Agriculture Ang Climate Change

8/6/2019 Agriculture Ang Climate Change

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agriculture-ang-climate-change 1/36

Climate Change and AgricultureThreats and Opportunities



Imprint

Published by

Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Climate Protection Programme

for Developing Countries

Postfach 518065760 Eschborn / Germany

M [email protected]

I http://www.gtz.de/climate

Responsible

Dr. Nana Künkel, Dr. Kerstin Silvestre Garcia

Authors

Mark W. Rosegrant, Mandy Ewing, Gary Yohe,

Ian Burton, Saleemul Huq, Rowena Valmonte-Santos

Design

Additiv. Visuelle Kommunikation

Berlin

Photos

Page 10: GTZ

Page 11: GTZ, Claudia Altmann

Page 15: GTZ

Other: fotolia.de

Printed by

W.B. Druckerei GmbH

Hochheim am Main

Eschborn, November 2008

Climate Change and AgricultureThreats and Opportunities

Mark W. Rosegrant, Mandy Ewing, Gary Yohe,

Ian Burton, Saleemul Huq, Rowena Valmonte-Santos



Emissions mitigation in agriculture1.

2.

3.

4.

4

2

3

1.1

1.1.1

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.2

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.3

Emissions trends

Agricultural soils

Livestock and manure management

Rice cultivation

Options or mitigation in agriculture

Technical potential or mitigation

Economic potential

Expanding the potential or mitigation

PreaceIntroduction

Reerences

Impacts o climate change on ood

production systems

2.1

2.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.3

Global climate models

Future impacts

Impacts on yield and production

Socioeconomic and Food SecurityImplications

Impact o arm-level adaptation

Adaptation in agriculture

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.3.1

3.3.2

Role o adaptation policy

Evaluating adaptation options

Enabling adaptation

Moving the adaptation agendaorward: Three suggestions

Synergies between adaptation and

mitigation

Conclusions and policy considerations

5

7

8

8

8

8

12

14

17

18

18

16

23

25

25

22

26

26

27

29

20

21



2

»Climate change is real and already taking place, accord-

ing to the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report (IPCC

IV 2007). According to the report, the impacts o climate

change and their associated costs will all disproportion-ately on developing countries threatening to undermine

achievement o the Millennium Development Goals, re-

duce poverty, and saeguard ood security. A major com-

ponent o development assistance is support or the agri-

culture sector since agricultural production worldwide is

increasingly under pressure to meet the demands o ris-

ing populations. At the same time, there is concern also

about the contributions that the agriculture sector makes

to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

This paper provides an insight into the dierent climate-

change-related challenges that the agricultural sector in

developing countries will ace and explores opportunities

or emission reductions and adaptation. The study con-

cludes that adaptation measures in the agriculture sector

are highly signicant or poverty reduction. It also high-

lights that agriculture in developing countries can play a

signicant role in mitigating greenhouse gases and that

it is critical to work out incentives that are conducive to

emission reductions in this sector. Specically, it may be

worthwhile to explore the potential contribution to miti-gation and mobilize resources rom the carbon market or

investment in pro-poor and sustainable agricultural devel-

opment. It also reconrms that sustainable management

o natural resources is key to both mitigation o emissions

and adaptation in the agricultural sector.

Agriculture has not gured very prominently in the climate

discussion so ar. This study very clearly indicates that the

sector deserves more attention when it comes to both cli-

mate change threats and opportunities. Understanding in-

terrelations and interactions in the agricultural sector andconsidering its implications or development cooperation

is crucial or adequate development responses. By present-

ing this study, we aim to advance this understanding and

the promotion o practical approaches to the challenges

posed by climate change to agriculture and developmentcooperation.

Dr. Lorenz Petersen

Climate Protection

Programme

Preace

Dr. Wolgang Kasten

Advisory Service on Agricultural

Research or Development



3

“Warming of the climate system is unequivo-

cal, as is now evident from observations of

increases in global average air and ocean tem-

peratures, widespread melting of snow and ice,

and rising global average sea level.”

International Panel on Climate Change,

Fourth Assessment, 2007

Global agriculture will be under signicant pressure to

meet the demands o rising populations using nite, oten

degraded, soil and water resources that are predicted to

be urther stressed by the impact o climate change. The

ongoing buildup o greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is

prompting shits in climate across the globe that will a-

ect agro-ecological and growing conditions. In addition,

agriculture and land use change are prominent sources o

global greenhouse gas emissions. The application o erti-

lizers, rearing o livestock, and related land clearing infu-

ences both levels o greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

and the potential or carbon storage and sequestration.

Thereore, whilst ongoing climatic changes are aecting

agricultural production, the sector itsel also presents op-

portunities or emissions reductions.

Despite these opportunities, warming o the climate — as

the IPCC warns above — is unequivocal. Even i emis-

sions rom all sectors were reduced to zero, climate warm-

ing would continue or decades to come. As a result, it

is o interest to stakeholders in the agricultural sector to

understand the kind o impact climate change will have

on ood and crop production. There will undoubtedly

be shits in agro-ecological conditions that will warrant

changes in processes and practices — and adjustments in

widely accepted truths — in order to meet daily ood re-

quirements. In addition, climate change could become asignicant constraint on economic development in devel-

oping countries that rely on agriculture or a substantial

share o gross domestic production and employment.

At the end o this assessment, two central ideas or dealing

with climate change will become clear, namely, mitigation

and adaptation. Mitigation — or a decline in the release

o stored carbon and other greenhouse gases — must take

place. There are opportunities or mitigation in the agri-

cultural sector to help reduce the impact o climate change,

and there is signicant room or promoting pro-poor miti-

gation methods. In addition, as a change in climate has

already begun, adaptation — or the modication o agri-cultural practices and production — will be imperative to

continue meeting the growing ood demands o modern

society. Both mitigation and adaptation will require the

attention o governments and policy makers in order to

coordinate and lead initiatives. It is apparent that a sys-

tem o regulation to ensure the economic value o carbon

sequestration will be an important policy development in

the agricultural sector.

