AGRICULTURE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FIGURE 12 NET EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM AFOLU IN CO 2 EQUIVALENT IN 2014, BY REGION GIGATONNES 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 - 1.0 - 1.5 Countries in developed regions Eastern and Southeastern Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Northern Africa and Western Asia Oceania, excluding Australia and New Zealand Southern Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Agriculture Burning biomass Forest Cropland organic soils Net forest conversion Grassland organic soils SOURCE: FAO, 2016d. See Annex table A.2 for details. FIGURE 13 SHARE OF AGRICULTURAL EMISSIONS IN CO 2 EQUIVALENT IN 2014, BY SOURCE AND AT GLOBAL LEVEL 4% 4% 1% 2% Enteric fermentation Burning crop residues 10% Cultivation of organic soils Crop residues 12% 40% Burning savanna Rice cultivation 4% Synthetic fertilizers Manure applied to soils 7% 16% Manure management Manure left on pasture Note: See Notes on Annex tables for definitions of sources. SOURCE: FAO, 2016d. See Annex table A.3. | 40 |
TABLE 6 THREE MAIN SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2014, BY REGION Ranking Countries in developed regions Eastern and Southeast Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Northern Africa and Western Asia Oceania, excluding Australia and New Zealand Southern Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 1 Enteric fermentation (37%) Rice cultivation (26%) Enteric fermentation (58%) Enteric fermentation (39%) Cultivation of organic soils (59%) Enteric fermentation (46%) Enteric fermentation (40%) 2 Synthetic fertilizers (17%) Enteric fermentation (24%) Manure left on pasture (23%) Manure left on pasture (32%) Enteric fermentation (14%) Rice cultivation (15%) Manure left on pasture (28%) 3 Manure management (12%) Synthetic fertilizers (17%) Synthetic fertilizers (6%) Synthetic fertilizers (18%) Manure management (14%) Synthetic fertilizers (15%) Burning savannah (21%) SOURCE: FAO, 2016d. » Continued from page 38 production, while only 21 percent is linked to the agriculture sectors. Emissions from the energy sector could be reduced, even to zero, through greater energy use efficiency and a transition to renewable energy sources. If that were to happen, emissions from agriculture would represent a progressively larger part of total emissions, for three reasons: (1) because emissions from other sectors would decrease; (2) because food production is increasing and, with it, the tendency towards higher emissions; and (3) because reducing agriculture’s emissions is far more challenging owing to the enormous diversity in its sectors and the complex biophysical processes involved. The agriculture sectors can contribute to climate change mitigation by decoupling emissions increases from production increases. However, they also have the unique capacity to sequester carbon. At the present state of technology, one of the main means of extracting CO 2 from the atmosphere is through forestry and the rehabilitation of degraded land. Transforming this theoretical potential into an actual sink depends on biophysical conditions, as well as on the available technical options and appropriate institutions and policies. Emissions from agriculture, as well as sinks, are part of the global carbon and nitrogen cycles. Optimizing the mitigation potential of the agriculture sectors requires, therefore, an understanding of these cycles and of how agricultural activities interact with them. Some – but not all – of the options for enhanced mitigation also carry co-benefits in terms of adaptation (see Chapter 4). • CONCLUSIONS This chapter has traced the potential impacts of climate change on agriculture, socio-economic development and, ultimately, food security. Among the main impacts on agriculture are the increased incidence of drought and extreme weather events, more intense pest and disease pressures and the loss of biodiversity. Long-term projections point to negative effects on food production that will become increasingly severe after 2030. Reductions in crop yields and the productivity of livestock, fisheries and forestry are more likely in tropical developing regions than in temperate, developed countries. As the impact of climate change on agricultural production and productivity deepens, an increase in both international food prices and the number of people at risk of food insecurity is expected. While socioeconomic and technological development will be a stronger driver of food security trends than climate change until 2050, climate change impacts on agriculture and food security should not be underestimated, especially at the regional level – the socio-economic knock-on effects will be felt most by low-income rural populations and by countries with a high dependency on agriculture. The following chapter examines how the agriculture sectors can adapt to current or expected changes, in a way that minimizes their harmful effects and takes advantage of opportunities, with a focus on smallholders and small-scale production systems. The potential for climate change mitigation and the potential co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation measures will be addressed in Chapter 4.
