Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mitigation Opportunities in Agriculture


Published on

This presentation by Dr. Charlotte Schreck from CLIMATEFOCUS explains how agriculture is part of many agendas, what technical mitigation opportunities we have, what the costs are and how CLUA could be mitigated.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mitigation Opportunities in Agriculture

  1. 1. Mitigation Opportunities in Agriculture Identifying Strategies for Philanthropy Dr Charlotte Streck 1
  2. 2. Background Climate Focus and California Environment Associates (CEA) have been contracted by the Climate and Land-use Alliance (CLUA) to produce an analysis of the international opportunities for agricultural GHG mitigation and the potential role for philanthropy within the context of existing or planned activities. These slides summarize some preliminary findings. - Background: – Since 2008 CLUA is actively supporting the design and implementation of REDD+ policies and activities around the globe through collaboration of its member foundations. – The reduction of emissions from agriculture is an important global mitigation opportunity comparable in volume to sectors such as transportation, power production and industry (1012% of total global anthropogenic emissions). – A number of the strategic opportunities offer “triple win” opportunities in that they contribute to mitigation, adaptation, and food security. The project started in May 2013 and will be finalized in spring 2014. Phase 1: Assessment of technical mitigation potential Phase 2: Strategic Assessment of Promising Agricultural Mitigation Opportunities Both technical and strategic advisory panels to help guide this work. 2 2
  3. 3. Agriculture is at the heart of many agendas - This analysis is focused on greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities in agriculture. Yet, we recognize that there is nothing more important to the human species than producing the food we all eat. Agriculture lies at the intersection of many essential agendas, including global food security, economic development and poverty alleviation, biodiversity protection, water availability and resource use, and climate change adaptation. – Food security: Over 1 billion people endure chronic hunger, a result of food insecurity and food prices.1 Efficiencies of production, when paired with enabling structures, can help to feed the world. – Development: Agriculture employs 2.6 billion people annually, and in most developing countries, agriculture accounts for 20-60% of GDP.1 A complicated relationship exists between agriculture, trade, and equity, where advances in productivity can be a double-edged sword to poor and vulnerable communities. – Water use: 70% of the world’s freshwater use is for irrigation2; water scarcity is an issue of growing importance, with major implications for food security, biodiversity, and political stability. – Land conversion and environmental impacts: Agriculture covers nearly 40% of the world’s land area.3 The conversion of natural habitats to agriculture, and ongoing agricultural practices, influences everything from global biodiversity to biochemical cycles. The long list of secondary effects include impacts to riparian and marine environments, exposure of humans and wildlife to chemicals, the salinization of groundwater, and invasive species introductions. - In laying out a greenhouse gas mitigation plan, we are acutely aware that food security and development remain the primary concerns of most actors working in the agriculture arena. While greenhouse gas mitigation is not at the heart of those agendas, we believe it is possible to pursue and better incorporate a mitigation agenda that does not undermine these other priorities. There are many opportunities that could yield “triple win” solutions that address food 3 Sources: 1) UNCTAD 2010. 2) UNWater 2013. 3) Antarctica excluded; calculated from security, climate mitigation, and climate adaptation. FAOStat and World Bank database. 3
  4. 4. Roughly half of emissions come directly from production. Another half comes from deforestation and emissions across the supply chain. Sources of these emissions include land use change (deforestation, peat loss, and fire), upstream and downstream emissions connected to agricultural supply chains, and emissions normally attributed to other sectors but related to the production of agriculture (i.e. energy for water pumping), and direct emissions from agricultural production. Mid-estimate, in MtCO e Agricultural production and food supply chains (varying years) 2 # Upper estimate (where available) Middle estimate 4654 831 599 Low estimate (where available) Land use change and fire (2008)1 10,650 MtCO2e 532 813 2620 682 ~10% total global GHG emissions ~20-25% total global GHG emissions Other PreDirect Agric. Postfires, nonproduction agricultura production productio CO2 (ag (e.g. l not usually n (e.g. 2 waste fertilizer production counted in cold burning, sava production) ag. chain) nna and inventories Notes: 1) These emissions vary significantly temporally. Fire ) grass numbers are draft; the final estimate will show a range. 2) Not comprehensive – does not include food 4 Deforestatio n driven by agriculture Peat and peat fires processing or preparation. Sources: CEA analysis of many sources , including FAOStat, EDGAR 4.2, FRA 2012, Harris 2012, Blaser 2007, data provided by Paul West, UMN Institute on the Environment (personal communications), Vermeulen 2012, and others. 4
  5. 5. Asia leads direct agricultural emissions Asia, which possesses 60% of the world’s population and 30% of its land area, accounts for 45% of global agricultural emissions. North America & Caribbean 534 Europe 547 Europe includes Russia Includes Central America South America 701 Asia 2169 Asia includes Indonesia, Turke y, and the Middle East Africa 580 Oceania 136 Region Ag emissions in MtCO2e 5 Source: FAOStat data from 2010 (accessed 2013); area of pie charts scaled to regional emissions. Land use change emissions are note Enteric fermentation Manure management Manure left on pasture Rice Ag soils Ag soils includes synthetic fertilizers, manure applied to crops, field application of crop residues, and nitrous oxide from cultivated 5
