Kenya synergies between agricultural adpatation and mitigation

1,062 views

Published on

This presentation describes synergies between agricultural adaptation and mitigation to climate change.

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
1,062
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Kenya synergies between agricultural adpatation and mitigation

  1. 1. SYNERGIES BETWEEN MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE: EXPERIENCE FROM KENYA Glwadys Aymone Gbetibouo University of Pretoria on behalf of Barrack Ok oba, Carla Roncoli, Claudia Ringler, and M ario Herrero Copenhagen, COP 15 December 11, 2009 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  2. 2. OUTLINE 1. Impact of climate change on Kenya 2. Synergies between adaptation and mitigation 3. Farmer perceptions of adaptation and mitigation - Preliminary results 4. Conclusions INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  3. 3. IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON KENYA INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  4. 4. WHY CLIMATE MATTERS FOR KENYA 4.0 10.0 DROUGHT INDEX 3.0 GDP GROWTH 8.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 -1.0 2.0 -2.0 0.0 -3.0 -4.0 -2.0 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI
  5. 5. KENYA: TEMPERATURE ON THE RISE Mostly: • in the cold season • for min night temps INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: Ogutu et al. (2007)
  6. 6. KENYA: CHANGE IN PRECIPITATION Small increase expected in Dec-Jan INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IPCC (2007), Herrero (2009)
  7. 7. IMPACT OF CC ON MAIZE YIELDS Kenya 2000-2050 Green= increase in yields Brown= decrease in yields Source: Jones and Thornton (2003)
  8. 8. IMPACT OF CC ON MAIZE YIELDS Kenya SSA Kenya 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2000 2050 no CC 2050 2050 2050 2050 NCAR369 CSIRO532 CSIRO369 Hadley369 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI
  9. 9. IMPACT OF CC ON CHILD MALNUTRITION (%) Projected to 2025 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2000 2025 no CC 2025 CSIRO 2025 NCAR 2025 Hadley 369 369 369 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI
  10. 10. SYNERGIES BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  11. 11. SYNERGIES & TRADEOFFS Profitability Adaptation Mitigation INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  12. 12. MITIGATION: POTENTIAL IN AGRICULTURE Estimated total technical and economic mitigation potential (0-20$/ton) on all agricultural land, incl. all management practices and all GHG Mitigation Potential by 2030 Total Agric. Land Economic at Technical Technical (M ha) (t CO2e/ha/yr) (Mt CO2e / yr) 0-20$/ton CO2eq (Mt CO2e / yr) East Africa 364 1.10 400 109 Central 177 1.02 180 49 Africa North Africa 113 0.80 90 25 South Africa 138 0.58 80 22 West Africa 302 0.73 220 60 Total 1093 0.89 970 265 (27%) • Largest potential for agricultural CF projects in East Africa (41%) Note: Estimates calculated from data provided by Smith et al (2008) (for SRES scenario B1)
  13. 13. MITIGATION: POTENTIAL IN AGRICULTURE Smallholder Commodity Livestock- Maize Biofuels Coffee Tea Sugar Maize Systems Area available Semi-arid: 3 1.6 0.15 0.15 0.14 in ha (million) 0.9 SALM: 1) Shade 1) No/ burning trees, Inter- of residues Agronomy Jatropha croppin multiple 2) Mulching GHG mitigation Nutrient mgmt Residue 1) Fuel- g no cropping systems activities Water mgmt mgmt. switch option 2) Mulching 3) Fertilizer Agroforestry 2) AR in 3) Fertilizer Kenya related Set aside land use eff emissions Existing extension - - - + ++ + service Tech. GHG 1) 1-12 mitigation 2) 2.5-5.0 2-5 0.5 3–8 ----- 7.8 in 6 years potential in t High CO2e/ha/y. bandwidth Economic mit. ++ ? ? ++ 0 + potential Source: Timm Tennigkeit
  14. 14. SYNERGIES BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION  Positive correlation between soil carbon and crop yield  Agricultural practices that improve soil fertility and enhance carbon sequestration also improve yield  Increased fertilizer application, ideally combining inorganic with organic soil fertility types  Increased and more efficient agricultural water management (reduces CO2 from fuel/electricity, conserves land)  Agricultural R&D, advisory services, and information systems support both adaptation and mitigation Page 14
  15. 15. TRADEOFFS BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION  Tradeoff between crop residues and animal feeds in parts of Kenya  Lack of application of labor-intensive soil & water fertility management practices on marginal soils (too costly/risky)  Increased fertilizer application (in conjunction with soil fertility management) reduces soil mining and supports mitigation and adaptation, over-fertilization increases GHG
  16. 16. FARMER PERCEPTIONS OF ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  17. 17. Farmers Are Aware Of The Link Between Agriculture And Climate Change Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351
  18. 18. “Which Agricultural Practices Can Help Reduce Climate Change?” 14 61% 12 10 8 (%) 6 4 2 0 Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351; multiple responses possible
  19. 19. “What Have You Done In Response To Perceived Climate Change?” 60 50 40 (%) 30 20 10 0 Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible
  20. 20. “What Would You Like To Do In Response To Perceived Climate Change?” 60 50 40 (%) 30 20 10 0 Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible
  21. 21. “Why Are You Not Implementing Desired Adaptations?” No access to money No water No access to inputs No access to land Lack of information Shortage of labor No access to credit No market Pests and diseases 0 20 40 60 (%) Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351
  22. 22. “Which Developments Do You Need Most Urgently?” 60 50 40 (%) 30 20 10 0 Only responses > 20% included Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible
  23. 23. “Which Solutions are Most Effective and Desirable to Deal with CC Impacts? ?” High Potential Low Potential Nyeri Syaya Mbere Njoro Garissa Irrigation technology/water infrastructure 1 1 3 2 Farmer organizations 2 Training, capacity building 4 1 4 Education 1 Credit/capital 3 1 2 2 Seed/seedlings provision 2 Mechanization of agriculture 3 Corruption eradication 4 3 Markets, market controls 4 Natural forest restoration 4 Moving from pastoralism to farming 3 Ranking 1 2 3 4 Source: focus groups, KARI-UGA, n=69 men
  24. 24. “What are the causes of climate change?” Deforestation Pollution Land clearning Cutting (indigenous) trees Lack of soil conservation Overuse of chemical inputs Overgrazing Planting exotic, inappropriate trees God's will, punishment Farming in sacred sites Extracting sand from river beds Loss of habitat 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of mentions (N=32) Source: focus groups, KARI-UGA, n=69
  25. 25. CONCLUSIONS INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  26. 26. CONCLUSIONS  Mitigation to climate change may yield substantial benefits for smallholder farmers in Kenya (US$2.2 billion in East Africa) that can be used to support adaptation and development efforts  Given the low price of carbon offsets (US$5- 20/ha) mitigation activities alone do not yield sufficient benefits: the latter need to be complemented by co-benefits from adaptation and increased productivity/profitability  Therefore it is essential to focus on activities that advance all three areas: profitability, adaptation, and mitigation
  27. 27. CONCLUSIONS  Changing crop varieties/types and planting dates are among the most common adaptive strategies at the farm level  The main constraint to implementing other adaptions is lack of access to capital and credit (ex.: irrigation is widely desired but expensive to establish and operate)  Some of the priorities for development identified by farmers (irrigation, extension, capacity building, etc.) will support the synergies of mitigation and adaptation to climate change
  28. 28. CONCLUSIONS  Farmers are aware of the connection between agriculture and climate change and of the benefits of planting trees to mitigate climate change  There is less awareness about the mitigation potential for soil and water conservation and integrated soil fertility management and their potential synergies with adaptation

×