In this paper, the impact o climate change on production

and opportunities or emissions reductions is reviewed with a ocus on developing countries, including the im-

plications or ood security and livelihoods or the poor. In

order to highlight specic on-arm and soil management

practices, this paper will ocus on emissions and impacts

related to ood production (mainly crop and livestock

production), plus corresponding mitigation and adapta-

tion strategies. Following the introduction, the impact o

agricultural production on global warming and climate

change is considered, including possibilities or mitiga-

tion. The second part considers how the release o carbon

and greenhouse gases will impact the agricultural sector,

drawing heavily on uture climate projections. Part three

discusses adaptation strategies or individuals and govern-

ments and their capacity to respond to increasing climate

variability. Part our oers a conclusion. The objective is to

provide a synthesis o the evidence relating to the impact

o agriculture on climate change, as well as the impact cli-

mate change is projected to have on this sector. The inten-

tion is to provide a clear message or development practi-

tioners and policy makers in order to enable them to cope

with the threats, as well as understand the opportunities,presented by ongoing climate change.

Introduction

“Warming o the climate system is unequivocal,

as is now evident rom observations o

increases in global average air and ocean

temperatures, widespread melting o snow and

ice, and rising global average sea level.”

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Fourth Assessment Report, 2007



4

Emissions

mitigation

in

agricultureMitigation is a response strategy to global climate change,

and can be dened as measures that reduce the amount o

emissions (abatement) or enhance the absorption capacity

o greenhouse gases (sequestration). The total global po-tential or mitigation depends on many actors, including

emissions levels, availability o technology, enorcement,

and incentives. In many situations, the eciency o ag-

riculture can be improved at a low cost. However, when

low cost incentives are unavailable, policy development is

important. The ollowing is a short summary o key points

rom this section.

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) rom agriculture:

The share o agricultural emissions in total GHG emis-sions in 2000 was 13 percent. In developing countries, such

emissions are expected to rise in the coming decades due to

population and income growth, amongst other actors.

Within the agricultural sector, ertilizer application, live-

stock and manure management, rice cultivation, and sa-

vanna burning are the major sources o emissions.

Mitigation potential and options in agriculture:

The technical potential or GHG mitigation in devel-

oping country agriculture by 2030 indicates signicant

opportunities or emissions reductions, together with an

enhanced income earning potential or armers, and asso-

ciated benets rom lower natural resource degradation.

Developing countries are estimated to account or three-

ourths o global technical potential, with Asia accounting

or 40 percent, Arica 18 percent, and Latin America and

the Caribbean 15 percent (Smith et al., 2007a, b).

The economic potential or mitigation in agriculture de-

pends on the price o carbon and on policy, institutional,and transaction cost constraints. It is estimated that the

1.



5

Emissions mitigation in agriculture

1particularly as related to energy, industry, transport, and

patterns o land use (the latter covers agricultural produc-

tion and deorestation). As shown in Figure 1, agriculture,

including land use change and orestry or LUCF, accounts

or nearly one-third o global GHG emissions (WRI,

2008).

Further analysis o Figure 1 indicates that agriculture alone

contributed 13 percent o total global GHG emissions in

2000, or 5,729 Mt CO2-equivalents1. Emissions rom this

sector are primarily CH4 and N2O, making the agricul-

tural sector the largest producer o non-CO2 emissions.

Indeed, 60 per cent o total global non-CO2 emissions

came rom this source in 2000 (WRI, 2008). Whilst agri-culture also generates very large CO2 fuxes (both to and

rom the atmosphere via photosynthesis and respiration),

economic potential is about 36 percent o technical poten-

tial at carbon prices o up to $25 per t CO2-eq, 44 percent

at prices o up to $50/t CO2-eq, and 58 percent at prices

o up to $100/t CO2-eq (Smith et al., 2007a, b).

Based on USEPA (2006) results, rice cultivation miti-

gation strategies have the highest economic potential or

emissions reductions in developing countries. However,

Smith et al. (2007a, b) have ound that soil carbon seques-

tration oers the highest economic potential, and with

best prospects in developing countries.

Conditions or realizing the mitigation potential:

Agriculture in developing countries can play a role in

the mitigation o greenhouse gases, but the economic po-

tential or mitigation is constrained by poor incentives to

investing in this area. At the same time, a major challenge

lies in aligning growing demand or agricultural products

with sustainable, emissions-saving development paths.

The carbon market or the agricultural sector is under-

developed because o limited access under the Clean

Development Mechanism, plus the high cost o verica-

tion, monitoring and transactions, especially with respect

to small armers. However, mitigation potential can be en-

hanced by improving the sector’s access to carbon markets

under the post-Kyoto international agreement currently

being negotiated. Costs or agricultural carbon trades can

also be reduced by simpliying and improving the meas-

urement, monitoring and verication methods required

or such trading, as well as through capacity building.

With these reorms, policies ocused on mitigating GHG

emissions, i careully designed, can help create a new de-

velopment strategy; one which encourages the creation o

new value in pro-poor investments by increasing the pro-

itability o environmentally sustainable practices.

1.1 Emissions trends

Climate change is the result o an increase in the concen-

tration o greenhouse gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide

(CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). RisingGHG emissions are associated with economic activity,

1 One million metric tons (MMt) o methane (CH4) emissions equals 21

million metric tons o carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 1 MMt CH4 =

21 MMt CO2. Similarly, 1 MMt N2O = 320 MMt CO2. This indicates

that the global warming potential o methane and nitrous oxide is higher

than that or carbon dioxide, because these exist longer in the atmos-

phere. Yet, due to their signicantly smaller concentrations, the actual

radioactive orcing o CH4 and N20 is one-third and one-tenth o CO2,

respectively.

Share o global GHG emissions by sector, year 2000

Source: Drawn rom data rom WRI (2008)

Land-Use Change &

Forestry

18%

Waste

3%

Energy

63%

Agriculture

13%

Industrial

Processes

3%

Fig. 1



6


1 Agricultural soils (N2O) and the enteric ermentation and

manure management (CH4) associated with livestock pro-

duction account or the largest o these shares. Emissions

rom agriculture are expected to rise due to increased de-

mand or agricultural production, improved nutrition,

and the changing dietary preerences o growing popula-

tions that avor larger shares o meat and dairy products

(e.g. Delgado et al., 1999). This will also lead to increased

pressure on orest resources due to agricultural expansion.