  6. 6. Geographies and Commodities Beef, dairy, and rice are the commodities that have the largest emissions from direct agricultural production, Soy and palm oil have considerable emissions footprints only when deforestation emissions are included. Note that supply chain emissions (“upstream, downstream”) are not included in this chart. MtCO2e LUC, peat, and fire emissions Rest of world China India Africa European Union Brazil United States Indonesia 2,200 2,000 2000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 750 750 650 600 600 400 235 200 180 160 250 130 130 65 65 0 EMISSION Bee f Non- Ric Dair Pig Othe Whea Chicke Maiz Other Other y s t n e animal cereal cattle e r crops s s ruminant 6 Source: CEA analysis based on fertilizer emissions data from Paul West, UMN Institute on the Environment (personal communication) and all other data FAOStat 2010 (accessed 2013). s So y Pal m S 6
  7. 7. Technical mitigation opportunities Globally, Brazil, China, India, and the U.S. are the largest agricultural emitters (and the largest agricultural producers). Not surprisingly, these countries present the largest technical potential for emissions reduction (roughly 55% in aggregate - not including soil sequestration). Asia – crop residue burning EU - cattle (enteric) EU – livestock (manure) U.S. cattle (enteric) U.S. cattle (soil carbon) U.S. crops (fertilizer) Brazil reduced pressure on forests (cattle and crops) Sahel cattle (enteric) China and Central Asia cattle (soil carbon) India cattle (enteric) China livestock (manure) China - crops and supply chain (fertilizer) Southeast Asia - rice India crops (fertilizer) Brazil cattle (enteric) Additional opportunities KEY Increasing opportunity for GHG mitigation  7 Source: CEA synthesis of literature and expert interviews. Indonesia reduced pressure on forests (crops) Australia cattle (soil carbon) India, China, Eastern Africa, Indonesia, Russia crops (soil carbon: biochar, agroforestry, restorati on of peatlands) MITIGATIO N 7
  8. 8. There are several approaches to reducing emissions from agriculture Mitigation in the AFOLU sector can be approached from a number of different angles: 1) Shifting demand for agricultural products away from high-carbon intensity products such as livestock or reducing overall demand (e.g., by cutting food waste) 2) Reducing the emissions intensity of agricultural production 3) Increasing the ability of agricultural lands (croplands and grazing lands) to serve as Reduce GHG emissions from carbon sinks agricultural production Shift/reduce demand for agricultural products Reduce biofuel demand Shift consumer demand away from high-GHG foods Reduce food waste 8 Reduce emissions from livestock and crop production • Reduce enteric fermentation; improve manure management • Improve nutrient and water management for crops Reduce emissions from upstream and downstream activities and equipment use • Improve fertilizer production efficiencies • Energy efficiencies of onfarm machinery • Efficiencies in transportation and storage Reduce emissions from land use change driven by agriculture • Increase intensification of cropland and grazing land • Protect high-C lands from conversion • Restore degraded lands Sequester more carbon in agricultural lands Increase sequestration of carbon in croplands Increase sequestration of carbon in grazing lands Restore degraded lands 8
  9. 9. The cost of mitigation in the agriculture sector - Cost data for mitigation in the agriculture sector is extremely limited, and few cost curves have been published to date either for the globe or by region o The couple global cost curves are likely out of date (US-EPA 2006, McKinsey 2009), and the best-known McKinsey cost curve does not disclose its assumptions o There are several newer country-focused cost curves (UK, France, China), as well as work currently underway by the FAO to produce a global cost curve for the livestock sector - Mitigation options and costs will vary significantly by region due to: o Variation in local natural resources, the maturity of local markets / distribution chains, and willingness of national/local govts to subsidize, promote, and regulate mitigation practices o Variation in what practices have already been implemented in regional agriculture systems - However, there are a few themes regarding relative cost and potential size of the mitigation options: o Nutrient/fertilizer management on croplands was low or often negative cost, with moderate relative mitigation potential o Grasslands management was generally low/moderate cost with relatively significant relative mitigation potential 9o Methane flaring or digestion was generally moderate cost with relatively significant relative mitigation potential 9
  10. 10. Possible Agricultural Mitigation Strategies for CLUA - At the national level (targeting specific geographies based on GHG emission sources) – Shifting dietary trends (China, US, Europe) – Dealing with food waste (US, Europe) – Improving the sustainability of biofuels – Sustainable intensification of agricultural production (India, Brazil, global intensification road map) – Restoration of degraded lands (US, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia) – Reducing emissions from agricultural production (China, SE Asian countries, US, Europe) - At the international level – Improving food supply chains – Changing agricultural finance – Increasing traceability and MRV systems for agriculture 10 10
  11. 11. Example: Shifting dietary trends • • • Livestock production has a large carbon footprint, accounting for approximately 50% to 70% of direct agricultural GHG emissions. The potential for emissions reductions from shifting demand for meat range from 10 to 125 Mt CO2e per year by 2030. Possible interventions: 1) facilitating policy change, 2) mobilizing the private-sector, and 3) influencing consumers. Figure 1. Carbon intensity of food products1 Figure 2. Carbon intensity of food products2 Source: 1) Alejandro Gonzalez et al., “Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation”, Food Policy 36 (2011) 562-570. 2) lke Stehfest et al., “Climate benefits of changing diet”, Climatic Change (2009) 95: 83-102. DOI 10.1007/s10584-0089534-6. These scenarios were generated using an integrated assessment model (IMAGE 2.4) and Pete Smith et al., “How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?” Global Change Biology (2013), doi: 10.1111/gcb.12160. 11 11
  12. 12. Parallel and Complementary: Agricultural Readiness - Climate Focus with the support of CCAFS and IFPRI assesses the benefits and design of an agricultural readiness process. - The objective is to facilitate a process of preparation and policy development that allows the effective use of climate finance for climate-friendly agriculture as well as climate-proving of existing agricultural programs and investments. - The process would build on the lessons from REDD+ but take into account the different circumstances of the agricultural sector and its exposure to climate change. 12 Title, Presenter
  13. 13. DRAFT 13 13
  14. 14. Questions Recommendations Suggestions Corrections: Charlotte Streck +1 202 684 1455 14 Title, presenter