foundation Manget Garg, National Dairy Development Board, India Pierre Gerber, FAO Dana Gunders, NRDC Karin Kaechele, The World Bank Promode Kant, Institute of Green Economy Ermias Kebreab, University of California, Davis Odin Knudsen, Real Options International Brian Lipinski, WRI Peggy Neu, Meatless Mondays Marina Piatto, Imaflora Debbie Reed, Coalition on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Peter Riggs, Pivot Point Bjoern Ole Sander, IRRI Tim Searchinger, WRI Timm Tennigkeit, UNIQUE Forestry and Land use Nathalie Walker, National Wildlife Federation Reiner Wassmann, IRRI Andreas Wilkes, Values for Development UK
    6. 6. Greenhousegasemissionsfromagriculturalproductionandfoodsupply chainstotal~20%ofemissions 6 Sources: FAOStat, EDGAR 4.2, FRA 2012, Harris 2012, Vermeulen 2012, and others. Global agriculture and land use change emissions
    7. 7. Sourcesofdirectemissionsfromagriculture 7Source: FAOStat data from 2010 (accessed 2013) This report focused almost exclusively on direct agricultural emissions. Bioenergy, reduced deforestation, restoration of degraded lands, and restoration of peatlands were all out of scope.
    8. 8. Directagriculturalemissionsarespreadacrossregionsandacross productionsectors 8 Source: FAOStat data from 2010 (accessed 2013); area of pie charts scaled to regional emissions. “Ag soils” includes synthetic fertilizers, manure applied to crops, field application of crop residues, and nitrous oxide from cultivated organic soils.
    9. 9. Beefcattleandotherruminantsdominateagriculturalemissions 9 Source: FAOStat data 2008; Gerber et al. 2013; Paul West, Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota Beef, dairy, and other ruminant meat account for roughly two-thirds of direct agricultural emissions. Beef, palm, and soy are the largest agricultural-commodity drivers of land use emissions.
    11. 11. Technicalagriculturalmitigationpotentialin2030 11 Source: CEA analysis. See Annex 3 in the full report for methodology. Note: This waterfall implies that all segments are additive. In fact, they are not and this analysis did not model mitigation potential, but rather looked at discrete opportunities statically.
    12. 12. Mitigationopportunitiesbycountry 12 Source: CEA analysis. See Annex 3 in the full report for methodology. Mitigation opportunities are clustered primarily in the major agricultural economies.
    13. 13. Agriculturalcostcurvesallhavebasicallythesamestructure 13 Representative cost curve This report provided an assessment of the technical GHG mitigation potential in agriculture. It did not include an economic assessment due to insufficient data. However, the economics of mitigation follow roughly the same pattern in most geographies.
    15. 15. Developmentofrecommendations • Select top mitigation opportunities based on technical potential • Assess co-benefits and trade-offs • Identify priority regions and countries for engagement • Determine objectives • Develop interventions 15
    16. 16. 12Strategiesand41Interventions 166 Supply-Side Measures Sustainable intensification Improving nitrogen fertilizer management and production Reducing Emissions from Enteric Fermentation Sequestering carbon in agricultural systems Reducing methane emissions from rice cultivation Managing manure Demand-Side Measures Reducing food wastage Shifting dietary trends Cross-Cutting Measures Subsidies and trade Finance and investments Corporate supply chains Tracking emissions in agriculture
    17. 17. 1) Shift consumption patterns • Diets • Food waste • (Biofuels) ~ 3 Gt CO2e per year Fouroverarchingrecommendations 17 4) Support carbon sequestration, but not in lieu of other mitigation opportunities • Explore synergies in SSA and Brazil • Invest in better data • Make long-term investments (biochar) ~0.7 – 1.6 Gt CO2e per year 3) Pursue catalytic, cross-cutting interventions • Financing standards • Corporate supply chain transparency • Agriculture trade issues (WTO, UNFCCC) • Reform of major subsidy programs No CO2e estimate 2) Reduce direct emissions • Cattle/grazing lands in Brazil • Dairy cattle/feed efficiency in India • Fertilizer on croplands in China • Rice in Southeast Asia • Managing manure ~2 Gt CO2e per year
    19. 19. OverarchingRec1:ShiftingDiets While numerous researchers and institutions around the world are focused on reducing the carbon footprint of livestock production (supply), little has been done about the viability of curbing growth trajectories of meat consumption (demand). 19
    20. 20. OverarchingRec1:ShiftingDiets 20