Figure 3 presents the projected growth in emissions rom

each source or the years 1990 to 2020. Global agricul-tural emissions were ound to increase by 14 percent rom

1990 to 2005, and a 38 percent rise is expected or the

entire period 1990 to 2020. Figure 4 illustrates the share

o expected emissions growth likely to come rom devel-

oping countries or each sector. Agricultural emissions in

developing countries are expected to increase by 58 per-

cent in 2020. Meanwhile, emissions rom the burning

o agricultural residues and savanna and N2O rom soils

are projected to grow by over 40 percent rom 1990 lev-

els. From a mitigation perspective, one o the largest chal-

lenges lies in aligning increasing demands or ood, shitsin dietary tastes, and demand or agricultural commodities

or non-ood uses with sustainable, low-emitting develop-

ment paths.

these are nearly balanced on existing agricultural lands.

Signicant carbon release, however, results rom the con-

version o orested land, which is accounted or under the

LUCF category.2 Finally, certain GHG emissions arising

rom agricultural activity are accounted or in other sec-

tors, such as those relating to (upstream) manuacture o

equipment, ertilizers, and pesticides, plus on-arm use o

uels and the transportation o agricultural products.

Records o regional variations in emissions (non-CO2)

rom agricultural sources indicate that non-OECD coun-

tries emit nearly 75 percent o global emissions (WRI,2008). As a result, the theoretical potential or agricultural

sector mitigation is greater or developing countries than

or industrialized nations. Asian countries account or 37

percent o total world emissions rom agricultural produc-

tion, with Latin America and Europe a distant second and

third place, with 16 and 12 percent, respectively (WRI,

2008). In Asia, China accounts or over 18 percent o the

total, while Brazil alone is responsible or nearly 10 percent

o agricultural emissions in Latin America (WRI, 2008).

Emissions rom agriculture come rom our principal sub-

sectors: agricultural soils, livestock and manure manage-

ment, rice cultivation, and the burning o agricultural

residues and savanna or land clearing. Figure 2 presentsthe share o pollutants derived rom each o these sectors.

Agricultural Emissions by Region, 1990 to 2020 (Mt CO2-eq)

Source: Drawn rom data used in USEPA (2006)

Country

Arica

China/CPA

Latin America

Middle East

Non-EU Eastern Europe

Non-EU FSU

OECD90 & EU

SE Asia

World Total

1990 2000 2010 2020

664

1006

890

62

21

410

1346

823

5223

934

1159

1097

74

19

217

1283

946

5729

1098

1330

1284

99

21

246

1306

1084

6468

1294

1511

1505

125

24

279

1358

1214

7311

Sources o emissions rom the agricultural sector (2000)

Source: Drawn rom data presented in USEPA (2006)

Residue

Burning/Forest

Clearning

13%

Rice (CH4)

11%

Fertilizers (N2O)

37%

Livestock (CH4)

32%

Manure

Management

(CH4 & N2O)

7%

Tab. 1

Fig. 2



7


1

tion o applied nitrogen, as well as through surace runo

and leaching o applied nitrogen into groundwater and

surace water (USEPA, 2006).

1.1.1 Agricultural soils

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is the largest source o GHG emis-

sions rom agriculture, accounting or 38 percent o the

global total. N2O is produced naturally in soils through the

processes o nitrication and denitrication. Agricultural

activity may add nitrogen to soils either directly or indi-

rectly. Direct additions occur through nitrogen ertilizer

usage, application o managed livestock manure and sew-

age sludge, production o nitrogen-xing crops and or-

ages, retention o crop residues, and cultivation o soils

with high organic matter content. Indirect additions occurthrough volatilization and subsequent atmospheric deposi-

2 Total LUCF emissions, inclusive o biomass clearing and burning or

agricultural and urban expansion, as well as timber and uel wood har-

vesting, were nearly 18 percent o total GHG emissions in the year 2000,

or 7,618 Mt CO2-equivalents. Concerning ood production specically,

it is dicult to estimate the total amount o emissions in this sector that

result rom land conversion or agricultural extensication purposes.

However, according to one estimate, 9 percent o total global emissions

— one hal o LUCF emissions — are due to expansion into orests or

eed crop and livestock production (Steineld et al., 2006).

Projected agricultural emissions by subsector, 1990-2020

Source: Drawn rom data used in USEPA (2006)

Percentage change in sector emissions in developed and

developing country groups, 1990 to 2020

Source: Drawn rom data presented in USEPA (2006)

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

1990 2000 2010 2020

CH4 Other Agriculture

CH4 Manure Management

CH4 Rice

CH4 Enteric Fermentation

N20 Other Agriculture

N20 Manure Management

N20 Soils

Rice (CH4)

Livestock (CH4)

Burning (N2O & CH4)

Manure Management

(N2O & CH4)

N2O Soils

Emissions (Mt CO2-eq)

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Developing

Developed



8


1rom manure management are expected to increase an es-

timated 21 and 30 percent, respectively, again largely due

to China and Brazil (USEPA, 2006).

1.1.3 Rice cultivation

Flooded rice elds are the third largest source o agricul-

tural emissions, contributing to 11 percent in the orm o

methane arising rom anaerobic decomposition o organic

matter. China and South-East Asian countries produce the

lion’s share o methane emissions rom rice, accounting orover 90 percent in 1990. Due to population increases in

these countries, emissions are expected to increase by 36

percent in South-East Asia and by 10 percent in China by

2020 (USEPA, 2006).

1.2 Options or mitigation in agriculture

The biological processes associated with agriculture are

natural sources o greenhouse gases. Anthropogenic activi-

ties have the potential to impact the quantity o emissions

through management o carbon and nitrogen fows and,

thus, can be directed towards reducing — or mitigating —

emissions o greenhouse gases. Mitigation is dened as any

anthropogenic intervention that can either reduce sources

o GHG emissions (abatement) or enhance their carbon

sinks (sequestration). Following this, there are two catego-

ries o mitigation methods in agriculture: carbon seques-

tration in soils and on-arm emissions reductions. Another

mitigation strategy is considered to be the displacement

o ossil uels through the production o cleaner-burningbioenergy, such as ethanol, biogas, and methane, which

can all be derived rom agricultural production. These

three options or mitigation in agriculture will be urther

discussed below.

