Barrack Okoba: Agricultural land management: capturing synergies between climate change adaptation,...

SYNERGIES AMONG ADAPTATION, SYNERGIES AMONG ADAPTATION, MITIGATION, AND PROFITABILITYMITIGATION, AND PROFITABILITY

Elizabeth Bryan, Claudia Ringler, Barrack Okoba,Elizabeth Bryan, Claudia Ringler, Barrack Okoba, Jawoo Koo, Mario Herrero, and Silvia SilvestriJawoo Koo, Mario Herrero, and Silvia Silvestri

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9-11 March 2011 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9-11 March 2011

Agricultural scenes - Land degradation, reducing livestock,

Background Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are particularly

vulnerable to climate change impacts, because of their limited capacity to adapt.

The development challenges in most of the African countries are considerable (poverty rate, labour force dependency on agriculture), and climate change will only add to these.

Efforts to facilitate adaptation are needed to enhance the resilience of the agriculture sector, ensure food security, and reduce rural poverty.

Not only is adaptation needed to increase the resilience of poor farmers to the threat of climate change, it also offers co-benefits in terms of agricultural mitigation and productivity.

Background Many of the practices that increase resilience to climate

change also increase agricultural productivity/profitability and reduce GHG emissions from agriculture. At the same time, there may be tradeoffs between increasing farm productivity/profitability, adaptation, and mitigation.

To maximize synergies and reduce trade-offs implicit in various crop, livestock, and land management practices, a more holistic view of food security, agricultural adaptation, mitigation, and development is required.

Policymakers should aim to promote adaptation strategies that have the greatest co-benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, climate change mitigation, and sustainable development.

There is little research to date on the synergies and tradeoffs between agricultural adaptation, mitigation, and productivity impacts.

Biofuels

Conservation tillage/ residue management

Integrated soil fertility managementImproved seedIrrigation (low energy using..)Conservation tillage/residue managementImproved fallow

OvergrazingSoil nutrient miningBare fallow

GW pumpingMechanized farming

Low High

Low

Hig

h

Food Security Prospects

Mit

igat

ion

Pote

ntia

l

Source: Adapted from FAO (2009)

Synergies and Tradeoffs between Mitigation and Food Security

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Adaptation

SYNERGIES & TRADEOFFS

Mitigation

Profitability


CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI

WHY CLIMATE MATTERS FOR KENYA

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.019

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

95

DROUGHT INDEXGDP GROWTH

Linkage between Palmer Drought Severity Index and GDP Growth

IFPRI (2006)

SYNERGIES: WHAT THE LITERATURE SUGGESTS

Management practices Productivity Variability Adaptation Mitigation potentialshort term long term

Improved crop varieties and/or types

↑ ↑ ↓ +++ Depends on variety/type

Changing planting dates ↓ +++ Improved crop/fallow ↓ ↑ ++ High, particularly for

rotation with legumesrotation/rotation with legumesUse of cover crops ↑ ↑ ++ HighAppropriate fertilizer/manure use

↑ ↑ ↓ +++ High, particularly when underutilized as in SSA

Incorporation of crop residues

↑ ↑ ↓ +++ High

Reduced/zero tillage ↓ ↑ ↓ + HighAgroforestry ↓ ↑ ↓ + HighIrrigation/water harvesting ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ when well

designed and maintained

Low to high depending on whether irrigation is energy

intensive or notBunds, terraces, ridge and furrow, diversion ditches

↓ ↑ ↓ +++ Low, minus soil carbon losses due to construction

Grass strips ↓ ↑ ↓ +++ Positive mitigation benefits

Sources: FAO 2009, Smith et al. 2008

PROJECT OBJECTIVES1. Assessment CC and CV impacts on

agriculture in Kenya 2. Assess HH and community adaptation

strategies available3. Identify agricultural land management

practices that help address CV and CC, ag mitigation and productivity

4. Identify determinants of adaptation5. Assess the feasibility of adaptation

options.6. Identify public action to support

adaptation options

STUDY SITES & DESIGNProject District

Agroecological zone Freq.

ALRMP and Control* Garissa Arid 134

ALRMP Mbeere South Semi Arid 97

Control Njoro Semi Arid 104

SMS, Ltd. Mukurweini Temperate 95

Control Othaya Temperate 88

Vi Agroforestry Gem Humid 96

Control Siaya Humid 96

Total 710

*The survey covered households in Garissa that participated in ALRMP (66) as well as those that did not (68).

METHODS TO ASSESS SYNERGIES/TRADEOFFS

Descriptive analysis of land management practices and adaptation strategies

Just and Pope production function to show yield and yield variability implications of management strategies

The CERES-Maize 4.5 model and DSSAT-CENTURY module to simulate maize growth/yield and soil organic matter dynamics

ILRI livestock simulation model

WHAT LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE FARMERS USING ON CROPLAND?

WHAT LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE FARMERS USING ON CROPLAND

Land management practice

Arid Semi-Arid Temperate Humid

Seasonal

crops

Perennial

crops

Seasonal

crops

Perennial

crops

Seasonal

crops

Perennial

crops

Seasonal

crops

Perennial

cropsSoil bunds 0 0 34 20 14 10 23 20Bench terrace 0 0 2 1 14 29 1 2Residues 5 12 13 12 4 5 25 15Grass strips 0 0 17 17 12 9 10 11Crop rotation/ fallowing 3 - 14 - 9 - 14 -

Ridge and furrow 43 12 2 43 10 25 11 60

Inorganic fertilizer 3 0 29 0 76 15 40 0

Manure 43 28 24 20 63 12 37 5

Land management practices and resource use


ADAPTATION

WHAT ADAPTATION STRATEGIES HAVE FARMERS ADOPTED?

