Our Common Future Under Climate Change

International Scientific Conference 7-10 JULY 2015 Paris, France

Menu
  • Home
  • Zoom Interactive Programme
Cliquer pour fermer

Wednesday 8 July - 16:30-18:00 UNESCO Fontenoy - ROOM IX

2218 - Land-based mitigation: agriculture, forests, bioenergy

Parallel Session

Lead Convener(s): M. Herold (Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands)

Convener(s): H. Neufeldt (ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya), P. Delacote (French National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), Nancy, France), M. Rufino (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia)

16:30

Emission and mitigation hotspots in the land use sector across the tropics

M. Herold (Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands), M. Rufino (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia), R. R. Roman Cuesta (Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands), L. Verchot (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia), V. De Sy (Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands), S. Carter (Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands), A. Valerio (Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands), C. Martius (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia)

Abstract details
Emission and mitigation hotspots in the land use sector across the tropics

M. Herold (1) ; M. Rufino (2) ; RR. Roman Cuesta (1) ; L. Verchot (2) ; V. De Sy (3) ; S. Carter (1) ; A. Valerio (1) ; C. Martius (2)
(1) Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands; (2) Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia; (3) Wageningen University, Centre for Geo-Information, Wageningen, Netherlands

Abstract content

Deforestation is the largest net source of GHG emissions in the tropics, and mitigation initiatives such as REDD+ should consider agriculture as it is a key driver of deforestation. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA), so far an agriculture technologies focused exercise, can potentially reduce deforestation as the underlying assumption is that higher yields take pressure off forests. However, this cannot be taken for granted and deserves a closer look from science, policy and investment perspectives. If implemented in the right way, CSA has the potential for win-win outcomes as CSA aims to achieve both mitigation and adaptation goals. This also fits the recent focus in climate debates on agriculture as a driver of deforestation and ecosystem degradation, and can become an integral part of the solution to saving the world’s forests.

 

In this session, we present new scientific findings on how agriculture and REDD+ are linked, how these are addressed in country strategies, and how an integrated perspective can exploit synergies and address conflicts. New data showing where and by how much agriculture is driving deforestation, and the potential emissions reductions from reducing this driver will be discussed. We present a new tropical analysis on the contribution to GHG emissions from the AFOLU sector that offers a spatially explicit view of where the AFOLU hotspots of emissions are located and what is the relative contribution of forests vs non-forests we also  analyze the potential to achieve mitigation through CSA. Presentations will be short to allow for a moderated discussion. The presentation and related discussions aim to stimulate an interactive debate around the possible linkages between REDD+ and CSA – both in policy and practice. The results can feed into ongoing discussions and ideas of a broader “land use agreement” incorporating both REDD+ and agriculture that is still high on the UNFCCC agenda. With the new data and results generated by several research partners, we are able to underpin the discussions with better understanding and bring critical issues to the forefront, such as: where and how can land-based mitigation through CSA be successful in reducing GHG emissions?

16:42

Developing a sustainable charcoal sector in Africa

H. Neufeldt (ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya), P. Dobie (ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya), M. Iiyama, (ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya), K. Sander, (World Bank, Washington DC, United States of America)

Abstract details
Developing a sustainable charcoal sector in Africa

H. Neufeldt (1) ; P. Dobie (1) ; M. Iiyama, (1) ; K. Sander, (2)
(1) ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya; (2) World Bank, Washington DC, United States of America

Abstract content

Charcoal is a vital source of energy for millions of people around the globe and one of the most commercialized resources in sub-Saharan Africa, yet policies to effectively govern the sector are lacking in many countries. Authorities in countries around the world tend to view charcoal production and use as an environmental and health problem. However, if managed properly charcoal provides a low-cost and locally available energy source that has the potential to become sustainable and contribute significantly to poverty alleviation.

This paper discusses the main obstacles to a sustainable charcoal value chain in sub-Saharan Africa and identifies key areas where interventions are required to improve sustainability while ensuring charcoal continues to provide livelihood benefits. It provides evidence of how a sustainable, transparent and properly regulated and governed charcoal sector could be part of the solution to energy access and economic challenges faced by many developing countries.