1.2.1 Technical potential or mitigation

The technical potential is the theoretical amount o emis-

sions that can be reduced and the amount o carbon that

can be sequestered given the ull application o currenttechnologies, discounting implementation costs. The

Direct application o nitrogen-containing ertilizers, both

synthetic and organic, will likely be a major source o

growth in N2O emissions. Under a “business as usual” sce-

nario, these emissions are expected to increase by 47 per-

cent rom 1990 to 2020. In 1990, the OECD and China

accounted or approximately 50 percent o all N2O emis-

sions rom agricultural soils. However, projections or the

period to 2020 indicate that emissions are likely to remain

relatively static or the OECD, but increase signicantly

rom China (50 percent increase), Arica, Latin America,

and the Middle East (100 percent increases). The sharp-est increase in ertilizer application is orecast or develop-

ing countries, which are seen using 36 million tons more

than developed countries by 2020 (Bumb and Baanante,

1996).

1.1.2 Livestock and manure management

Enteric ermentation or the natural digestive processes

in ruminants, such as cattle and sheep, accounts or the

majority o methane production in this category. It is the

second largest source o total emissions rom agriculture,

with a 34 percent global share. Other domesticated ani-

mals, such as swine, poultry and horses, also emit methane

as a by-product o enteric ermentation. Manure manage-

ment includes the handling, storage and treatment o ma-

nure, and accounts or 7 percent o agricultural emissions.

Methane is produced by the anaerobic breakdown o ma-

nure, while nitrous oxide results rom handling manure

aerobically (nitrication) and then anaerobically (denitri-

cation), and is oten enhanced when available nitrogen

exceeds plant requirements.

Demand or bee and dairy products is expected to rise

globally, with sharp increases in consumption and produc-

tion orecast or the developing world. By 2020, over 60

percent o meat and milk consumption is expected to take

place in the developing world, and the production o bee,

meat, poultry, pork, and milk is likely to at least double

rom 1993 levels (Delgado et al., 1999). As a result, meth-

ane emissions rom enteric ermentation are projected to

increase by 32 percent by 2020, with China, Brazil, India,

the U.S. and Pakistan being the likely top sources (USEPA,2006). In addition, methane and nitrous oxide emissions



9


1in soil organic carbon (SOC). However, SOC is seen ap-

proaching a new equilibrium over a 30 to 50 year period

and will thereore ultimately be limited by saturation. In

addition, there is potential or the re-release o SOC into

the atmosphere through re or tillage, which raises con-

cerns as to the “permanence” o SOC storage. On the

other hand, emissions abatement through improved arm

management practices could be sustained indenitely.

Despite its limitations, soil carbon sequestration is esti-

mated to account or 89 percent o the technical mitiga-

tion potential in agriculture, compared to 11 percent oremissions abatement (Smith et al., 2007a). Figure 5 shows

the dominance o soil carbon sequestration (CO2) com-

pared to other management practices in terms o technical

mitigation potential.

technical potential describes the magnitude o mitigation

allowed by current methods, and does not provide realistic

estimates o the amount o carbon that will be reduced

under current policy and economic conditions. In general,

it neither considers trade-os with other goals, such as in-

come generation or ood security, nor the heterogeneity in

management capacity or cultural appropriateness.

Carbon sequestration

Sequestration activities enhance and preserve carbon sinks

and include any practices that store carbon through crop-land management “best practices”, such as no-till agricul-

ture, or slow the amount o stored carbon released into

the atmosphere through burning, tillage, and soil erosion.

Sequestered carbon is stored in soils, resulting in increases

Global technical mitigation potential by 2030 or each agricultural management practice showing corresponding GHG impacts

Source: Smith et al. (2007a)

Fig. 5

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

-200c r o p l a n d m a n a g e m e n t

g r a z i n g l a n d m a n a g e m e n t

r e s t o r e c u l t i v a t e d o r g a n i c s o i l s

r e s t o r e d e g r a d e d l a n d s

r i c e m a n a g e m e n t

l i v e s t o c k

b i o e n e r g y ( s o i l s c o m p o n e n t )

w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t

s e t a s i d e , L U C & a g r o f o r e s t r y

m a n u r e m a n a g e m e n t

Mt CO2-eq per year

N2O

CH4

CO2



10


1er, have noted that tillage reductions may not be easible in

all soil types (Chan et al., 2003). Baker et al. (2007) argue

that improper sampling techniques, together with modern,

gas-based measurements, cast doubt on previous ndings

o positive carbon osets through tillage reductions.

Other ways to increase SOC include grazing land manage-

ment to increase the cover o high productivity grasses and

overall grazing intensity. It is estimated that 18 to 90 Mt

CO2-eq/ year could be sequestered by improving US graz-

ing lands (Follett et al., 2001). In addition, a large poten-

tial or this exists in developing countries such as India andBrazil, which have the world’s largest grazing land area.

Bioenergy

The production o liquid uels rom dedicated energy

crops, such as grains and oilseeds, is being re-examined

in response to concerns over the environmental sustain-

ability o continued ossil uel dependence. The potential

o biouels to reduce carbon emissions, however, is highly

dependent upon the nature o the production process

through which they are manuactured and cultivated.There tends to be a high degree o variance in the litera-

ture over the net carbon balance o various biouels, due

to dierences in the technological assumptions used when

evaluating the processes embedded in any lie cycle assess-

ment. Early lie cycle assessments o biouels ound a net

carbon benet, which has contributed to consumer accept-

ance (e.g. Wang et al., 1999). Yet, the net carbon benet

in comparison to traditional ossil uels is being challenged

through a number o studies (Pimentel and Patzek, 2005),

especially when biouel production requires land conver-

sion rom cover with a high carbon sequestration value,

such as orests (Searchinger et al., 2008). Considering the

impact that continued crop cover would have on agricul-

tural soil emissions, it is estimated that bioenergy produc-

tion will have a technical potential o approximately 200

Mt CO2-eq/ year in 2030 (Smith et al., 2007a). But the

potential or GHG savings is much higher when the o-

setting potential rom displacement o ossil uels is con-

sidered. It is estimated that 5 to 30 percent o cumulative

carbon emissions would be abated i bioenergy supplied

between 10 to 25 percent o world global energy in 2030(Ferrentino, 2007). However, a rapid expansion in bioen-

