The Effects of Widespread Adoption
of Climate-Smart Agriculture in
Africa South of the Sahara Under
Changing Climate Regimes
A l e s s a n d r o D e P i n t o , H o Y o u n g
K w o n , N i c o l a C e n a c c h i , a n d
S h a h n i l a D u n s t o n
ENVIRONMENT AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, DC
The Background
• CSA is expected to address climate-related risks by
simultaneously considering three main objectives
and by fully accounting for the trade-offs and
synergies among them (Rosenstock et al. 2016).
• There is a general consensus that CSA, albeit with
limits (Wheeler and von Braun 2013, Taylor 2017),
helps to advance the discussion on future
agricultural production under a significantly
different climate environment.
The Background
• The literature has focused on technical aspects
related to economic feasibility (Sain et al. 2017),
the emission reduction and adaptation benefits (de
Nijs et al. 2015), and the local-level impacts of
CSA(Zougmoré et al. 2016).
• Many operational aspects of CSA are still under
investigation.
Purpose of this Study
• No study has produced a comprehensive
analysis of the effects that widespread
adoption of CSA practices and technologies
may have on the production of key crops, on
GHG emissions, and on key food security
metrics, regionally or globally.
• Objective: ex-ante analysis of potential broad
benefits of a widespread adoption of CSA
practices, focus on Africa south of the Sahara
(SSA)
Simulation scenarios
• The ex-ante assessment is performed by linking
spatially-disaggregated data from three models:
the Spatial Production Allocation Model (SPAM),
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology
Transfer (DSSAT), and the International Model for
Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and
Trade (IMPACT).
Simulation scenarios
Spatial Production
Allocation Model (SPAM)
Decision Support System for
Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT)
Location of crop production
(soil conditions)
Yields and
Yield changes
International Model for Policy Analysis of
Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT)
Changes in total production
Changes in prices
Changes in calorie availability
Simulation scenarios
• The evaluation compares scenarios in presence of
climate change in which these practices are adopted
against a plausible BAU scenario that assumes that
current practices are retained by farmers. Period
considered 2010 – 2050.
• Climate change projections are generated using two
global circulations models (GCMs), GFDL-ESM2M
and HadGEM2-ES, under a Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) of 8.5. The GFDL
climate change scenario can be considered as drier
and cooler compared to HadGEM .
Simulation scenarios
• The analysis focuses on three widely grown crops:
wheat (Triticum aestivum), maize (Zea mays), and
rice (Oryza sativa).
• They represent about 41 percent of the global
harvested area and 20 percent of the harvested
area in SSA.
• They also represent about 64 percent of GHG
emissions generated by crop production globally
(Carlson et al. 2016).
Climate-Smart Alternatives
Technology Definition Crop
No tillage (NT) Minimal or no soil disturbance; often used in
combination with residue retention, crop
rotation, and cover crops
Maize, wheat
Integrated soil fertility
management (ISFM)
Combination of chemical fertilizers, crop
residues, and manure or compost
Maize, wheat
Alternate wetting and
drying (AWD)
Repeated interruptions of flooding during the
season, causing the water to decline as the
upper soil layer dries out before subsequent
reflooding
Rice
Urea deep placement
(UDP)
Strategic burial of urea “supergranules” near
the root zones of crop plants
Rice
Source: Authors
Adoption of Alternative
Technologies
• The alternatives to the BAU scenario assume that
farmers are offered a portfolio of alternatives from
which to choose.
• Two alternative scenarios
• CSA technologies are adopted when they return a yield
gain over current practices (BAU scenario)
• CSA practices are adopted when they generate higher
yields and reduce emission intensity
• Simulations assume 100% adoption rate therefore
results must be interpreted as an upper-bound of
the possible effects.
Results
Results: Effects on Production
Source: Authors
Results: Effects on Prices
Population at risk of hunger in SSA is projected to
decrease by between 1.8 and 2.5 percent,
Decrease in undernourished children younger than five
years ranges between 0.2 and 0.3 percent (equivalent to
approximately 100,000 children)
Scenario Maize
(GFDL / HadGEM)
Wheat
(GFDL / HadGEM)
Rice
(GFDL /
HadGEM)
Adoption rate of CSA practices predicated
on increased yields
-2.80% / -3.00% -1.30% / -2.00% -3.20% / -3.40%
Adoption rate of CSA practices predicated
on increased yields and reduction of
emission intensity
-2.70% / -3.00% -1.20% / -1.80% -3.20% / -3.30%
Percentage change in 2050 world prices under two scenarios, compared with business-
as-usual
Source: Authors
Results: Changes in Emissions
• The soil organic carbon concentration, which increases not
only fertility but also soil water retention, is estimated to
increase by an average of 0.16–0.17 tons/ha-1 year-1 over
BAU.
