Agricultural Hotspots in the Tropics:
mitigation pathways
CCE Low Emission Development
Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta
CLIFF meeting. Bonn, 8th Nov 2017

Why is it important?: Major contributors of GHG emissions from the
AFOLU sector AR5-WGIII
Figure 11.2. AFOLU emissions and subcategories for the last four decades.
AFOLU
24% emissions 2010
(10-12 PgCO2eq)
50% agriculture
50% forestry
Sources
Agriculture
FAOSTAT (2013)
FOLU
Houghton et al., (2012)
Drained peat and peat fires
JRC/PBL (2012)
Hooijer et al. (2010)
van der Werf et al. (2006)
FAOSTAT 2013

AR5-AFOLU
UNEP’ s GAP REPORT
2016
Why is it important?: Role in mitigation

AFOLU net emissions
Net emissions uncertainties
Where are the AFOLU
emissions located?
Net AFOLU emissions

27 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2eCO2 gross emissions
±0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers
8.7 Tg CO2
0 Tg CO2non-CO2 gross emissions
Gross emissions disaggregated by gases

14 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
9.2 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
23 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
Deforestation emissions
Deforestation min Deforestation max
±
0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers

1.5 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
0.3 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
Harvesting emissions
±0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers
Harvesting uncertainty

26 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
8.2 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
Fire emissions without deforestation fires
±0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers
Fire uncertainty

3.2 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
0.2 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
Crop soil emissions
±0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers
Crop soil uncertainty

7 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
5.4 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
14 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
Rice soil emissions
Rice maxRice min
±0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers

0.3 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
Livestock emissions (enteric fermentation + manure management)
1.7 Tg CO2e
0 Tg CO2e
±0 2,700 5,400 8,100
Kilometers
Livestock uncertainty

1.5°C scenarios and land use
§ Land activities suggested as CDR/GHG removals
Ø Afforestation / Reforestation
Ø Changing agricultural practices enhancing soil carbon
Ø Biochar and soil carbon enhancement
Ø Restoration of peat and wetlands
Ø Biomass use for energy production with carbon capture and
storage (BECCS)
Ø Reduced deforestation
Ø Reduced Livestock emissions

Natural climate mitigation solutions: constrained
to food security
Griscom et al. (2017) PNAS
Natural climate solutions
30% of mitigation reduction needed
for 2030 to fulfill 2°C target

1.5°C scenarios and land use
§ Land use transitions that focus on maximizing mitigation
by 2050 would result in:
ØDecrease in croplands for food and feed production, and
grasslands due to mitigation that demands land (biomass for
BECCS and afforestation)
ØExpansion of energy crops
ØExpansion of forest: reverse from current negative trends to
reach 6 Mha.yr-1 for 2010-2050. This means 6*40 =240Mha
by 2050. The Bonn Challenge (150 Mha in 2020) and NYDF
(350 Mha in 2030) claim to restore land but not necessarily
through a/reforestation.
ØWhen BECCS and afforestation are considered together, land
demand in 2100 is of the order of 800-1800 Mha, mainly
converted from pasture land.

Team work
• Identify the 5 tropical countries with largest agricultural mitigation potentials
• Choose 3 countries, one in each continent
• Identify the most relevant agricultural emission sources
• Identify the most relevant mitigation pathways by considering:
• The boundaries of the agricultural system (forests, wetlands,
grasslands, croplands)
• Mitigation goals alone (effects on cropland area)
• Mitigation goals with food security concerns and safeguard concerns
(effects on cropland areas and grassland areas)
• Mitigation goals considering supply/demand
• Mitigation goals considering land sparing (intensification) or land
sharing (mixed systems and extensive approaches)
• Consider PARIS agreement requirements: stock-taking process and
transparency
• Use Griscom et al. (2017) supplementary data to obtain some ideas.