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 as a co-benefit of ecological farming


Published on

Biovision - CCAFS workshop
Zurich, Switzerland
16 March 2018
Presentation by Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mitigation as a co-benefit of ecological farming

  1. 1. Biovision-CCAFS workshop, Zürich 16 March, 2018 Mitigation as a co-benefit of ecological farming Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS Low emissions agriculture
  2. 2. Why mitigation in agriculture and food systems? 1. Significant • 10-12% of global emissions • Agriculture contributes on average 30% of countries’ total emissions 2. Necessary Reductions in other sectors will not be enough to achieve 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets 3. Possible Many practices are compatible with SDGs, hence the possibility of “low emissions development” Mercator Institute Roe et al. 2017 2°C
  3. 3. Emission sources in agriculture
  4. 4. Countries are planning action 104 countries included mitigation in agriculture in their Nationally Determined Contribution
  5. 5. CCAFS: Low emissions agriculture GHG quantification Implementing NDCs Low-emissions development options
  6. 6. 3/8/2019 6 Landscape transitions Crop transitions Rice crops Crops (non rice) Fertilizer Livestock - 4.7M TotalAnnualtCO2e Landscape and crop transitions Management practice improvements Increased emissions Reduced emissions/ increased C sequestration (1,865,626) (905,776) (433,447) (616,320) (32,068) (819,848 ) 435,313 1,723,672 2.1 M Mitigation benefits of USAID’s agricultural development portfolio mitigation#.WqrhAGbMzEY 25developmentprojects,15countries,3continents.
  7. 7. LED can be consistent with ecological farming principles 4 examples
  8. 8. Soil health: soil carbon sequestration Agriculture is the major driver of soil carbon loss – 133 Gt C (488 Gt CO2e) (Sanderman et al. 2017) But can also increase soil C by 8-88 Gt C (over 20 years): e.g. reduced burning, legume intercropping, agroforestry, compost, manure, deep-rooted plants. Issues: ambitious potentials, competition for biomass, reversibility, MRV, prioritize avoiding further loss. ….4 per 1000 Initiative catalyzing global effort Modeled SOC change in top 2 meters of the soil. Histogram is of SOC loss (Mg C/ha), positive values indicate loss. Sanderman et al. 2017
  9. 9. Oenema et al. 2014 Efficiency and reduced waste in value chains
  10. 10. Recycling waste SIDPI project, Lembang Indonesia ustainable- intensification-dairy- production- indonesia#.WqrnGWb MzEY
  11. 11. Reducing water use Water saving in paddy rice Alternate wetting and drying reduces emissions by up to 38% IRRI facilitates • Global information hub • National suitability maps • Multistakeholder planning of investment and implementation proposals In collaboration with the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC)
  12. 12. Conclusions and looking ahead • Applying ecological principles can support climate change mitigation benefits o Ecological services via soil organic carbon and agroforestry o Input efficiency and low GHG inputs o Waste reduction and recycling o Water saving • Recognize and quantify the mitigation benefits from ecological farming to show how it contributes to the 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets • Include GHG reductions and efficiency as a principle • Stabilization pathways require net zero emissions in 20-30 years (2040-2050): -Support countries NDCs and ramp up private-public action on finance and technical support
  13. 13. Thank you!
  14. 14. Additional resources from CCAFS
  15. 15. CCAFS Key outputs and outcomes Global mitigation target (2015)* CLIFF PhD program 2011- present, 40+ students trained* * 18,383 users 27,869 unique page views
  16. 16. How much should countries reduce their agricultural emissions to meet the Paris Agreement goals? Globally, the agriculture sector must reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions by 1 Gt CO2e per year by 2030 to stay within the 2°C limit. There are multiple ways to allocate this target to countries . . . If the target was allocated according to each country's historical contribution to emissions from agriculture, most countries would have mitigation targets between 0-30%. 0% 50% 100% -50% 0% 50% 100% If the target was allocated such that all countries have equal cumulative emissions from agriculture by 2050, many developing countries could increase their emissions from agriculture and still meet their targets. The 11 countries that estimated mitigation targets from agriculture and land use in their NDCs were aligned with the ambition needed to limit warming to 1.5 or 2°C. It will take similarly high levels of ambition from other countries to meet the 1.5 or 2°C targets. Read the full article: Developed countries Least developed countries Other developing countries Median mitigation target in 2030 (reduction against baseline emissions)
  17. 17. Country mitigation targets for 2°C • The distribution of effort among countries varies from more even (cumulative agricultural GHG emissions since 1960) to highly uneven (equal cumulative per capita emissions from 1960 to 2050) depending on the criterion. • Total minimum reduction of 1.9 GtCO2e yr−1 above the 2030 baseline to maximum of 4.6 GtCO2e in 2030, (vastly exceeding the 1 GtCO2e yr−1 global target). Country targets can be calculated with a range of criteria such as historical or future emissions, cost effectiveness, or capability. Results can guide NDCs. Richards et al. 2018
  18. 18. Food system: ~19-29% of global emissions Vermeulen et al. 2012 Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2012.37:195-222
  19. 19. Agricultural emissions are also significant within countries Agriculture contributes an average of 30% of national emissions -42 countries ≥ 50% -89 countries ≥ 20% (Data based on National Communications, Richards et al. 2015)