21.10.2016 Views

AGRICULTURE

a-i6030e

a-i6030e

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 |

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!