AGRICULTURE
a-i6030e
a-i6030e
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CHAPTER 4 FOOD AND <strong>AGRICULTURE</strong> SYSTEMS IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION<br />
»<br />
and provides fodder for livestock. The use of<br />
nitrogen-fixing leguminous trees, such as<br />
Faidherbia albida, improves soil fertility and<br />
yields. Although there is clear and abundant<br />
evidence of the positive impacts of agroforestry<br />
practices on productivity, adaptive capacity and<br />
carbon storage, a wide variety of systems and<br />
tree species need to be considered in<br />
different contexts. •<br />
MITIGATION COSTS,<br />
INCENTIVES AND<br />
BARRIERS<br />
There are many feasible and promising<br />
approaches to climate change mitigation in the<br />
AFOLU sector, and the technical potential is<br />
considerable. But what are the costs and thus the<br />
economic potential of mitigation? In other words,<br />
what is the hypothetical price of carbon that<br />
would induce farmers, fisherfolk and foresters to<br />
apply appropriate practices for sequestering<br />
carbon and reducing emissions?<br />
Based on the combined mitigation potential of<br />
forestry and agriculture, estimated in the IPCC’s<br />
Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC suggests an<br />
economic potential in 2030 of between ≈3 and<br />
≈7.2 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent a year at<br />
carbon prices of US$20 and US$100 per tonne,<br />
respectively (Smith et al., 2014). 8 Among regions,<br />
the largest mitigation potential for agriculture,<br />
forestry and land use is found in Asia, at all<br />
levels of carbon values (Figure 15, based on<br />
Smith et al., 2014).<br />
Forestry could make a significant contribution to<br />
mitigation at all levels of carbon prices. At low<br />
prices, the contribution of forestry is close to<br />
50 percent of the total from the AFOLU sector; at<br />
higher prices the share of forestry is lower.<br />
8 A range of global estimates of sequestration potential at different levels<br />
of costs has been published since the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report of<br />
2007. The estimates differ widely. For carbon values up to US$20 a tonne,<br />
they range from 0.12 to 3.03 GtCO 2 -eq per year. For values up US$100<br />
per tonne, they range from 0.49 to 10.6 GtCO 2 -eq (Smith et al., 2014).<br />
Forestry represents the bulk of mitigation<br />
potential in Latin America, at all levels of carbon<br />
prices. However, different forestry options have<br />
different economic mitigation potentials in<br />
different regions. Reduced deforestation<br />
dominates the forestry mitigation potential in<br />
Latin America and in the Middle East and Africa.<br />
Forest management, followed by afforestation,<br />
are the major options in OECD countries, Eastern<br />
Europe and Asia.<br />
Among other mitigation options, cropland<br />
management has the highest potential at lower<br />
carbon prices of US$20 per tonne. At US$100, the<br />
restoration of organic soils has the greatest<br />
potential. Also, the potential of grazing land<br />
management and the restoration of degraded<br />
lands increases at higher carbon prices (Smith et<br />
al., 2014).<br />
These estimates of economic mitigation potential<br />
provide broad indications of how to target<br />
interventions in the most cost-effective way.<br />
However, more detailed assessments are needed<br />
in order to properly assess AFOLU’s mitigation<br />
potential, the impacts on vulnerable production<br />
systems and groups, and the costs of<br />
implementation. It is a pre-requisite that practices<br />
optimized to reduce GHG emissions or sequester<br />
carbon should also protect the land tenure rights<br />
of small-scale producers and contribute to food<br />
security and climate change adaptation,<br />
particularly for the most vulnerable groups.<br />
A range of institutional and economic<br />
approaches can facilitate the implementation of<br />
agricultural emission reductions. On the<br />
institutional side, these would include providing<br />
information to farmers about agricultural<br />
practices that create adaptation/mitigation<br />
synergies and, if needed, access to credit to<br />
implement them. On the economic side, options<br />
include positive incentives for farmers to provide<br />
and maintain carbon sinks; taxation of nitrogen<br />
fertilizer in countries where it is being<br />
overutilized, a measure which is already applied<br />
in some OECD countries to reduce nitrate<br />
pollution; and supply-chain initiatives that<br />
market food products with a low carbon<br />
footprint (Paustian et al., 2016). •<br />
| 84 |