Identifying pro-poor mitigation options forsmallholder agriculture in the developing world:a multi-criteria and across-sca...
• Why multiple scales?• Why multi-criteria?
The concerns•   Mitigation not linked to livelihoods•   Fragmented and diverse landscapes•   No data on mitigation•   Mult...
The goalDevelop a low-cost protocol to quantify greenhouse gasemissions and to identify mitigation options forsmallholders...
How to identify mitigation options at farm andlandscape level?
Phase I: Targeting, priority setting and infrastructure    Landscape analysis                                       Set-up...
GIS analysis,                                Complex landscape: f (m, n, o, p, q)  remote  sensing,  landuse   trends     ...
LandscapepatternsNyando,westernKenya
Cultivated (subsistence)Cultivated (cash crops)   id 15id 11     Mixed     id 2                                           ...
LandscapestructureNyando,westernKenya
2001   2002         2003              2004                                                 Mean NDVI2005   2006         20...
NDVI across landscape units (Timesat)                                        Nyando,                                      ...
Landscapeunits +householdsurveyNyando,westernKenya
Landscape units andland users        Sampling intensity        (sites: area)   In terms of a 250 m   square grid          ...
Landscape units and landusersNyando, Kenya
GIS analysis,                                Complex landscape: f (m, n, o, p, q)  remote  sensing,  landuse   trends     ...
Targeting and upscaling: fromlandscape to fields and back…
Step 1. Landscape analysis       Targeting:       - Landscape units, farm types,         field types, soils       - Site s...
Step 3. Measurements applying       gas pooling           Field work:           - Overcoming spatial variability          ...
Step 5. Intepretation and                              500                                                       250      ...
GIS analysis,                                Complex landscape: f (m, n, o, p, q)  remote  sensing,  landuse   trends     ...
Multi-dimensional assessment of mitigation optionsFarm Field       Profit          Production    Emissions       Emissions...
Phase I: Targeting, priority setting and infrastructure    Landscape analysis                                       Set-up...
• Why multiple scales? -> landscape redesign• Why multi-criteria? -> landusers are (often) poor
Thanks for your attentionm.rufino@cgiar.org
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Mariana Rufino 2013: Identifying Pro-Poor Mitigation Options for smallholder agriculture in the developing world

4,262 views

Published on

The goal for pro-poor mitigation activity, is to develop a low-cost protocol to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and to identify mitigation options for smallholders at whole-farm and landscape levels. Learn more: www.ccafs.cgiar.org

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,262
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,238
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mariana Rufino 2013: Identifying Pro-Poor Mitigation Options for smallholder agriculture in the developing world