The paper summarises the most up-to-date literature on the issue at this time. Although the focus is on sub-Saharan Africa, some of the recommendations may be equally applicable to other charcoal-dependent developing countries.

Key recommendations

  • Improve sustainability in the charcoal sector, and reduce associated degradation, through exploring community-based forest management options, growing trees outside forests, strengthening tenure and property rights, and implementing guidelines on sustainable harvesting and production.
  • Improve governance across the charcoal value chain to create a regulated, transparent and coordinated sector which formally contributes to national economies.
  • Invest in capacity development in improved kiln technologies, co-management of public or protected forests, agroforestry, woodlots, small-scale plantations, and financial management and reporting to improve sustainability and governance of the sector.
  • Increase participation by disempowered stakeholders in the charcoal sector to encourage greater uptake of more efficient technologies and more sustainable management practices.
  • Transform the negative image of charcoal, allow sub-national governments to earn charcoal revenues and tap into internationally recognized mechanisms to create incentives for investment in a sustainable charcoal sector.
16:54

ORACLE: Opportunities and Risks of Agrosystems & forests in response to CLimate, socio-economic and policy changEs in France

N. De Noblet-Ducoudré (Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette cédex, France), I. Garcia De Cortazar-Atauri (INRA, Avignon, France), J.-D. Bontemps (AgroParisTech, Nancy, France), J.-C. Calvet (Meteo-France, Toulouse, France), D. Carrer (Meteo France, Toulouse, France), J. Caubel (Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette cédex, France), P. Delacote (INRA, Nancy, France), P.-A. Jayet, (INRA, Thiverval-Grignon, France), N. Laanaia (Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette cédex, France), L. Antonello (AgroParisTech, Nancy, France), D. Loustau (INRA, Villenave d'Ornon, France), A. Lungarska (INRA, Thiverval-Grignon, France), S. Wieruszeski (Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette cédex, France)

Abstract details
ORACLE: Opportunities and Risks of Agrosystems & forests in response to CLimate, socio-economic and policy changEs in France

N. De Noblet-Ducoudré (1) ; I. Garcia De Cortazar-Atauri (2) ; JD. Bontemps (3) ; JC. Calvet (4) ; D. Carrer (5) ; J. Caubel (1) ; P. Delacote (6) ; PA. Jayet, (7) ; N. Laanaia (1) ; L. Antonello (8) ; D. Loustau (9) ; A. Lungarska (7) ; S. Wieruszeski (1)
(1) Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette cédex, France; (2) INRA, Agroclim, Avignon, France; (3) AgroParisTech, Lerfob, Nancy, France; (4) Meteo-France, CNRM, Toulouse, France; (5) Meteo France, CNRM-GAME, Toulouse, France; (6) INRA, Economics, Nancy, France; (7) INRA, Economie publique, Thiverval-Grignon, France; (8) AgroParisTech, Laboratoire d'economie forestière, Nancy, France; (9) INRA, ISPA, Villenave d'Ornon, France

Abstract content

Our rapidly changing climate significantly affects production of agricultural and forestry products throughout the world, with potential impacts on land-use practices and land-cover choices. In parallel, socio-economic decisions and environmental policies are evolving as agriculture and forestry are called to play a major role in the cost-effective climate mitigation portfolio. The Common Agricultural Policy for example is moving towards “de-coupling” and “greener” schemes, with increased concern for the environment. There is also growing pressure on scarce resources and increasing competition over soils for the production of food, feed, wood, energy and a broad range of environmental services.

To provide insights on a) the potential risks and opportunities for agriculture and forestry, and b) possible future patterns of land use, the scientific challenge is to account simultaneously for i) climate change and its expected effects on productivity and more generally on the functioning of agro-ecosystems, and ii) the evolution of the socio-economic and policy environment.

Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have reviewed model projections of climate change impacts over Europe but most of those projections did not adequately account for climatic variability (in climate projections and impacts). The potential for risks or benefits have therefore not yet been systematically explored, thus reducing our level of confidence in those projections. It is then imperative to increase our understanding of the range of plausible impacts of climate change on agro-ecosystems and forests to better work on adaptation strategies for these sectors. This can only be done using a combination of a) diverse modelling approaches and observations, b) reliable quantification of uncertainty, and c) syntheses of published results.

