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

1. Agricultural intensification for climate change
adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs
Copenhagen, Denmark – 2 May 2012
Piet van Asten, Peter Läderach, Jim Gockowski

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. 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. NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION
Example: Arabica coffee
• Areas reducing
• Areas shifting
• Suitability reducing
MAXENT approach
assuming current practices and varieties
Laderach et al., 2011
4 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

5. NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION
Laderach et al., 2011
5 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

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. 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. CLASSIFICATION FOR EAST AFRICAN COFFEE
Unshaded Unshaded
monoculture monoculture
Estates
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. 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. 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 mitigation
10 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

11. CARBON FOOTPRINT – example LA
Carbon footprint per unit product
12
11 Sum = 9.2
10
Sum = 9.4 Pesticide production
9
kg 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. 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. 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. 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. TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE
Agriculture 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. 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 level
Possible changes in land use and crops induced by climate change
16 Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

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. 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. 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