Page 1 and 2:
2016 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULT
Page 3 and 4:
ISSN 0081-4539 2016 THE STATE OF FO
Page 5 and 6:
NOTES BORIA VOLOREIUM, SIT AUT QUIS
Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORD Following last year’s hi
Page 9 and 10: productivity in regions where peopl
Page 11 and 12: Statistical annex The annex was pre
Page 13 and 14: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE WORLD FACES A
Page 15 and 16: productivity improvements. However,
Page 17 and 18: emissions of greenhouse gases. The
Page 19: flows. This approach would allow fa
Page 22 and 23: NAROK, KENYA Maasai pastoralists gr
Page 24 and 25: CHAPTER 1 HUNGER, POVERTY AND CLIMA
Page 32 and 33: TABLE 1 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON SELECTED
Page 37 and 38: CHAPTER 2 CLIMATE, AGRICULTURE AND
Page 39 and 40: KEY MESSAGES 1 UNTIL ABOUT 2030, GL
Page 41 and 42: BOX 5 SUMMARY OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMP
Page 43 and 44: THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2
Page 45 and 46: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA NEAR EAST AND NO
Page 47 and 48: FIGURE 5 PROJECTED CHANGES IN CROP
Page 51 and 52: BOX 7 PROJECTING CLIMATE CHANGE: RC
Page 53 and 54: TABLE 3 NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING IN
Page 57 and 58: FIGURE 10 FOOD INSECURITY AND CLIMA
Page 59: TABLE 5 EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS OF M
Page 64 and 65: BYUMBA, RWANDA A tea plantation in
Page 66 and 67: CHAPTER 3 ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANG
Page 84 and 85: BOX 14 FACTORS THAT HINDER ADAPTIVE
Page 89 and 90: CHAPTER 4 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYST
Page 91 and 92: KEY MESSAGES 1 THE AGRICULTURE SECT
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 11 POTENTIAL FOR N 2 O MITIGA
Page 99 and 100: BOX 18 METHANE ABATEMENT IN LIVESTO
Page 105 and 106: FIGURE 15 ECONOMIC MITIGATION POTEN
Page 107: THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2
Page 110 and 111:
RUSUMO, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Page 112 and 113:
CHAPTER 5 THE WAY FORWARD: REALIGNI
Page 114 and 115:
BOX 21 THE AGRICULTURE SECTORS AND
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 125 and 126:
CHAPTER 6 FINANCING THE WAY FORWARD
Page 127 and 128:
KEY MESSAGES 1 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC
Page 129 and 130:
THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2
Page 131 and 132:
BOX 25 DEDICATED CLIMATE FUNDS AND
Page 133 and 134:
BOX 26 TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY AND R
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
BOX 27 INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE I
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141:
COVERAGE OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC CL
Page 144 and 145:
STATISTICAL ANNEX NOTES ON THE ANNE
Page 146 and 147:
STATISTICAL ANNEX Emissions from cu
Page 148 and 149:
TABLE A.1 (CONTINUED) REFERENCE GEO
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
TABLE A.2 NET EMISSIONS AND REMOVAL
Page 156 and 157:
TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) EMISSIONS FRO
Page 158 and 159:
TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) EMISSIONS FRO
Page 160 and 161:
TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Svalbard and
Page 162 and 163:
TABLE A.3 (CONTINUED) BURNING CROP
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
REFERENCES CHAPTER 1 Alexandratos,
Page 170 and 171:
REFERENCES Antle, J.M. & Crissman,
Page 172 and 173:
REFERENCES Lancelot, R., de La Rocq
Page 174 and 175:
REFERENCES Seo, N. & Mendelsohn, R.
Page 176 and 177:
REFERENCES Burney J.A., Davis S.J.
Page 178 and 179:
REFERENCES Holmes, R. & Jones, N. 2
Page 180 and 181:
REFERENCES Rasmussen, L. V., Mertz,
Page 182 and 183:
REFERENCES EC (European Commission)
Page 184 and 185:
REFERENCES Mottet, A., Henderson, B
Page 186 and 187:
REFERENCES Arslan, A., McCarthy, N.
Page 188 and 189:
REFERENCES Government of Thailand.
Page 190 and 191:
REFERENCES Moriondo, M., Bindi, M.,
Page 192 and 193:
SPECIAL CHAPTERS OF THE STATE OF FO
Page 194:
2016 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULT
show all

AGRICULTURE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?