The ORACLE project (https://oracle.lsce.ipsl.fr/) tried to systematically explore the potential implications of various scenarios of climate change and changes in socio-economic and policy environment for land-use in France, taking explicitly into account the link between uncertainty on climatic drivers and ecosystem responses on the one hand, and adaptation decisions on the other hand. ORACLE brings together climatologists, agronomists, economists, hydrologists and statisticians with a common goal: better inform the relationships between climate constraints and land uses. We focus on French major anthropogenic ecosystems (crops, pasture and managed forests). We have tried to make the best use of the most recent findings of various projects and available databases, the most relevant literature, and the most up-to-date models of vegetation and economics. Our time scale of interest spans the very recent past (last 30 years), and the future regional climate projections for the 21th century with various horizons of interests (2050 and 2100). 

Evaluation of potential risks or opportunities for cropland have been examined via a suite of indicators that are either computed directly from meteorological variables, or from generic biosphere models. Climatic indicators provide information on climate only, but with a selection of those that are relevant for a specific managed system (Graux et al. in prep.). Eco-climatic & Biotechnic indicators are directly computed from meteorological variables but designed to be ecosystem-specific (Caubel et al. in press). Other Eco-climatic & Biotechnic indicators are derived from simulations using generic vegetation models, with a prior definition and calibration of the indicators. The areas where a specific crop type is either at risk or potentially cultivable based on an analysis of the combined changes in all indicators. 

This abstract is one of the three keynote contributions to the « Land-based mitigation: agriculture, forests, bioenergy » section and has been elaborated together with Philippe Delacote.

17:06

Assessing low emissions development pathways for the agricultural and land use sector

U. Kleinwechter (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), P. Havlik (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), N. Forsell, (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), M. Gusti, (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), Y. W. Zhang, (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), O. Fricko, (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), K. Riahi (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria), M. Obersteiner (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria)

Abstract details
Assessing low emissions development pathways for the agricultural and land use sector

U. Kleinwechter (1) ; P. Havlik (1) ; N. Forsell, (1) ; M. Gusti, (1) ; YW. Zhang, (1) ; O. Fricko, (1) ; K. Riahi (1) ; M. Obersteiner (1)
(1) IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria

Abstract content

With a contribution of almost one quarter to total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and associated abatement potential, its role as a source of biomass for bioenergy production, and potential for sequestration from afforestation, the agricultural, forestry, and land use sector (AFOLU) has to be an integral part of any global low emissions development strategy for climate change mitigation. Studies have sought to identify the required contribution of the sector to long-term climate stabilization and have evaluated its technical and economical mitigation potential. Detailed yet comprehensive analyses of the low emissions agricultural development pathways that form part and result from climate change mitigation strategies are scant. It is not yet well understood where to set priorities for mitigation efforts, both geographically and sectorally. It is further not clear which role specific technologies aimed at reducing GHG emissions in agricultural production processes will have to play.

Applying the IIASA integrated assessment modelling framework with the Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM) used for the AFOLU sector we create mitigation scenarios to reduce emissions to levels consistent with attaining a 2-degree climate target. The analysis is carried out for three Shared Socio-economic Development Pathways (SSP) up to the year 2050. A basic set of model simulations is carried out with the existing set of agricultural technologies to create standard mitigation cases for each SSP. An extended set of simulations implements additional assumptions on add-on technologies for mitigation in agricultural production processes.   

The extent of agricultural mitigation to limit emissions to levels consistent with a two degree target is 2.1 GtCO2eq/yr, 2.9 GtCO2eq/yr and 3.7 GtCO2eq/yr under SSP1, SSP2, and SSP3, respectively. Abatement of emissions from land use change (LUC) consistently accounts for around 80% of the total. Mitigation potentials of CH 4 and N2O from agricultural production are around 11% to 14% and 7%, respectively.