  1. 1. Identifying pro-poor mitigation options forsmallholder agriculture in the developing world:a multi-criteria and across-scales assessmentMariana Rufino, Todd Rosenstock, Lini Wollenberg, Klaus Butterbach-Bahl
  2. 2. • Why multiple scales?• Why multi-criteria?
  3. 3. The concerns• Mitigation not linked to livelihoods• Fragmented and diverse landscapes• No data on mitigation• Multi-criteria approaches missing
  4. 4. The goalDevelop a low-cost protocol to quantify greenhouse gasemissions and to identify mitigation options forsmallholders at whole-farm and landscape levels
  5. 5. How to identify mitigation options at farm andlandscape level?
  6. 6. Phase I: Targeting, priority setting and infrastructure Landscape analysis Set-up of state-of-the-art and targeting laboratory facilities Landscape implementation Training of laboratory and field staff Capacity buildingPhase II: Data acquisition Productivity GHG Profitability Social acceptability assessment measurements evaluation assessment Joint scientific & stakeholderPhase III: Multi-dimensional evaluation of evaluationDevelopment of systems-level mitigation optionsmitigation options System-level estimation of mitigation potentialPhase IV:Implementation with Scalable and social acceptable (UPCOMING)development partners mitigation options
  7. 7. GIS analysis, Complex landscape: f (m, n, o, p, q) remote sensing, landuse trends Physical environment m Landscape units Land Food Livestock security, poverty Other assets n Farm types o Common lands Sources of levels incomesProductivity, GHG Characterise emissions, fertility x p Field types q Land types crop managementpreferences
  8. 8. LandscapepatternsNyando,westernKenya
  9. 9. Cultivated (subsistence)Cultivated (cash crops) id 15id 11 Mixed id 2 Landscape patterns simplified
  10. 10. LandscapestructureNyando,westernKenya
  11. 11. 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean NDVI2005 2006 2007 20082009 2010 2011 2012 MODIS time series – Nyando, western Kenya
  12. 12. NDVI across landscape units (Timesat) Nyando, western Kenya Baldi et al. 2013
  13. 13. Landscapeunits +householdsurveyNyando,westernKenya
  14. 14. Landscape units andland users Sampling intensity (sites: area) In terms of a 250 m square grid class sites area (km2) sites:area cultivated (cash and subsistence) 28 2.74 10.23 cultivated (cash) 47 5.94 7.91 cultivated (grasslands and pastures) 47 12.69 3.70 cultivated (subsistence) 141 41.54 3.39 mixed 93 34.69 2.68 uncultivated vegetation 4 2.39 1.67
  15. 15. Landscape units and landusersNyando, Kenya
  16. 16. GIS analysis, Complex landscape: f (m, n, o, p, q) remote sensing, landuse trends Physical environment m Landscape units Land Food Livestock security, poverty Other assets n Farm types o Common lands Sources of levels incomesProductivity, GHG Characterise emissions, fertility x p Field types q Land types crop managementpreferences
  17. 17. Targeting and upscaling: fromlandscape to fields and back…
  18. 18. Step 1. Landscape analysis Targeting: - Landscape units, farm types, field types, soils - Site selectionStep 2. Installing measurement stations Site characterization: - Soils, crops, biomass Installation of Informing and chamber frames interviewing farmers
  19. 19. Step 3. Measurements applying gas pooling Field work: - Overcoming spatial variability by gas pooling method Gas sampling(closed Storage of gasArias-Navarro et al., Soil Biol. Biochem. submitted chamber method) samples in vialsStep 4. Lab analysis and flux calculations Determination of trace Lab work: gas concentrations via - Analyzing gas samples gas chromatography - Calculating concentrations and fluxes Flux b * Mw * VCh * 60 * 106 calculation F formula ACh * Vm * 109
  20. 20. Step 5. Intepretation and 500 250 Forest individual chambers gas pooling upscaling 100 75 50 N2O flux [µg N m h ] -1 25 0 -2 500 Grassland 250 100 75 Temporal variability of N2O 50 25 fluxes at three sites 0 500 differing in land use at 250 Cropland Maseno, Kenya. 100 75 50 25 0 30 Oct 4 Nov 9 Nov 14 Nov 19 Nov 24 Nov 29 Nov 2012 Arias-Navarro et al., Soil Biol. Biochem. submitted Synthesis of GHG measurements: information useful to derive emission factors, empirical models, calibrating and validating of detailed models Upscaling: using the targeting approach (assigning emissions to landscape elements) and/or of GIS coupled biogeochemical models
  21. 21. GIS analysis, Complex landscape: f (m, n, o, p, q) remote sensing, landuse trends Physical environment m Landscape units Land Food Livestock security, poverty Other assets n Farm types o Common lands Sources of levels incomesProductivity, GHG Characterise emissions, fertility x p Field types q Land types crop managementpreferences
  22. 22. Multi-dimensional assessment of mitigation optionsFarm Field Profit Production Emissions Emissions Social acceptabilitytype type ($/ha) (kg/ha) (t CO2eq (kg CO2 per (ranking) per ha) kg product)1 1 50 500 0.6 1.2 11 2 140 5000 3 0.6 21 3 120 2000 2 1.0 21 4 40 4500 3 0.7 12 1 30 800 0.7 0.9 32 3 180 8000 3 0.4 22 4 250 300 0.5 1.7 1n m Vn,m Wn,m Xn,m Yn,m Zn,m Trade-off analysis on multiple dimensions
  23. 23. Phase I: Targeting, priority setting and infrastructure Landscape analysis Set-up of state-of-the-art and targeting laboratory facilities Landscape implementation Training of laboratory and field staff Capacity buildingPhase II: Data acquisition Productivity GHG Profitability Social acceptability assessment measurements evaluation assessment Joint scientific & stakeholderPhase III: Multi-dimensional evaluation of evaluationDevelopment of systems-level mitigation optionsmitigation options System-level estimation of mitigation potentialPhase IV:Implementation with Scalable and social acceptable (UPCOMING)development partners mitigation options
  24. 24. • Why multiple scales? -> landscape redesign• Why multi-criteria? -> landusers are (often) poor
  25. 25. Thanks for your attentionm.rufino@cgiar.org

×