    21. 21. OverarchingRec1:ShiftingDiets 21 Goal Objectives Interventions Reduce meat consumption, primarily of beef, to healthy levels of consumption ~2.15 Gt CO2e per year by 2030 Influence domestic policies in China and the U.S. to reduce demand Leverage existing food security policies to reduce beef production and imports, and promote alternative proteins in China Promote public health policies that incentivize healthy diets and healthy levels of protein intake in the U.S. Curb future demand of beef in China and decrease per capita meat consumption in the U.S. through media and outreach campaigns Expand national campaigns and promote health links in the U.S. Build argument and enhance communications campaigns in China
    22. 22. OverarchingRec1:ReducingFoodWastage Approximately one third of all food intended for human consumption is lost or wasted in the value chain (production, handling and storage, processing and packaging, distribution and market, and consumption). The carbon footprint of food wastage is estimated at 3.3 Gt CO2e, making it the third largest source of emissions after the U.S. and China 22
    23. 23. OverarchingRec1:ReducingFoodWastage In the developing world, losses mainly occur postharvest as a result of financial and technical limitations in production techniques, storage and transport. In contrast, losses in the developed world are mostly incurred by end consumers. 23
    24. 24. OverarchingRec1:ReducingFoodWastage 24 Goal Objectives Interventions Reduce food wastage by 60% > 2 Gt CO2e Reduce consumer food waste in China and the U.S. Revise food date labeling practices in the U.S. Support consumer education through communication campaigns Engage the private sector and reform corporate policies in China and the U.S. Measure food waste in food companies along the supply chain Reduce food loss in the value chain by improving handling and storage practices in South/ Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa Provide technical and financial support to farmers
    26. 26. OverarchingRec2:SustainableIntensification Intensification is essential for food security and can contribute to mitigation through improved emissions efficiency. Mitigation benefits depend on: 1) the compound emissions efficiency of production inputs, 2) the rebound effect of intensification 26 Goal Objectives Interventions Reduce GHG emissions through sustainable intensification Promote realization of high mitigation intensification opportunities at scale Assess mitigation effectiveness of intensification strategies in REDD+ finance Develop assessment tools to identify mitigation opportunities with high co- benefits and low / manageable tradeoffs
    27. 27. OverarchingRec2:EntericFermentation Enteric fermentation is responsible for over 40 percent of direct agricultural emissions. Beef and dairy cattle account for roughly two-thirds of all emissions from enteric fermentation. The emissions reduction potential in Brazil, India, the U.S. and E.U. alone amounts to 350Mt CO2e per year. 27
    28. 28. OverarchingRec2:EntericFermentation 28 Goal Objectives Interventions Reduce GHG emissions from enteric fermentation through improved livestock diets ~940 Mt CO2e per year Improve grazing lands management in beef production in Brazil Promote awareness and capacity of cattle ranchers through outreach and vertical integration of the supply chain Increase effectiveness of the ABC program to reduce agricultural emissions Improve feeding practices in dairy production in India Increase adoption of improved practices by making a business case and supporting outreach campaign s to processors , producers and farmers
    29. 29. OverarchingRec2:Improvingnitrogenfertilizer management andproduction 29 Nitrous oxide emissions stem from nitrogen fertilizers on croplands that have not been absorbed by plants, and leach instead into the environment. Fertilizer run-off contaminates surface and ground water quality and creates GHG emissions in the form of nitrogen oxide. The global technical mitigation potential for reducing nitrous oxide from soils is roughly 325 Mt CO2e. Goal Objectives Interventions Reduce GHG emissions from improved fertilizer management and production ~485 Mt CO2e per year Improve fertilizer use and management in China Evaluate the Soil Testing and Fertilizer Recommendation program in China and additional measures to reduce fertilizer application Support efforts in knowledge dissemination to farmers on correct fertilizer management Improve fertilizer production in China Engage the fertilizer industry through investment or outreach
