Washington, DC
March 31, 2009
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
2020 Focus No. 16, Brief 1
Agriculture and Climate Change
An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen
Overview
Gerald C. Nelson
March 2009
download (PDF 64K)
The first in a series of briefs prepared to support the goal of
putting agriculture on the agenda of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in
Copenhagen in December 2009.
Goal: Put agriculture on the agenda of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen.
If fundamental climate change mitigation and adaptation goals
are to be met, international climate negotiations must include
agriculture. Agriculture and climate change are linked in
important ways, and this brief focuses on three: (1) climate
change will have large effects on agriculture, but precisely
where and how much are uncertain, (2) agriculture can help
mitigate climate change, and (3) poor farmers will need help
adapting to climate change. As negotiations get underway in
advance of the meeting of the 15th Conference of Parties of the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in
December 2009, this brief suggests negotiating outcomes for both
mitigation and adaptation funding that will support climate
change goals while enhancing the well-being of people who manage
and depend on agriculture, especially in the developing world.
Climate change will affect agriculture, but it is uncertain
where and how much
Climate change will have dramatic consequences for agriculture.
Water sources will become more variable, droughts and floods
will stress agricultural systems, some coastal food-producing
areas will be inundated by the seas, and food production will
fall in some places in the interior. Developing economies and
the poorest of the poor likely will be hardest hit. Overall,
however, substantial uncertainty remains about where the effects
will be greatest.
Agricultural outcomes are determined by complex interactions
among people, policies, and nature. Crops and animals are
affected by changes in temperature and precipitation, but they
are also influenced by human investments such as irrigation
systems, transportation infrastructure, and animal shelters.
Given the uncertainties about where climate change will take
place and how farmers will respond, much is still unknown about
the effects of climate change on agricultural production,
consumption, and human well-being, making it difficult to move
forward on policies to combat the effects of climate change.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Fund research on the
interactions between climate change and agriculture
Research should be funded that improves understanding and
predictions of the interactions between climate change and
agriculture. Climate change assessment tools are needed that are
more geographically precise, that are more useful for
agricultural policy and program review and scenario assessment,
that more explicitly incorporate the biophysical constraints
that affect agricultural productivity, and that better integrate
biophysical and socioeconomic scenarios.
Agriculture can help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
Today, agriculture contributes about 14 percent of annual
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and land-use change, including
forest loss, contributes another 19 percent. The relative
contributions differ dramatically by region. The developing
world accounts for about 50 percent of agricultural emissions
and 80 percent of land-use change and forestry emissions.
The formal inclusion of REDD (Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation) in the current
negotiations is a result of a new appreciation of the importance
of this source of GHGs and initial findings of low-cost
opportunities to reduce them. Significant challenges remain,
however. What are the best ways to dissuade poor people from
cutting down trees and converting other lands to unsustainable
agricultural practices and to encourage them to adopt
technologies and management strategies that mitigate carbon,
methane, and nitrous oxide emissions? The tasks ahead include
identifying and supporting the most appropriate approaches in
farmers’ fields and monitoring their implementation.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Fund cost-effective
mitigation in agriculture and research on promising technologies
and management systems
Agriculture has huge potential to cost-effectively mitigate GHGs
through changes in agricultural technologies and management
practices. Changing crop mixes to include more plants that are
perennial or have deep root systems increases the amount of
carbon stored in the soil. Cultivation systems that leave
residues and reduce tillage, especially deep tillage, encourage
the buildup of soil carbon. Shifting land use from annual crops
to perennial crops, pasture, and agroforestry increases both
above- and below-ground carbon stocks. Changes in crop genetics
and the management of irrigation, fertilizer use, and soils can
reduce both nitrous oxide and methane emissions. Changes in
livestock species and improved feeding practices can also cut
methane emissions. Mitigation funding programs arising from the
negotiations should thus include agriculture.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Fund low-cost systems for
monitoring agricultural mitigation
It is much easier to monitor 1,500 U.S. coal-fired power plants
than several million smallholder farmers who rely on field,
pasture, and forest for their livelihoods. Nonetheless,
promising technologies exist for reducing the costs of tracking
the performance of agricultural mitigation programs. For
example, microsatellites can be used for frequent,
high-resolution land cover imaging, inexpensive standardized
methods are available to test soil carbon, and simple assessment
methods can adequately quantify the effects of management
technologies on methane and nitrous oxide emissions. These
monitoring technologies and others require funding.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Allow innovative payment
mechanisms and support for novel institutions for agricultural
mitigation
Agricultural production differs qualitatively from other sources
of GHGs in that the sources are individually small,
geographically dispersed, and often served by inadequate
physical and institutional infrastructure. Cost-effective
payment mechanisms to encourage agricultural mitigation must
reflect these differences. Beyond the traditional schemes
developed under the Kyoto Protocol, the negotiating outcome
should allow and encourage alternatives that take advantage of
these differences, exploiting activities beyond project-specific
funding. Examples include land retirement contracts, one-time
payments for physical infrastructure investments that have
long-term mitigation effects, and payments for institutional
innovations that encourage mitigating behavior in common
property resources.
