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

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Problem statement

Climate change adaptation

Climate change mitigation

Synergies and trade-off examples

Cocoa

Coffee

Challenges

Research

Policies and trade

Conclusions/Outlook

3

PROBLEM STATEMENT – CC ADAPTATION

Climate change may cause (a.o.):

Increased drought stress

Increased pest- and disease

pressure

→ Yields decrease

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Jaramillo et al 2011

4

NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION

Example: Arabica coffee

• Areas reducing

• Areas shifting

• Suitability reducing

MAXENT approach assuming current practices and varieties

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Laderach et al., 2011

5

NEED FOR CC ADAPTATION

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Laderach et al., 2011

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

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

© www.deansbeans.com

This requires investment!

Smallholder farmers may

not invest in long-term

solutions if these do not

generate short term

returns on investment

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

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

8

CLASSIFICATION FOR EAST AFRICAN COFFEE

Coffee – banana

intercrop

Unshaded

monoculture

Coffee – tree

system

Coffee

garden

Wild

coffee

Smal

lhold

er

farm

ing

Shaded

monoculture

Unshaded

monoculture

Est

ates

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

9

SMALLHOLDER COFFEE YIELDS IN EAST AFRICA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

01000

20

00

30

00

40

00

coffee system

yie

ld (

kg

/ha

)

1: Arabica x banana

Unshaded (Uganda)

2: Arabica x banana

Shaded (Uganda)

3: Robusta x banana

Shaded (Uganda)

4: Arabica monocrop

Unshaded (Kenya)

5: Arabica monocrop

Unshaded (Uganda)

6: Arabica monocrop

Shaded (Uganda)

7: Robusta monocrop

Shaded (Uganda)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

→ in low input systems, shading is not decreasing yield

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

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

11

CARBON FOOTPRINT – example LA

Sum = 3.7

Sum = 3.9

Sum = 9.2

Sum = 9.4

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Trad-poly �Com-poly Shad-mono �Unshad-monokg C

O2

-e/k

g-1

pa

rchm

en

t co

ffe

e

Carbon footprint per unit product

Pesticide production

Gas use

Diesel use

Electricity use

Off-farm transport

Crop residue managment

Waste water production

Fertiliser induced N2O

Fertiliser production

C sequestration in trees

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Carbon footprint of intensive systems 2-3 times higher, but

primarily caused by differences in post-harvest processing.

12

SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

↑ Data from CRIG – Ghana, presented by Joel Joffre at COPAL meeting

Gockowski and Sonwa, 2010 →

Highest yields achieved with fertilizer input and no-shade

13

SYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS AT PLOT LEVEL

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Plot level functions Full sun monocrop

Shade tree monocrop

Banana / food intercrop

Polyculture system

Forest 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

Shaded systems: adaptation and mitigation synergies

Adoption constraint: short term returns on investment

Shade → lower max yield → less $

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

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Certification bodies Retailers

15

TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

→ 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)

Agriculture is major driver of deforestation and GHG emission

→

16

THE TRADE-OFFS AT LANDSCAPE/GLOBAL SCALE

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

Coffee and cocoa area should not expand or shift to preserve forests?

Possible changes in land use and crops induced by climate change

2300m

1400m

1000m

Mountain

forest

Arabica

Robusta

Cocoa / Oil palm Lowland Forest

sea level

Change crop and move up

• Lowland forest → Cocoa / Oil palm

• Robusta coffee → Cocoa / Oil Palm

• Arabica coffee → Robusta coffee

• Highland forest → Arabica coffee

17

CHALLENGES

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

• 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

18

CHALLENGES

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

• 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

19

CONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK

Agricultural intensification for climate change adaptation and mitigation: synergies and tradeoffs

• 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