There are numerous “best” management practices in agri-

culture that raise SOC, including reducing the amount o

bare allow, restoring degraded soils, improving pastures

and grazing land, irrigation, crop and orage rotation, and

no-tillage practices (Smith et al., 2007a). The technical po-

tential o global cropland soils to sequester carbon through

a combination o these techniques has been estimated at

0.75 to 1 Gt/year total (Lal and Bruce, 1999). One tech-

nique emphasized in the literature as having a high mitiga-

tion potential is no-till agriculture. Estimates indicate that

tillage reductions on global cropland could provide a ull“wedge” o emissions reductions — up to 25 Gt over the

next 50 years (Pacala and Socolow, 2004). Others, howev-



11


1

hindrance to achieving ood security in many parts o the

developing world (Gruhn et al., 2000). Overall, cropland

management could reduce emissions in 2030 by up to 150

Mt CO2-eq/ year (Smith et al., 2007a).

Improved water management in high-emitting, irrigated

rice systems through mid-season drainage or alternate wet-

ting and drying has been shown to substantially reduce

CH4 emissions in Asia. However, these eects may be

partially oset by an increased amount o N2O emissions

(Wassman et al., 2006). The technical potential o im-proved rice management is estimated at 300 Mt CO2-eq/

year (Smith et al., 2007a).

Aggregated estimates or the global technical potential

o both on-arm and sequestration techniques have been

presented by the IPCC, and reveal a maximum global

mitigation potential o 4.5 to 6 Pg (4500-6000 Mt) CO2

equivalent per year by 2030 (Smith et al., 2007a). O this

estimate, nearly 90 percent o the potential is rom car-

bon sequestration, while 9 and 2 percent are rom meth-

ane mitigation and soil N2O emission reductions, respec-tively. Emissions estimates presented in earlier sections do

ergy o this magnitude would have signicant trade-os

with ood security (e.g. Rosegrant et al., orthcoming) and

biodiversity (e.g. Eickhout et al., 2008), as has already been

seen in the past ew years. Careul assessment o trade-os

as well as o net GHG gains, including land use change

eects, needs to be undertaken or alternative bioenergy

technologies as these develop.

On-arm mitigation

Improved management practices that reduce on-arm

emissions include livestock and manure management, er-

tilizer management, and improved rice cultivation.

Methods to reduce methane emissions rom enteric er-

mentation include enhancing the eciency o digestion

with improved eeding practices and dietary additives. The

ecacy o these methods depends on the quality o eed,

livestock breed and age, and also whether the livestock is

grazing or stall-ed. Developing countries are assumed to

provide lower quality eed to livestock, which raises the

emissions rate per animal to over that or developed coun-

try herds. The technical potential to mitigate livestock emissions in 2030 is orecast at 300 Mt CO2-eq/ year

(Smith et al., 2007a).

In manure management, cooling and using solid covers

or storage tanks and lagoons, separating solids rom slur-

ry, and capturing the methane emitted are relevant tech-

niques. Concerning developing countries, applying this

sort o manure management may be dicult as animal

excretion happens in the eld. Composting manure and

altering eeding practices may help reduce emissions to a

certain extent. The technical potential o improved ma-nure management in 2030 is an estimated 75 Mt CO2-eq/

year (Smith et al., 2007a).

Improving the eciency o ertilizer application or switch-

ing to organic production can decrease the amount o nu-

trient load and N2O emissions. However, overall benets

would need to be weighed against the potential impact on

yield. Fertilizer reductions o 90 percent in rain-ed maize

elds have been shown to reduce yields by 8.4 and 10.5

percent over the baseline in Brazil and China, respectively

(USEPA, 2006). In addition, lack o access to soil nutri-ents needed or improving the quality o degraded soils is a



12


1CO2-eq, abatement costs rise exponentially. These results

are similar or all years considered.

Regional results indicate that the U.S. and the Russian

Federation could each reduce emissions by 40.6 and 34.7

Mt CO2-eq at a zero cost over baseline emissions in 2020,

respectively. These would be the largest no-cost reductions

or autonomous regions. For aggregated regions, in the

same year, Annex 1 countries could reduce up to 102 Mt

CO2-eq at no cost.

The reason why ertilizer reductions do not appear to have

a strong mitigation potential or many developing regions

may be current low levels o ertilizer usage, or the act

that yields are negatively aected by sub-optimal nutri-

ent application. On the other hand, across the U.S., EU,

Brazil, China, and India, converting rom conventional

tillage to no-till agriculture has resulted in yield increases

or each crop involved. This indicates a large potential or

this practice as a negative cost option or “no regret” sce-

nario. According to global estimates, no-till agriculture is

only practiced on 5 percent o the world’s cultivated land,

with the lowest rates o adoption in Arica and Asia (Lalet al., 2004). As a result, the observation that armers in

these regions are not adopting no-tillage practices may be

indicative o hidden cost barriers, or example variability

in prots or complexities in management requirements

(USEPA, 2006).

Smith et al. (2007a) expand the subject o cropland man-

agement or soil carbon sequestration to include a broader

range o practices, such as reducing bare allow and resi-

due management. Considering a broader spectrum, the

economic potential or soil carbon sequestration is seenincreasing up to 800 Mt CO2-eq in 2030 at carbon prices

o up to $20/t CO2-eq (Figure 6). This compares to the

USEPA (2006) estimate o approximately 145 Mt CO2-eq

(at $15/t CO2-eq) or the year 2020. Given that 70 per-

cent o total emissions abatement could come rom devel-

oping countries, soil carbon sequestration will likely be an

important management practice.

