Agricultural intensification for climate changeadaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs             Copenhagen, ...
PRESENTATION       Problem statement           Climate change adaptation           Climate change mitigation       Syn...
PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION       Climate change may cause (a.o.):           Increased drought stress           I...
NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION                                                                     Example: Arabica coffee        ...
NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION                                                                                         Laderach et...
PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION       Adaptation is required – primarily five options           Improved drought and p...
PROBLEM STATEMENT– CC MITIGATION   Agriculture itself contributes to GHG emissions       In 2005, 1.4–1.7 gigatons of ca...
CLASSIFICATION FOR EAST AFRICAN COFFEE               Unshaded                                                             ...
SMALLHOLDER COFFEE YIELDS IN EAST AFRICA                                                                                  ...
SYNERGIES AT PLOT LEVEL                                                   Microclimate: shading reduces                  ...
CARBON FOOTPRINT – example LA                                                                 Carbon footprint per unit pr...
SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL                  ↑ Data from CRIG – Ghana, presented by Joel Joffre at COPAL meetin...
SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL    Shaded systems: adaptation and mitigation synergies    Adoption constraint: sh...
MITIGATION IN COFFEE   Markets increasingly focus on carbon footprint        Price incentives for farmers to plant/maint...
TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALEAgriculture is major driver of deforestation and GHG emission→ low yields requires mor...
THE TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE Coffee and cocoa area should not expand or shift to preserve forests?  Change cro...
CHALLENGES•   Research    • Quantify carbon costs along value chain    • Attributing carbon ‘opportunity costs’ when      ...
CHALLENGES•   Policies and trade    • Make intensified agricultural systems a      viable alternative to deforestation and...
CONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK•   Adaptation to CC nearly always requires additional investments•   Farmers will not adopt if inves...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CCAFS Science Meeting B.1 Peter Läderach - Synergies and trade-offs in climate change adaptation and mitigation

1,089 views

Published on

CCAFS Science Meeting presentation by Peter Läderach - "Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and trade-offs."

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
1,089
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CCAFS Science Meeting B.1 Peter Läderach - Synergies and trade-offs in climate change adaptation and mitigation

