Will sustainable intensification help us avoid exceeding 2 °C?
1 like3,071 views
I. Business-as-usual intensification alone will not achieve the necessary emissions reductions in agriculture by 2030 to limit warming to 2°C. II. Plausible mitigation practices can achieve only 10-40% of needed reductions by 2030. III. Significant mitigation can be achieved by reducing conversion of forests to agriculture, but requires location-specific interventions to avoid deforestation.
Will sustainable intensification help us avoid exceeding 2 °C?
- 1. Will sustainable intensification help us avoid exceeding 2 °C? Lini Wollenberg,1 Meryl Richards,1 Petr Havlík,2 Pete Smith,3 Francesco Tubiello,4 Sarah Carter5 and Martin Herold5 1 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont 2 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) 3 University of Aberdeen 4 Food and Agriculture Organization 5 Wageningen University and Research Centre Montpellier March 16-18, 2015
- 2. Sustainable intensification is the current paradigm for agricultural development
- 3. Claims to mitigation: increase GHG emissions efficiency and sparing of high C ecosystems 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 7.50 8.50 9.50 10.50 11.50methane-kgCO2/kgproteinproduced metabolisable energy (MJ/kg DM) developed developing BRICS Pastoralist farmers in Chad Livestock productivity, feed Herrero et al. 2013, PNAS US, EU Residue mgmt. Efficient N fertilizer use
- 4. Can intensification also help meet hard climate goals? Meet future food needs and achieve climate policy targets in agriculture such as 2 °C? • Reduce the GHG emissions of production • Avoid conversion of carbon-rich forests, grasslands and peatlands
- 5. Agricultural baseline to 2050 FAO global perspective studies (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012) 146 countries, 34 crops 60% more food 9-10 billion people, ñincome, diet Intensified & expanded agriculture CH4 & N2O emissions Land use change and CO2 90% of increase in annual production in developing countries, esp. from livestock
- 6. Yield increases 73% 6% Cropping intensity Expected sources of growth in crop production (%) 2005/7 to 2050 Arable land expansion Increases in cropping intensity Yield increases Developing countries 21 6 73 World 10 10 80 Area expansion 21% Scenario of intensification Developing countries Adapted from Bruinsma 2009 FAO
- 7. Projected emissions for the FAO agriculture baseline 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Percentof2010emissions Year EPA FAOSTAT
- 8. Calculating emissions for a 2°C aspirational target 2030 emissions reflect assumptions of each pathway RCP Scenarios: • RCP2.6 represents 2.6 W/m2 radiative forcing in 2100, ~450 ppm CO2e • Limits warming to 0.3 to 1.7 °C during 2081 - 2100 • Contrast to the RCP 8.5, representing 8.5 W/m2 , 1370 ppm CO2e, ~4.9 °C
- 9. Target emissions compared against baselines: Mitigation needed in 2030 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Percentof2010emissions Year RCP8.5 EPA FAOSTAT RCP2.6 2.2 GtCO2e 1.0 GtCO2e 1.4 GtCO2e
- 10. I. Business-as-usual intensification will not achieve the mitigation needed in the agriculture sector by 2030
- 11. How much can mitigation practices contribute to the 2 °C policy target?
- 12. Selected mitigation practices compatible with food production • Cropland management • Grazing land management • Livestock Not • Rewetting peatlands • Cropland set aside IPCC AR5 Table 11.2
- 13. Calculated mitigation with global data sets 1. Bottom-up technology-by-technology estimates (Smith 2007, 2008, University of Aberdeen, IPCC) $20 tCO2 2. Production efficiency gains (trade and location, production system) using integrated assessment modeling (Havlík 2014, IIASA) $20, $50 tCO2 3. Bottom-up agroforestry (Neufeldt 2014, ICRAF)
- 14. How close to the 2°C goal can we get? Source: * Smith et al. 2008, 2013 ($20/t CO2e) ** Havlik et al. 2014 *** Neufeldt 2014 (no C price) Gt CO2e/yr in 2030 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Agroforestry (AGB) 25% above BAU *** Efficiency, $50/tCO2 ** Efficiency, $20/tCO2 ** Technology adoption (25%) less C seq * Technology adoption (25% econ pot) * Technology adoption (100% econ pot) * 1 Gt CO2e mitigation needed for 2°C
- 15. II. Plausible interventions will achieve only 10-40% of mitigation needed in agriculture by 2030
- 16. Will future food needs and intensification increase deforestation? In theory, plenty of land: ~81-147 Mha cropland needed by 2030 ~445-598 Mha will be available But global “cropland availability” is no guarantee of local availability or avoided deforestation Location matters and trade-offs already occur: - Remaining land mostly: Brazil, Argentina, DRC, Mozambique, Russia - Agriculture is already a primary driver of deforestation - Environmental governance needed
- 17. 73% of deforestation due to agriculture, e.g. oil palm (Hosonuma 2012) ~4.7 Mha/yr ~ 4.32 Gt CO2e/yr 3.69 billion ha forest globally in 2005 Avoiding 25% of forest emissions (1.08 Gt CO2e/yr) due to agriculture would require conserving ~1.2 Mha/yr globally in threatened forest areas 160Mha by 2030 Meeting climate targets therefore requires location-specific interventions 6.4 Mha deforested/yr (2000-2005)
- 18. III. Significant mitigation can be achieved by reducing conversion of forest to agriculture, but requires location-specific interventions
- 19. Conclusion • Preliminary calculations indicate an aspirational sectoral target of ~1 GtCO2e/y. by 2030. • Business-as-usual and low emissions intensification won’t be enough to meet this goal. • Massive innovation and scale needed
- 20. Is more radical mitigation possible? • Build on current options: combinations of strategies, more efficient structural changes in production, more effective governance of forests • Invest in promising innovations: e.g., biomass carbon capture & sequestration, reduced-methane ruminants, crops with biological nitrification inhibitors • Explore mitigation from dietary shifts and reducing waste