    30. 30. 3. CROSS –CUTTINGMEASURES 30
    31. 31. OverarchingRec3:Steerfinancetowardshigher sustainabilitypractices 31 Considering the capital and investment needs of the agricultural sector, it is essential that baseline financial flows into agriculture be re-directed towards low emitting, carbon rich and sustainable agricultural models. Goal Objectives Interventions Steer international public funds into low- emissions agriculture Reduce GHG impact of internationally financed agricultural programs Steer donor support away from high emitting agricultural activities, especially beef production Include GHG data in investment appraisal and program evaluation Channel climate finance towards agriculture Incorporate climate-smart agriculture in design and implementation of the Green Climate Fund
    32. 32. OverarchingRec3:SubsidiesandTrade 32 Goal Objectives Interventions Create international incentives for GHG reduction and removal Incentivize GHG mitigation through subsidies reform in the U.S. and the E.U. Establish financial incentives for soil management in the U.S. and the E.U. Protect, strengthen and expand conservation programs supported through the U.S. farm bill Support farmer advisory programs in the U.S. and the E.U. Remove barriers and create incentives for GHG mitigation under the WTO and UNFCCC Support a formal or informal process to examine the trade and clime change interface in the WTO
    33. 33. OverarchingRec3:IncreaseTransparency 33 Measuring and monitoring GHG emissions is fundamental for managing emissions effectively. A robust understanding of how much carbon can be sequestered, or how much GHG emissions can be reduced by different practices, is central to making informed decisions about the most appropriate mitigation strategies. Measuring and monitoring emissions is also required to enable governments to implement policies and incentive frameworks. Goal Objectives Interventions Increase traceability and monitoring of GHG emissions from agricultural systems Measure GHG emissions from agricultural sources Develop GHG monitoring frameworks in developing countries Develop simple on-farm monitoring tools Increase the traceability of GHG emissions along the supply chain Support the development of robust emissions tracking systems across supply chains Facilitate the assessment of the impact of investments on GHG emissions Develop tools that allow investors to assess the GHG impact of their investments
    34. 34. 4. SEQUESTERINGCARBON 34
    35. 35. OverarchingRec4:SequesteringCarbonin AgriculturalSystems 35 Soils hold an enormous amount of carbon. As much as 1,500 Gt of soil organic carbon (C) is stored to a depth of one meter, versus roughly 270 Gt C stored in standing forest stocks globally. There are numerous land and crop management practices that can increase the soil organic carbon in agricultural soils. Goal Objectives Interventions Increase carbon sequestration in agricultural systems Make the case for silvopastoral systems in Brazil Initiate and support research and dialogue to establish better practices Support awareness campaigns targeted at producers to communicate best practice Increase below and above- ground carbon sequestration in agricultural systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Facilitate the development of methods and decision support tools for trade-off assessment Support scientific network to collect and analyze long-term data series of SSA soil carbon stocks and fluxes Support the development of biochar Test and scale-up biochar production and use in key markets (e.g. China, Brazil). Enhance credibility and knowledge on biochar by promoting standards in biochar production
    36. 36. Mainconclusions • The agricultural sector accounts for roughly a fifth of GHG emissions when one considers the full life cycle of production including agriculture’s role in deforestation. • A constructive debate on agriculture and climate change is hampered by a false dichotomy between food security and mitigation. The majority of GHG emissions from agriculture are life style emissions • A major part of emission reductions could be achieved by shifting consumption patterns while supply side and cross cutting measures also need to play an important role. 36 Themes • Beef & ruminants • Intensification and efficiency Types of interventions • Farmer and industry outreach • Consumer outreach • Influencing public policy • Research and tools Geography • China • EU • Brazil • India • USA • ASEAN countries • Sub Saharan Africa