Cost-effective ways are needed to help poor farmers adapt to
climate change
Even with the best efforts to mitigate climate change, it is
inevitable that poor farmers will be affected. The goal is to
find and fund the most cost-effective ways to help the poor
adapt to the changes, a daunting task because of uncertainty
about the magnitude of possible changes, their geographic
distribution, and the long lead times needed to implement
adaptation efforts.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Allow funding mechanisms
that recognize the connection between pro-poor development
policies for sustainable growth and sound climate change
policies
A pro-growth, pro-poor development agenda that supports
agricultural sustainability also contributes to climate change
adaptation. Adaptation is easier when individuals have more
resources at their command and operate in an economic
environment with the flexibility to respond quickly to changes.
If, as seems likely, the effects of climate change will fall
disproportionately on poor farmers, a policy environment that
enhances opportunities for smallholders will also be good for
climate change adaptation. Such an environment would include
more investment in agricultural research and extension, rural
infrastructure, and access to markets for small farmers. Funding
should support these kinds of policy changes.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Allow funding mechanisms
that recognize and support synergies between adaptation and
mitigation
Many changes to management systems that make them more resilient
to climate change also increase carbon sequestration.
Conservation tillage increases soil water retention in the face
of drought while also sequestering carbon below ground.
Small-scale irrigation facilities not only conserve water in the
face of greater variability, but also increase crop productivity
and soil carbon. Agroforestry systems increase above- and
below-ground carbon storage while also increasing water storage
below ground, even in the face of extreme climate events.
Properly managed rangelands can cope better with drought and
sequester significant amounts of carbon. Project- and
programbased funding schemes that support adaptation should also
be able to draw on mitigation resources.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Provide funds for
agricultural science and technology
Even without climate change, greater investments in agricultural
science and technology are needed to meet the demands of a world
population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. Many of these
people will live in the developing world, have higher incomes,
and desire a more diverse diet. Agriculture science- and
technology-based solutions are essential to meet those demands.
Climate change places new and more challenging demands on
agricultural productivity. It is urgent to pursue crop and
livestock research, including biotechnology, to help overcome
stresses related to climate change such as heat, drought, and
novel pathogens. Crops and livestock are needed that respond
reasonably well in a range of production environments rather
than extremely well in a narrow set of climate conditions.
Research is also needed on how dietary changes in food animals
can reduce methane emissions.
One of the key lessons of the Green Revolution is that improved
agricultural productivity, even if not targeted to the poorest
of the poor, can be a powerful mechanism for alleviating poverty
indirectly by creating jobs and lowering food prices.
Productivity enhancements that increase farmers’ resilience in
the face of climate change pressures will likely have similar
poverty-reducing effects.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Provide funds for
infrastructure and institutional innovations
Improvements in water productivity are critical, and climate
change, by making rainfall more variable and changing its
spatial distribution, will exacerbate the need for better water
harvesting, storage, and management. Equally important is
supporting innovative institutional mechanisms that give
agricultural water users incentives to conserve. Investments in
rural infrastructure, both physical (such as roads, market
buildings, and storage facilities) and institutional (such as
extension programs, credit and input markets, and reduced
barriers to internal trade) are needed to enhance the resilience
of agriculture in the face of the uncertainties of climate
change.
Suggested negotiating outcome: Provide funds for data
collection on the local context of agriculture
Agriculture is an intensely local activity. Crop and livestock
productivity, market access, and the effects of climate all are
extremely location specific. Yet global efforts to collect and
disseminate data on the spatial nature of agriculture,
especially over time, are limited. Countries have reduced
funding for national statistical programs, and remote sensed
systems are still inadequate to the task of monitoring global
change. Understanding agriculture-climate interactions well
enough to support adaptation and mitigation activities based on
land use requires major improvements in data collection and
provision.
Concluding Remarks
Agricultural activities around the world are responsible for
almost 15 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions, could be
an important sink for emissions from other sectors, and are
likely to be altered dramatically by climate change. Agriculture
also provides a living for more than half of the world’s poorest
people. The ongoing negotiations to address climate change
provide a unique opportunity to combine low-cost mitigation and
essential adaptation outcomes with poverty reduction. |
|