• Total GHG emissions remain basically unchanged or
decrease minimally, at an estimated +0.01 tons/ha-1 year-1
when only yields increases are considered.
• By enforcing a reduction of emission intensity, it is possible
to reduce GHG emissions by more than 200 million tons of
CO2 equivalent, equivalent to an average per-hectare yearly
reduction of approximately 0.17 tons /ha-1 year-1 of CO2
equivalent.
Results
Source: Authors
Tradeoffs
Conclusion
• Widespread adoption of CSA practices has a
positive effect on production with a consequent
reduction in prices and decrease in the number
of people at risk of hunger and the number of
children younger than five years at risk of
malnutrition.
• Soil organic carbon appears to grow, compared
with the BAU scenario, indicating that
productivity can be increased while making
production more sustainable than it is with
current practices.
Conclusion
• The effects on GHG emissions are mixed
• GHG emission reduction are highly context- and
location-specific. CSA practices alone do not
assure a reduction in emissions.
• Result indicate that the reduction of GHG
emissions is compatible with increased
productivity. Results are dependent on how
feasible it is to enforce and control the actual
achievement of in-the-field emission intensity
reductions.
Conclusion
• Effects of CSA practices is highly dependent on how
widely adopted they are. Lower adoptions than
simulated (e.g. 50%, 25%) would make the effects
marginal.
• This points to the importance of barriers to adoption
and the incentives and policies that must be in place
to overcome them.
• GHG emissions: we must go beyond the field and the
farm and think about the relationships with other
carbon-rich environments, think about systems (e.g.
agroforestry, silvopastoral), value chains, etc.
Thank You
A l e x D e P i n t o : a . d e p i n t o @ c g i a r . o r g
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW
ENVIRONMENT AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

The Effects of Widespread Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Africa South of the Sahara Under Changing Climate Regimes

  • 1.
    The Effects ofWidespread Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Africa South of the Sahara Under Changing Climate Regimes A l e s s a n d r o D e P i n t o , H o Y o u n g K w o n , N i c o l a C e n a c c h i , a n d S h a h n i l a D u n s t o n ENVIRONMENT AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
  • 2.
    The Background • CSAis expected to address climate-related risks by simultaneously considering three main objectives and by fully accounting for the trade-offs and synergies among them (Rosenstock et al. 2016). • There is a general consensus that CSA, albeit with limits (Wheeler and von Braun 2013, Taylor 2017), helps to advance the discussion on future agricultural production under a significantly different climate environment.
  • 3.
    The Background • Theliterature has focused on technical aspects related to economic feasibility (Sain et al. 2017), the emission reduction and adaptation benefits (de Nijs et al. 2015), and the local-level impacts of CSA(Zougmoré et al. 2016). • Many operational aspects of CSA are still under investigation.
  • 4.
    Purpose of thisStudy • No study has produced a comprehensive analysis of the effects that widespread adoption of CSA practices and technologies may have on the production of key crops, on GHG emissions, and on key food security metrics, regionally or globally. • Objective: ex-ante analysis of potential broad benefits of a widespread adoption of CSA practices, focus on Africa south of the Sahara (SSA)
  • 5.
    Simulation scenarios • Theex-ante assessment is performed by linking spatially-disaggregated data from three models: the Spatial Production Allocation Model (SPAM), Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT), and the International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT).
  • 6.
    Simulation scenarios Spatial Production AllocationModel (SPAM) Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Location of crop production (soil conditions) Yields and Yield changes International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) Changes in total production Changes in prices Changes in calorie availability
  • 7.
