AGRICULTURE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 4 FOOD AND <strong>AGRICULTURE</strong> SYSTEMS IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION » development of site-specific technologies will be needed to achieve the projected N 2 O emission reductions. Achieving reductions in nitrous oxide emissions will depend on management practices that address their underlying root causes. The biophysical processes linked to emissions vary according to climatic and agroecological conditions and farming systems. Nuclear and isotopic techniques can help to understand these processes better, and to improve the monitoring of nitrous oxide emissions (Box 17). • synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation, as well as significant socio-economic and environmental co-benefits. For example, increasing carbon and nitrogen efficiency in food systems reduces GHG emissions and increases carbon sequestration while, at the same time, improving food security and increasing resilience to climate change and climate shocks. More efficient production systems make fewer demands on natural resources and are, therefore, less vulnerable to scarcity and climate events that would further reduce the availability of land, water and nutrients. MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS THAT ENHANCE FOOD SECURITY Better management of the carbon and nitrogen cycles is central to both the mitigation of net GHG emissions from the agriculture, forestry and land use sector and to increasing the efficiency of the global food system. Since mitigation and adaptation measures both contribute to food security and environmental sustainability, they can be implemented jointly and at the same time when there is potential for establishing strong synergies between them. Improving efficiency in the carbon and nitrogen cycles can strengthen resilience to climatic variability, reduce GHG emissions and contribute to food security through higher food output. The key to reaching these objectives is sustainable intensification (see Chapter 3), which seeks to increase food production per unit of input in ways that reduce both pressure on the environment and GHG emissions, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Garnett et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2013). Many countries see the agriculture sectors as providing the most opportunity for creating By helping to reduce yield gaps and increase biological efficiencies, especially in developing countries, the sustainable intensification of agriculture would prevent deforestation and the further expansion of agriculture into carbonrich ecosystems, thus simultaneously enhancing food security and contributing to climate change mitigation. In the livestock sector, improving pasture productivity can limit the expansion of pasture into tropical forests and enhance the conservation and sustainable development of carbon rich landscapes (De Oliveira-Silva et al., 2016). The following section outlines two complementary goals that should be considered in policies aimed at capturing adaptation and mitigation co-benefits: improving production efficiency and minimizing GHG emissions in food systems, and conserving and developing carbon-rich landscapes in agriculture and forestry. Higher production efficiency, lower emission intensity Investing in yield improvements Since the 1960s, the intensification of crop and livestock systems has limited the expansion of farmland and improved the efficiency of food supply chains (Tilman et al., 2011; Gerber et al., 2013a; Herrero et al., 2013). Through higher yields, agricultural intensification avoided GHG emissions between 1961 and 2005 that are » | 76 |
TABLE 11 POTENTIAL FOR N 2 O MITIGATION OF ANNUAL EMISSIONS UNDER FIVE SCENARIOS OF IMPROVED PRACTICES, 2030 AND 2050 (CUMULATIVE EFFECTS) Emission reduction strategies Nitrogen sources 2030 2050 N input (Tg) EF (%) N 2 O emissions (Tg N 2 O-N) N input (Tg) EF (%) N 2 O emissions (Tg N 2 O-N) Business as usual (BAU) Fertilizer 132 2.37 3.1 150 2.37 3.6 Manure 193 1.71 3.3 230 1.71 3.9 Total 6.4 7.5 Improved crop production Fertilizer 118 2.02 2.4 128 1.9 2.4 Manure 193 1.71 3.3 230 1.71 3.9 Total 5.7 6.3 Improved animal production Fertilizer 118 2.02 2.4 128 1.9 2.4 Manure 174 1.71 3.0 184 1.71 3.2 Total 5.4 5.6 Improved manure management Fertilizer 108 2.02 2.2 103 1.9 2.0 Manure 174 1.62 2.8 184 1.54 2.8 Total 5.0 4.8 Improved food utilization Fertilizer 103 2.02 2.1 93 1.9 1.8 Manure 156 1.62 2.5 147 1.54 2.3 Total 4.6 4.1 Less animal protein in diets Fertilizer 98 2.02 2.0 84 1.9 1.6 Manure 133 1.62 2.2 110 1.54 1.7 Total 4.1 3.3 Notes: Reduction in emissions are cumulative across the five scenarios. Inputs refer to fertilizer N use and manure N excretions measured in teragrams (Tg). N 2 O emission factors (EF) and total N 2 O emissions are projections for the total food system by 2030 and 2050. SOURCE: Oenema et al., 2014. BOX 17 NUCLEAR AND ISOTOPIC TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATION Nuclear techniques can help to identify soil and water management factors that reduce the release of GHG from soil and thus contribute to climate change mitigation. For example, using a variety of isotopes, scientists can determine the extent of carbon and nitrogen accumulation and their interactions in soil organic matter as a result of recently added organic manure, crop residues or wastewater. The 15N stable isotopic technique can help to identify the source of nitrous oxide production from farmlands, which assists in targeting appropriate N 2 O mitigation tools, such as liming to modify the degree of soil acidity, or adding nitrification inhibitors to nitrogen fertilizers to reduce the conversion of excess N into nitrate, a mobile form, which is readily converted into N 2 O under anaerobic conditions. Isotopic and nuclear-based techniques used by FAO jointly with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are at the forefront of innovative practices to address the food needs of the future, as well as contributing to a reduction in the impacts of climate change. | 77 |
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 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
TABLE 1 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON SELECTED
Page 34 and 35:
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 49 and 50: THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2
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 and 60: TABLE 5 EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS OF M
Page 61: TABLE 6 THREE MAIN SOURCES OF AGRIC
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 95: THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2
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 125 and 126: CHAPTER 6 FINANCING THE WAY FORWARD
Page 127 and 128: KEY MESSAGES 1 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC
Page 131 and 132: BOX 25 DEDICATED CLIMATE FUNDS AND
Page 133 and 134: BOX 26 TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY AND R
Page 137 and 138: BOX 27 INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE I
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?