Bioenergy

Neither USEPA (2006) nor Smith et al. (2007a) calculatethe marginal abatement costs related to agricultural soils

not consider the sequestration potential in calculating net

emissions; thereore, given that the sequestration potential

is close to current emissions rom agriculture, agriculture

could be emissions neutral. While these gures give an

order o magnitude, any global estimates should be inter-

preted with caution. Due to the high level o heterogeneity

in agro-ecological conditions, the biophysical capability

to sequester carbon should vary accordingly. In addition,

technical potentials in general are not realistic, since they

do not consider the impact o ood security, heterogeneity

in management capacity, or the costs o mitigation. As aresult, the economic potential is oten preerred, and this

is discussed below.

1.2.2 Economic potential

Calculations o economic potential come rom two main

sources: Smith et al. (2007b) and USEPA (2006). In this

paper, we utilize both sources. The results rom USEPA

(2006) are preerred or non-CO2 emissions abatement

due to a ner level o regional disaggregation, which ena-bles the economic potential o lower income regions to be

examined precisely. Smith et al. (2007a) conducted a com-

parison o Smith et al. (2007b) and USEPA (2006), nd-

ing consistent results across emissions sources. Smith et al.

(2007a, 2007b), however, provide a more comprehensive

assessment o the potential or soil carbon sequestration.

The USEPA (2006) estimates three categories o emis-

sions mitigation: (i) cropland management (including

N2O rom ertilizer reductions, soil carbon sequestration

through no-tillage only, and split ertilization, in each caseunder both rained and irrigated conditions or rice, soy-

beans, and wheat); (ii) rice cultivation; and (iii) livestock

and manure management.

Cropland management (N2O and CO2)

Compared to the baseline, approximately 15 percent o

global cropland emissions can be abated at no cost, while

approximately 22 percent o emissions can be mitigated

or less than $30/t CO2-eq. Compared to actual projected

emissions or the year 2020, a 15 percent reduction inemissions is approximately 134 Mt CO2-eq. Beyond $30/t



13


1

2010: 55 percent or 5560.6 Mt CO2-eq at no cost and

43 percent or 97.9 Mt CO2-eq at a cost o $30/t CO2-eq,

respectively. This is not surprising, given that China and

South and South-East Asian countries produced over 90

percent o methane emissions rom rice in 1990.

Enteric ermentation and manure management

Improved livestock and manure management together

could reduce emissions by 3 percent at no cost, and be-

tween 6 and 9 percent at carbon prices o $30/t CO2-eq.

Annex 1 and OECD countries have the highest least-cost

economic potential, while Arica and Mexico have the low-

est. Moreover, those countries with the highest herd num-

bers, such as India and Brazil, also have a low to moderate

economic potential. For example, Brazil is only expected

to reduce 9 percent o total global livestock emissions in

2020 at carbon prices o $30 t CO2-eq. In comparison, Annex 1 countries could contribute to reductions o ap-

used or bioenergy purposes. However, there are estimates

or corresponding potential displacement o ossil uels.

Specically or the transportation sector, where liquid bio-

uels are predicted to reach 3 percent o demand under the

baseline scenario, and increase by up to 13 to 25 percent o

demand under alternative scenarios in 2030 (IEA, 2006).

This could reduce emissions by 1.8 to 2.3 Gt CO2, whichcorresponds to between 5.6 and 6.4 percent o total emis-

sions reductions across all sectors at carbon prices greater

than US$25/t CO2 (Ferrentino, 2007).

Rice cultivation

According to model results, only 3 percent o emissions

rom rice cultivation could have been abated at zero cost

in the year 2000, and this gure could rise to 11 percent in

2010. Also in 2010, 22 percent o global emissions may be

abated at a cost o $30/t CO2-eq. South and South-East Asia and China could contribute the most reductions in

Economic potential or GHG agricultural mitigation by 2030 at a range o prices o CO2-eq.

Source: Smith et al. (2007b)

up to 20 US$ per t CO2-eq

up to 50 US$ per t CO2-eq

up to 100 US$ per t CO2-eq 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Mt CO2-eq per year

c r o p l a n d m a n a g e m e n t

g r a z i n g l a n d m a n a g e m e n t

r e s t o r e c u l t i v a t e d o r g a n i c s o i l s

r e s t o r e d e g r a d e d l a n d s

r i c e m a n a g e m e n t

l i v e s t o c k

s e t a s i d e , L U C & a g r o f o r e s t r y

m a n u r e m a n a g e m e n t

Fig. 6



14


1been made in the implementation o mitigation meas-

ures at the global level. The potential or GHG mitiga-

tion would be enhanced by an appropriate international

climate policy ramework providing policy and economic

incentives.

The emerging market or carbon emissions trading oers

new possibilities or agriculture to benet rom land use

that sequesters carbon or saves non CO2 emissions. The

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto

Protocol o the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the most impor-tant mechanism or payments to developing countries.

Currently, the CDM limits eligible activities in agriculture

to aorestation and reorestation, and reduction o non-

CO2 gases. Hence carbon sequestration activities, such as

conservation tillage and restoration o degraded soils, are

presently considered ineligible.

In mid-2008, there were 87 registered projects or the agri-

culture sector, representing 6 percent o the CDM porto-

lio (CDM, 2008). In addition, there was one aorestation/

reorestation project, representing a corresponding 0.07percent. The majority o registered agricultural projects

are in Latin America, while only one project is located in

proximately 50 percent. This is due to the centralized na-

ture o livestock rearing in many Annex 1 countries, where

the administration o anti-methanogens and collection o

manure or controlled digestion is more cost-eective.

Based on USEPA (2006) results or NH4, CH4 and

soil carbon, rice cultivation mitigation strategies have

the highest economic potential in developing countries.

Meanwhile, there is a moderate mitigation potential or

no-till agriculture in Arica and improved livestock man-

agement in India and Brazil (Table 2). On considering a

wider range o cropland management and soil carbon se-questration strategies, Smith et al. (2007a,b) ound that 70

percent o global agricultural economic mitigation poten-

tial could come rom non-OECD and non-Economies in

Transition (EIT), which at carbon prices o $50/t CO2 is

equivalent to 1,780 Mt CO2-eq (Smith et al., 2007a).

1.3 Expanding the potential or mitigation

The economic potential or mitigation in agriculture de-pends on the price o carbon and on policy, institutional,

and transaction cost constraints. To date little progress has

Percentage o emissions reductions over the baseline at dierent carbon prices ($ per t CO2-eq) by region

Source: USEPA (2006)

Country/region

Arica

Annex I

Brazil

China

India

United States

World Total

$0 $30 $60

2010

$0 $30 $60

2020

1.6%

11.1%

3.2%

7.8%

1.6%

14.2%

7.1%

1.4%

10.8%

3.1%

6.3%

1.5%

13.8%

6.7%

3.6%

18.1%

5.8%

14.1%

9.5%

22.9%

12.5%

3.5%

16.2%

5.6%

12.1%

9.3%

23.4%

11.6%

4.5%

20.0%

7.2%

15.0%

9.7%

25.0%

14.3%

4.4%

19.6%

7.0%

12.9%

9.3%

24.9%

13.4%

Tab. 2



15


1

Promoting measures to reduce transaction costs: Rigorous,but simplied procedures should be adopted or develop-

ing country carbon oset projects. Small-scale soil carbon

sequestration projects should be eligible or simplied

modalities to help reduce project costs. The permanence

requirement or carbon sequestration should be revised to

allow shorter-term contracts, or contracts that pay based

on the amount o carbon saved per year.

Establishing international capacity building and advisory

services: Successul promotion o soil sequestration or car-

bon mitigation will require investment in capacity build-ing and advisory services or potential investors, project

designers and managers, national policymakers, and lead-

ers o local organizations and ederations (CIFOR, 2002).

Investing further in advanced measurement and moni-

toring: This can dramatically reduce transaction costs.

Measurement and monitoring techniques have been im-

proving rapidly thanks to a growing base o eld measure-

ments and the use o statistics and computer modeling, re-

mote sensing, global positioning systems, and geographic

inormation systems. As a result, changes in carbon stockscan now be estimated more accurately and at a lower cost.

Arica. Total estimated emissions reductions rom these 87

projects is 7.6 Mt CO2-eq per year (CDM, 2008). This

is approximately 0.1 percent lower than total agricultural

sector emissions reported or the year 2000.

Soil carbon sequestration has the highest technical po-

tential or mitigation in the agricultural sector, so there is

room to expand mitigation by including carbon sequestra-

tion projects under the CDM. However, there are easibil-

ity issues as regards selling agricultural soil carbon within

a market-based credit trading program. Transaction costs

involved would include obtaining the site-specic inor-

mation required to assess the baseline stock o carbon and

the potential to sequester carbon. The transaction costs per

carbon ton associated with negotiating contracts are likely

to decline as the size o contract increases, and a market or

carbon credits is considered more viable or large, stand-

ardized contracts (e.g. 100,000 tons). For a typical indi-

vidual armer who can sequester 0.5 tons per hectare per

year, related transaction costs would be too prohibitive.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) allows emissions

trading o carbon osets through no-till agriculture, dem-

onstrating that technical barriers can be overcome by sim-

pliying rules and using modern monitoring techniques

that also allow or reduced transaction costs. Currently,

eligible agricultural soil carbon sequestration projects in-

clude grass planting and continuous conservation tillage.

The basic CCX specications or soil carbon management

oset projects include: a minimum ve-year contract; a

tillage practice that leaves two-thirds o the soil surace un-

disturbed and two-thirds o crop residue on the surace;

conservation o between 0.2 to 0.6 metric tons o CO2 per acre per year; enrollment through a registered oset

aggregator; and independent verication. Eective use o

oset aggregators as brokers or small projects is a crucial

step towards achieving economies o scale.

In addition to including soil carbon osets in the CDM, a

number o other advancements are needed. To ensure that

emerging carbon markets benet developing countries,

CDM rules should encourage the participation o small

armers and protect them against major risks to their live-

lihoods, whilst still meeting investor needs and rigorously protecting carbon goals. This can be supported by:



16

Even with sucient mitigation measures the current scien-

tic consensus holds that greenhouse gas emissions and at-

mospheric concentrations are set to increase or some dec-

ades. Consequently, global mean surace temperature willcontinue to rise long ater an emissions peak has passed.

There is room or debate and uncertainty as to exactly how

much warming there will be and at what rate it will un-

old, but the general trend o the curve is clear. Predicted

changes in temperature and other climate unctions will

impact agro-ecological conditions and ood production.

As a result, armers will need to adjust technologies and

practices in order to continue meeting ood requirements.

However, adapting to new climate scenarios may not be

easible in all situations. A lack o adaptive capacity due

to constraints on resources, like access to weather orecasts

or better seed varieties, may result in urther ood insecu-

rity. In order to better prepare vulnerable regions, climate

scientists and economists are using integrated assessment

models to help identiy those regions and crops that may

be at high risk due to climate change and its resulting so-

cio-economic impact. In this section, the results o these

models are presented, along with key uncertainties. The

ollowing is a short summary o the major points arising

rom this section.

Potential direct eects on agricultural systems:

Seasonal changes in rainall and temperature could im-

pact agro-climatic conditions, altering growing seasons,

planting and harvesting calendars, water availability, pest,

weed and disease populations, etc.

Evapotranspiration, photosynthesis and biomass pro-

duction is altered.

Land suitability is altered.

Increased CO2 levels lead to a positive growth response

Impacts

o climate

change

on

food

production

systems

2.



17

Impact o climate change on ood production systems

or a number o staples under controlled conditions, also

known as the “carbon ertilization eect”.

Model based predictions:

Global models consistently highlight risk disparities be-

tween developed and developing countries.

For temperature increases o only 1-2 °C, developing

countries without adaptation will likely ace a depression

in major crop yields.

In mid- to high latitudes, increases in temperature o 1-3 °C can improve yields slightly, with negative yield e-

ects i temperatures increase beyond this range.

Stronger yield-depressing eects will occur in tropical

and sub-tropical regions or all crops, which refect a lower

growing temperature threshold capacity in these areas.

Estimations predict that cereal imports will increase in

developing countries by 10 to 40 percent by 2080.

Arica will become the region with the highest popula-

tion o ood insecure, accounting or up to 75 percent o

the world total by 2080.