  1. 1. Agricultural intensification for climate changeadaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs Copenhagen, Denmark – 2 May 2012 Piet van Asten, Peter Läderach, Jim Gockowski
  2. 2. PRESENTATION Problem statement  Climate change adaptation  Climate change mitigation Synergies and trade-off examples  Cocoa  Coffee Challenges  Research  Policies and trade Conclusions/Outlook 2 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  3. 3. PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION Climate change may cause (a.o.):  Increased drought stress  Increased pest- and disease pressure → Yields decrease Jaramillo et al 2011 3 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  4. 4. NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION Example: Arabica coffee • Areas reducing • Areas shifting • Suitability reducing MAXENT approach assuming current practices and varieties Laderach et al., 20114 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  5. 5. NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION Laderach et al., 20115 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  6. 6. PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION Adaptation is required – primarily five options  Improved drought and pest-resistant varieties  Adaptation of micro-climate through shade systems  Irrigation systems  Switch to other crops  Develop new areas This requires investment!  Smallholder farmers may not invest in long-term solutions if these do not generate short term returns on investment © www.deansbeans.com 6 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  7. 7. PROBLEM STATEMENT– CC MITIGATION Agriculture itself contributes to GHG emissions  In 2005, 1.4–1.7 gigatons of carbon (GtC) emissions, equivalent to 10–12% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions  38% of this is N2O released from soils due to nitrogenous fertilizer  38% of this is CH4 from livestock, enteric fermentation, manure management  11% of this is CH4 from cultivation of rice  13% of this is N2O from burning of organic residues  Beyond direct emissions, agricultural drives emissions in the industrial and energy sectors through production of fertilizers and pesticides, production and operation of farm machinery, and on-farm energy use  Carbon footprint per unit produce is becoming marketing tool Agriculture is biggest driver of clearing of forests  In 2005, 1.5 GtC emissions was accounted for by forest removal 7 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  8. 8. CLASSIFICATION FOR EAST AFRICAN COFFEE Unshaded Unshaded monoculture monocultureEstates Shaded Coffee – banana monoculture intercrop Smallholder farming Coffee – tree system Coffee garden Wild coffee 8 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  9. 9. SMALLHOLDER COFFEE YIELDS IN EAST AFRICA 1: Arabica x banana 4000 Unshaded (Uganda) 2: Arabica x banana Shaded (Uganda) 3000 3: Robusta x banana Shaded (Uganda)yield (kg/ha) 2000 4: Arabica monocrop Unshaded (Kenya) 5: Arabica monocrop Unshaded (Uganda) 1000 6: Arabica monocrop Shaded (Uganda) 7: Robusta monocrop 0 Shaded (Uganda) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 coffee system → in low input systems, shading is not decreasing yield 9 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  10. 10. SYNERGIES AT PLOT LEVEL  Microclimate: shading reduces temperature by 2-5 Celsius  Shade plants increase revenue and food security  Shade biomass increases carbon stock → CC mitigation10 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  11. 11. CARBON FOOTPRINT – example LA Carbon footprint per unit product 12 11 Sum = 9.2 10 Sum = 9.4 Pesticide production 9kg CO2-e/kg-1 parchment coffee 8 Gas use Sum = 3.7 7 Diesel use 6 Sum = 3.9 Electricity use 5 Off-farm transport 4 3 Crop residue managment 2 Waste water production 1 Fertiliser induced N2O 0 Fertiliser production -1 Trad-poly Com-poly Shad-mono Unshad-mono C sequestration in trees -2 -3 -4  Carbon footprint of intensive systems 2-3 times higher, but primarily caused by differences in post-harvest processing. 11 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  12. 12. SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL ↑ Data from CRIG – Ghana, presented by Joel Joffre at COPAL meeting Gockowski and Sonwa, 2010 →Highest yields achieved with fertilizer input and no-shade 12 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  13. 13. SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL Shaded systems: adaptation and mitigation synergies Adoption constraint: short term returns on investment Shade → lower max yield → less $ Plot level functions Full sun Shade tree Banana / food Polyculture Forest monocrop monocrop intercrop system system Yield quantity Yield quality External input use Nutrient recycling Production risks Plantation life Food security CC adaptation Carbon stock Ecological services light color = low → dark color = high 13 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  14. 14. MITIGATION IN COFFEE Markets increasingly focus on carbon footprint  Price incentives for farmers to plant/maintain trees in agric fields  GHG attribution along the value chain is a challenge (LCA)  Trade-offs at landscape and global level are less obvious  Retailers  Certification bodies 14 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  15. 15. TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALEAgriculture is major driver of deforestation and GHG emission→ low yields requires more area (Burney et al, 2010)→ clearing for small-scale agriculture is the greatest cause of African deforestation (IUFRO, 2010)→ cocoa intensification could have reduced deforestation by 21k ha in West Africa (Gockowski & Sonwa, 2010)→ better land sparing than land sharing for biodiversity (Ben Phanal et al, 2011) → 15 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  16. 16. THE TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE Coffee and cocoa area should not expand or shift to preserve forests? Change crop and move up Mountain • Lowland forest → Cocoa / Oil palm forest • Robusta coffee → Cocoa / Oil Palm 2300m • Arabica coffee → Robusta coffee Arabica • Highland forest → Arabica coffee 1400m Robusta 1000m Cocoa / Oil palm Lowland Forest sea levelPossible changes in land use and crops induced by climate change 16 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  17. 17. CHALLENGES• Research • Quantify carbon costs along value chain • Attributing carbon ‘opportunity costs’ when not intensifying • Balance smallholder needs at plot level (e.g. low risk, low dependency on external input, high sustainability) with ecological aims at global level (e.g. forest conservation). • Find adaptation practices that yield short term returns to investment but decrease climate change vulnerability in the long term • Develop tools for trade-off modeling 17 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  18. 18. CHALLENGES• Policies and trade • Make intensified agricultural systems a viable alternative to deforestation and forest degradation • Develop and implement policies to prevent higher yielding and more profitable production systems to accelerate encroaching at local scale • Develop strategies for land sparing, rather than focus too much on land sharing • Attribute carbon ‘opportunity costs’ when not intensifying production • Review carbon footprint calculations? • Encourage building in adaptation practices 18 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
  19. 19. CONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK• Adaptation to CC nearly always requires additional investments• Farmers will not adopt if investments don’t pay off in the short term• Building in resilience (e.g. plant shade trees, acquire new germplasm) may need to be combined with improved fertilizer input to pay off investments• Intensification may be required to encourage adaptation at plot level• Intensification may be required to encourage climate change mitigation at landscape level• Technical solutions have to be supported by development, public, and private sector• Policies and trade have to consider trade-offs across scales 19 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

×