    Simulation scenarios • Theevaluation compares scenarios in presence of climate change in which these practices are adopted against a plausible BAU scenario that assumes that current practices are retained by farmers. Period considered 2010 – 2050. • Climate change projections are generated using two global circulations models (GCMs), GFDL-ESM2M and HadGEM2-ES, under a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) of 8.5. The GFDL climate change scenario can be considered as drier and cooler compared to HadGEM .
  • 8.
    Simulation scenarios • Theanalysis focuses on three widely grown crops: wheat (Triticum aestivum), maize (Zea mays), and rice (Oryza sativa). • They represent about 41 percent of the global harvested area and 20 percent of the harvested area in SSA. • They also represent about 64 percent of GHG emissions generated by crop production globally (Carlson et al. 2016).
  • 9.
    Climate-Smart Alternatives Technology DefinitionCrop No tillage (NT) Minimal or no soil disturbance; often used in combination with residue retention, crop rotation, and cover crops Maize, wheat Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) Combination of chemical fertilizers, crop residues, and manure or compost Maize, wheat Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) Repeated interruptions of flooding during the season, causing the water to decline as the upper soil layer dries out before subsequent reflooding Rice Urea deep placement (UDP) Strategic burial of urea “supergranules” near the root zones of crop plants Rice Source: Authors
  • 10.
    Adoption of Alternative Technologies •The alternatives to the BAU scenario assume that farmers are offered a portfolio of alternatives from which to choose. • Two alternative scenarios • CSA technologies are adopted when they return a yield gain over current practices (BAU scenario) • CSA practices are adopted when they generate higher yields and reduce emission intensity • Simulations assume 100% adoption rate therefore results must be interpreted as an upper-bound of the possible effects.
  • 11.
  • 12.
    Results: Effects onProduction Source: Authors
  • 13.
    Results: Effects onPrices Population at risk of hunger in SSA is projected to decrease by between 1.8 and 2.5 percent, Decrease in undernourished children younger than five years ranges between 0.2 and 0.3 percent (equivalent to approximately 100,000 children) Scenario Maize (GFDL / HadGEM) Wheat (GFDL / HadGEM) Rice (GFDL / HadGEM) Adoption rate of CSA practices predicated on increased yields -2.80% / -3.00% -1.30% / -2.00% -3.20% / -3.40% Adoption rate of CSA practices predicated on increased yields and reduction of emission intensity -2.70% / -3.00% -1.20% / -1.80% -3.20% / -3.30% Percentage change in 2050 world prices under two scenarios, compared with business- as-usual Source: Authors
  • 14.
    Results: Changes inEmissions • The soil organic carbon concentration, which increases not only fertility but also soil water retention, is estimated to increase by an average of 0.16–0.17 tons/ha-1 year-1 over BAU. • Total GHG emissions remain basically unchanged or decrease minimally, at an estimated +0.01 tons/ha-1 year-1 when only yields increases are considered. • By enforcing a reduction of emission intensity, it is possible to reduce GHG emissions by more than 200 million tons of CO2 equivalent, equivalent to an average per-hectare yearly reduction of approximately 0.17 tons /ha-1 year-1 of CO2 equivalent.
  • 15.
  • 16.
    Conclusion • Widespread adoptionof CSA practices has a positive effect on production with a consequent reduction in prices and decrease in the number of people at risk of hunger and the number of children younger than five years at risk of malnutrition. • Soil organic carbon appears to grow, compared with the BAU scenario, indicating that productivity can be increased while making production more sustainable than it is with current practices.
  • 17.
    Conclusion • The effectson GHG emissions are mixed • GHG emission reduction are highly context- and location-specific. CSA practices alone do not assure a reduction in emissions. • Result indicate that the reduction of GHG emissions is compatible with increased productivity. Results are dependent on how feasible it is to enforce and control the actual achievement of in-the-field emission intensity reductions.
  • 18.
    Conclusion • Effects ofCSA practices is highly dependent on how widely adopted they are. Lower adoptions than simulated (e.g. 50%, 25%) would make the effects marginal. • This points to the importance of barriers to adoption and the incentives and policies that must be in place to overcome them. • GHG emissions: we must go beyond the field and the farm and think about the relationships with other carbon-rich environments, think about systems (e.g. agroforestry, silvopastoral), value chains, etc.
  • 19.
    Thank You A le x D e P i n t o : a . d e p i n t o @ c g i a r . o r g SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW ENVIRONMENT AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC