Date: November 10, 2016 Time: 16:10-17:30 Host: Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD) Title of the Session: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems Speaker: Lini Wollenberg Location: Indonesia pavilion at COP22

1. Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS November 10, 2016
Lessons Learned for Climate Smart
Livestock and Food Crop
Intensification Systems
COP22 Side event hosted by the Indonesian Agency for
Agricultural Research & Development (IAARD)

2. 2
The challenge of climate change adaptation
and mitigation
Is more agricultural
intensification
enough?

3. Climate drives 32-39% of yield variation
Our systems are sensitive to climate, not resilient to it
Ray et al. 2015

4. Synergies (32%) and tradeoffs (62%) of
food security and adaptation with CSA
Mean effect from random sample of 130
studies (55 comparisons)
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
Productivity
Adaptation
6% 16%
46% 32%
SynergiesTradeoffs
Tradeoffs

5. 11/16/2016 5
Drought tolerant maize can increase yields 20-30% in
dry conditions

6. 11/16/2016 6
Safe Alternate-Wetting-and-
Drying
(AWD)
30% water
20-50% GHG
Without compromising
yield
• Keep flooded for
1st 15 days and at
flowering
• Irrigate when
water drops to 15
cm below the
surface
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16 15.0
8.7
-42%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
tCO2-eq/ha*season
4.9
3.9
-20%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
-22%-28%
6.0
4.7
6.4
4.6
Hilly mid-slopes Delta low-lying
Summer-
Autumn
Winter-
Spring
Sander et al. in press IRRI
AWDConventional

7. 11/16/2016 7
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
5,802
2.1 M
Agricultural development’s mitigation co-benefits

8. 11/16/2016 8
Contributions of mitigation scenarios compared to the 2°C
mitigation goal for agriculture
0.21
0.40
0.92
1.19
1.23
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Mitigation (GtCO2e/yr)
RCP2.6 (IMAGE) (2)
GCAM2.6 (3)
MESSAGE2.5 (4)
Technical practices
USD20/t (8)
GLOBIOM USD20/t (9)
1 GtCO2e/yr
mitigation
target to
stay within
2° C
G
o
a
l

9. 9

10. 11/16/2016 10
See
https://sites.google.com/a/irri.
org/ccac/home

11. 11/16/2016 11
The transition to CSA will require major shifts
• Agricultural intensification and productivity is not enough
• trade-offs with adaptation (>half of time)
• mitigation co-benefits are substantial, but not enough to
meet the 2 °C target
• Need more practices with joint adaptation-productivity
outcomes
• And need more transformative mitigation practices (2.5-5x)
• Finance, capacity enhancement and technology transfer are
needed, but so is technology development for CSA