An assessment of priorities for AFOLU mitigation highlights the fundamental role that developing and emerging economies will have to play. Mitigation efforts should be prioritized to regions with the highest economic abatement potentials at emissions price levels consistent with the two degree target, namely Brazil and the rest of South America, the Congo Basin and Western Africa, Southern Africa, and China. Within those regions and depending on regional emissions patterns and the resulting abatement potentials, either a focus on the reduction of LUC CO2 or on emissions from agricultural production should be prioritized. In the regions with large areas of humid tropical forests mitigation efforts should focus on the reduction of deforestation, hence mitigation of land use change emissions. These include the Congo Basin and Southern Africa, where almost the entire abatement potential relates to LUC. In China, mitigation efforts are required in agricultural production. The reduction of CH4 from enteric fermentation accounts for about 50% of total abatement and CH4 and N2O from crop production, including rice, and manure management contribute another 25%. Brazil and Western Africa have also abatement potential from the reduction of LUC CO2. In both regions, however, the reduction of CH4 from enteric fermentation constitutes an important part of the mitigation portfolio.

Mitigation technologies are found to have an important role to play in particular in regions that should prioritize abatement of agricultural emissions. While mitigation technologies can increase overall global AFOLU abatement only marginally, they can have significant impacts on emissions from crop and livestock production. In China, add-on technologies potentially contribute 4% additional abatement in crop production and 23% in livestock production. In Brazil, mitigation of GHG from livestock production could be raised by up to 34%. Finally, in spite of the currently high importance of land use change and associated emissions, future trends suggest that more priority should be given to mitigation of agricultural emissions and the use of add-on mitigation technologies when moving into the second half of the century.

17:18

Land-based mitigation: a social-ecological positive feedback loop? Some insights from the Global Land Project

S. Boillat (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil), K.-H. Erb (University of Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austria), O. Mertz (University of Copenhagen, Oster, Denmark), F. Scarpa (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil), P. Verburg (VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Abstract details
Land-based mitigation: a social-ecological positive feedback loop? Some insights from the Global Land Project

S. Boillat (1) ; KH. Erb (2) ; O. Mertz (3) ; F. Scarpa (1) ; P. Verburg (4)
(1) Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Centro de Ciência do Sistema Terrestre, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil; (2) University of Klagenfurt, Institute for social ecology, Vienna, Austria; (3) University of Copenhagen, Department of geography and geology, Oster, Denmark; (4) VU University, Institute of environmental studies, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract content

Feeding a growing human population, while at the same time mitigating climate change, is a major challenge of this century. The competing demand for land for providing, among others, food, fiber, energy, ecosystem services and carbon sinks and stocks, makes land-based mitigation a particularly tough task (Smith et al. 2013). Sparing land leads to an important trade-off between the need to perform agricultural intensification, which increases emissions, and at the same time reduce emissions through the reduction of deforestation and land cover change. While the share of total anthropogenic emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (including deforestation) has been diminishing, emissions from agriculture have continued to grow steadily (Tubiello et al. 2015). Furthermore, new research has found that land management impact on surface temperature are substantial and have been overlooked up to now, stressing the need to integrate land management to improve assessment of human impacts on the climate (Luyssaert et al. 2014). This contribution has the objective to give some insights into possible synergies, trade-offs and feedback loops related to land-based mitigation measures. It builds on different research achievements of the Global Land Project, part of the Future Earth program, which hosts the largest community of active researchers and practitioners in land system science. Insights from two GLP endorsed projects related to REDD+, REDD-PAC in Brazil and the Congo Basin and I-REDD+ in Southeast Asia allow to identify methodological challenges in implementing  land-based mitigation measures and assessing their impacts on biodiversity, food security and forest carbon stocks. These challenges include 1) the definition of reference emission levels in highly dynamic land use and management change contexts, 2) the estimation and integration of carbon stocks and sinks in degraded forests, abandoned lands and mosaic landscapes, 3) the need for broader and more complex criteria for forest definition, 4) matching spatially explicit data to assess possible synergies and trade-offs between desired functions of land, like for example carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation, and 5) the assessment of just benefit distribution and risk of elite capture of incentives related to land-based mitigation. On the base of these challenges, we discuss the potential of new concepts for analyzing and measuring land-use intensity to assess the possible impacts and feedback loops related to land-based mitigation measures.