WHAT ADAPTATION STRATEGIES WOULD FARMERS LIKE TO ADOPT?


MITIGATION

ARE FARMERS AWARE THAT AGRICULTURE CONTRIBUTES TO

CLIMATE CHANGE?

• 67% of farmers stated that they are aware Extensive media reports Government campaigns and

speeches related to climate change

1st Ag Carbon Mitigation project located in Kenya

FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES THAT REDUCE

CLIMATE CHANGE (%)

ABOVE GROUND CARBON STOCK BASED ON SATELLITE IMAGES

Surveyed Household

District

Waterbody

Carbon Stock (tC)< 50

51 - 100

101 - 300

301 - 500

501 - 1,000

1,001 - 3,000

3,001 - 5,000

> 5,000

YIELD AND SOC UNDER ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (GARISSA-

SAND)

YIELD AND SOC UNDER ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (GARISSA-CLAY)

TOP MITIGATION PRACTICES (DSSAT)

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT INCREASE SOC (DSSAT MODELING)

Crop residues increase SCS considerably

Inorganic fertilizer only increases SOC when applied with manure, mulching and/or crop residues

Intercropping of maize and beans or rotation of maize and beans—a key management practice used in much of Kenya—has only limited SCS benefits (insufficient biomass generation)

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT INCREASE SOC (DSSAT MODELING)

Soil water conservation technologies—represented as increased soil water availability prior to planting—show mixed results regarding carbon sequestration, even under a drier future, but are important in Arid areas

Results are similar under dry and wet climate scenarios

ARID ZONE SUMMARY In the arid site, maize yields under

rainfed conditions are very low due to limited water availability

Irrigation is essential to achieve reasonable yield levels.

In particular, yields are maximized when SWC and irrigation are combined

Results are similar for both soil types and maize varieties

SEMI-ARID AND TEMPERATE ZONES SUMMARY

In the semi-arid sites, water is somewhat limited

Therefore, SWC management practices and irrigation increase yield levels

However, yield improvements are much larger from higher nitrogen inputs from both fertilizers and manure

Results are similar in the humid/temperate sites

HUMID ZONE SUMMARY In the sub-humid sites, water is readily

available in general, while nitrogen is limited.

As a result:o Effects of SWC techniques are limitedo Irrigation lowered the average yield

across all management packages, possibly due to the increased nitrogen leaching from the soil


PROFITABILITY/PRODUCTIVITY

40-year average annual revenues from SOC* and yield** (USD/ha)

Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4

RES RES, FERT & MNRRES, FERT, MNR,

SWC & ROTFRT, MNR, RES,

SWC, ROT, & IRG

AEZ Soil

Revenue from

carbon (USD/ha)

Revenue from yield (USD/ha)

Revenue from

carbon (USD/ha)

Revenue from yield (USD)

Revenue from

carbon (USD/ha)


Revenue from

carbon (USD/ha)


Arid Clay 1.09 6.14 8.60 150.49 14.76 355.77 23.67 1651.23

Arid Sand 0.69 17.98 1.72 94.12 9.99 536.63 8.20 1391.67Semi-arid Loam 2.28 149.54 22.22 1180.96 21.66 1363.79 21.10 1522.40Semi-arid Sand 2.27 71.19 7.59 501.97 5.92 600.27 5.13 661.50Semi-arid Clay 1.73 256.01 19.41 1921.28 19.19 2235.86 17.31 2337.26Temperate Loam 1.83 -3.26 23.89 1086.86 23.05 1201.02 21.95 1235.59

Humid Loam 0.31 71.10 12.51 1702.27 12.14 1803.95 11.31 1560.72


WIN-WIN-WIN STRATEGIES

POLICY IMPLICATIONSWin-win-win strategies among adaptation,

mitigation, and profitability do exist, but have yet to be strategically exploited

To do so will require capacity building at national level to ensure that agricultural productivity and food security strategies and policies explicitly include climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects (including NAMA preparation)

Better dialogue between Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment (UNFCCC focal point) can support triple-win strategies

POLICY IMPLICATIONS To exploit agricultural mitigation potential

requiresDevelopment of measuring, reporting and

verification (MRV) guidelines at national levels and development of baselines

Capacity building for researcher and advisory agents, including development of MRV systems,

Generation and dissemination of triple-win technologies

Advice to farmers based on demand-driven approaches

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

To exploit agricultural mitigation potential requires

Support to project developers of climate-smart/carbon projects in form of project development and implementation

Implementation and application of MRV systems, risk management aspects (e.g. guarantee or loan to be paid back upon ER delivery)

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Many options for financial support:Carbon marketsAdaptation fundsMitigation funds/NAMAs with less strict MRV requirementsFinancial instruments such as guarantees/loans to private sector (and other institutions)Micro-finance

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL – “so far, our adaptive gears are getting

undermined, we need help” – future farmers in Arid Kenya

THANK YOU

Barrack Okoba: Agricultural land management: capturing synergies between climate change adaptation,...

Technology

Transcript of Barrack Okoba: Agricultural land management: capturing synergies between climate change adaptation,...