 

References

Luyssaert S. et al. 2014. Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature. Nature Climate Change  4 (2014): 389-393

Smith P. et al. 2013. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change Biology 19: 2285-2302

Tubiello FN. et al. 2015. The Contribution of Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use activities to Global Warming, 1990–2012. Global Change Biology doi: 10.1111/gcb.12865

17:30

Agroecological practices adopted by Malagasy farmers to reduce farms carbon footprint in the Central (Itasy) and East Coast (Analanjirofo) of Madagascar

N. Rakotovao (University of Antananarivo, Laboratoire des RadioIsotopes, Antananarivo, Madagascar), J. Razakaratrimo (University of Antananarivo, Laboratoire des RadioIsotopes, Antananarivo, Madagascar), T. M. Razafimbelo (University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar), S. Rakotosamimanana (Agrisud International, Antananarivo, Madagascar), M. Jahiel (Centre Technique Horticole de Tamatave, Tamatave, Madagascar), A. Albrecht (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier, France), S. Deffontaines (Agrisud International, Antananarivo, Madagascar)

Abstract details
Agroecological practices adopted by Malagasy farmers to reduce farms carbon footprint in the Central (Itasy) and East Coast (Analanjirofo) of Madagascar

N. Rakotovao (1) ; J. Razakaratrimo (1) ; TM. Razafimbelo (2) ; S. Rakotosamimanana (3) ; M. Jahiel (4) ; A. Albrecht (5) ; S. Deffontaines (3)
(1) University of Antananarivo, Laboratoire des RadioIsotopes, Antananarivo, Madagascar; (2) University of Antananarivo, Laboratoire des RadioIsotopes, Antananarivo, Madagascar; (3) Agrisud International, Antananarivo, Madagascar; (4) Centre Technique Horticole de Tamatave, Tamatave, Madagascar; (5) Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Umr eco&sols, Montpellier, France

Abstract content

For decades, Malagasy farmers have to deal with the low performance of the agricultural system and cope with the threat of food insecurity. This low productivity is caused by various factors including lack of means of production and degradation of natural resources such as loss of soil fertility. In addition, the effects of climate variability constrained farmers to shift constantly cropping calendars. Therefore, agroecology was proposed to farmers on one hand to cope with food insecurity by increasing agricultural production and diversifying crops in order to get more sources of incomes and on another hand to restore the production environment such as watersheds, soil and water availability and to contribute to climate change adaptation. First, this work aimed to estimate the carbon footprint of farms in two regions located in the Central and the East Coast of Madagascar. Secondly, the contribution and influence of the agroecological practices adopted by farmers to carbon footprintsat farm scale was assessed. The annual flux of the three main greenhouse gases encountered in the agricultural sector including the carbon dioxide (CO2), the methane (CH4) and the nitrous oxide (N2O) expressed in CO2 equivalent is considered as the carbon footprint of each farm. Twenty smallholder farms selected from farm typologies per region were studied: twelve for the Central Highlands and eight at the East Coast. Farms located in the central region were characterized by intensification of annual cropping systems using agroecological practices such as intensified rice system which alternates flooding and drying of rice fields, composting organic residues and planting fruit trees in association with annual cropping systems. Agricultural activities of farms located in the East Coast were based on clove plantation associated with annual crops either in simple specie agroforestry or mixed tree species agroforestry and the traditional twice-a-year rice cropping system. Farm resource flow maps were developed in order to represent all of the structures and characteristics of each farm. GHG-source and -sink compartments’ inventory was carried out and emission factors adapted to each zone were selected form the literature. A local/specific farm carbon footprint calculator was developed.The results showed that farm carbon footprint average amounted to 3.04 Mg CO2eq ha-1y-1and 7.69 Mg CO2eqha-1y-1 in the central and in the east coast respectively. Farms in the East Coast showed high carbon footprint because of the traditional twice-a-year rice cropping. In the Central Highlands, the intensified rice cropping system reduced the farm carbon footprint by reducing methane emission, composting organic residues reduces also farm carbon footprint up to 30% by improving carbon storage in soils. In the East Coast, agroforestry allowed a farm carbon footprint reduction between 15 to 51% due to carbon storage in woody biomass. These results showed another aspect of the beneficial impacts of agroecological practices when adopted by smallholder farmers in Madagascar, at farm scale, to climate change mitigation.

17:42

Discussion

Abstract details
Discussion
Abstract content