Unknowns and uncertainties in model-based predictions:

A positive eect rom carbon ertilization on cereal yields

is predicted to greatly impact results or world ood pro-

duction. However, global research on the possible conse-

quences o this eect or a wide variety o crops is limited.

Basic socio-economic scenario assumptions impact ood

security outcomes more than those or climate change, per

se (e.g. Fischer et al., 2005).

The range o potential negative predictions may be bu-

ered by adaptation measures.

2.1 Global climate models

Food production is an essential ecosystem service that is

driven by a mixture o natural phenomena and human

activity. Complex interactions between agro-climatic con-ditions and technological drivers such as nutrient applica-

tion, irrigation, and seed selection determine ood availa-

bility and quality. As warned by the IPCC in the introduc-

tion to this paper, anthropogenic activities have begun to

change the climate in ways that may warrant a signicant

modication to existing agricultural knowledge and prac-

tices. Consequently, it is o critical concern to armers, ag-

ricultural extension agents, and agronomists, as well as to

government planners, national and international agricul-

tural research institutes, and the general donor community

to clariy the extent to which climate change and higher

climate variability will impact agro-ecological productionsystems worldwide.

Rapidly rising levels o carbon dioxide and other GHGs

in the atmosphere have direct eects on agricultural sys-

tems due to increased CO2 and ozone levels3, seasonal

changes in rainall and temperature, as well as modied

pest, weed, and disease populations. In general, the fux

o agro-climatic conditions can alter the length o grow-

ing seasons, and planting and harvesting calendars. It can

also impact water availability and water usage rates, along

with a host o plant physiological unctions including eva-

potranspiration, photosynthesis and biomass production,

and land suitability. Ongoing research has demonstrated a

positive response to increased levels o CO2 in controlled

experiments or a number o staples (e.g. Kimball et al.,

2002; Ainsworth and Long, 2005), albeit in the absence o

climate change. These results and those rom regional crop

models are helping to characterize what could plausibly be

the uture impact o climate change on agriculture. Due to

the number o variables involved and the chaotic nature o

weather systems, predictions are not meant to be taken as a

conrmation o what will happen, but rather describe therange o possible outcomes that can be expected.

Model-based rameworks have been developed that ore-

cast short- and long-term impacts on ood systems. The

majority o models investigate regional impacts, especially

in North America and Europe, with relatively ewer mod-

3 Atmospheric ozone has been shown to depress plant productivity and

greatly inhibit the ability o biomass to sequester carbon (e.g. Sitch et

al., 2007).



18


impacts on prices, trade, and ood security. In addition,

the osetting impacts o the carbon ertilization eect and

adaptation at the arm level, such as irrigation and plant-

ing date changes, are reviewed.

2.2.1 Impacts on yield and production

Easterling et al ., (2007) have created a synthesis o 69

model-based results that demonstrates the relative impact

o temperature and carbon ertilization on changes in ce-

real yield. Although a wide range o variability in yieldchanges across the studies is ound, some trends can be

observed. In mid- to high latitudes, increases in tempera-

ture produce increases in yields, but with diminishing e-

ect when temperature changes are greater than 3 degrees.

Yet stronger yield-depressing eects are ound in tropical

and sub-tropical regions or all crops, which refect a lower

growing temperature threshold capacity in these areas.

Osetting results have been conrmed by the positive

physiological response in cereal crop yield witnessed un-

els dedicated to predicting impacts on developing country agriculture. A number o global models have been devel-

oped and are integral to highlighting the risk disparities

between developed and developing countries (Fischer et

al., 2005).

A characterization o the possible eects o climate change

on crop yields and production, as well as the correspond-

ing impacts on ood prices and ood security, requires a

number o specic modeling applications. Generally, a

combination o a crop model, a climate simulation mod-

el, and a world ood trade model is implemented, using

various estimations or greenhouse gas emission rates and

socio-economic development. The end result is an inte-

grated physiological-economic model.

2.2 Future impacts

This section presents results rom leading models related to

agricultural system unctioning and yield, plus associated

Impact on agricultural productivity without carbon ertilization (%)

Source: Cline (2007)

Fig. 7



19


(Figures 7 and 8). Overall, agricultural productivity in de-

veloping countries is expected to decline by between 9 to

21 percent due to global warming. Meanwhile, agricultural

productivity in industrialized countries is oreseen declin-

ing by up to 6 percent or increasing by up to 8 percent,

depending on carbon ertilization. These estimates do not

consider the eects o increased losses due to insect pests,

more requent extreme weather events such as droughts or

foods, and increased water scarcity or irrigation. While

these multiple stressors are expected to compound the im-

pact o climate change on agriculture, studies conductedto date have tended to investigate each phenomenon sepa-

rately, making the prediction o aggregate impacts dicult.

For example, water resources are expected to decline in

quantity and quality (Kundezewicz et al ., 2007). However,

when they are available or irrigation, armers’ resilience

to climate change improves, and productivity may even

be enhanced, compared to a situation o no irrigation

(Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn, 2006). As the next gen-

eration o global models improve, the combined eects o

these stressors will become clearer.

der higher concentrations o CO2 (Kimball et al ., 2002;

Giord, 2004). However, the magnitude o these yield in-

creases is debated (Long et al ., 2006; Tubiello et al., 2007).

Despite observed inconsistencies, the yield-enhancing e-

ects o carbon ertilization have been incorporated into

leading models. This consideration o the carbon ertiliza-

tion eect greatly varies the results o global ood produc-

tion models. Discounting this eect, Parry et al. (2004)

have estimated that cereal production is expected to de-

crease by between 200 to nearly 450 million tons by 2080,

depending on the scenario employed. Yet, carbon ertili-zation eects could reduce this range to between 30 to

90 million tons, under diering scenarios. Similarly, Cline

(2007) has ound that a 16 percent decline in global ag-

ricultural production capacity can be expected i carbon

ertilization is not considered, versus 3 percent i it is con-

sidered.

Cline (2007) additionally demonstrates the eect o car-

bon ertilization on agricultural productivity - measured

in net revenue changes - or disaggregated global regions

Impact on agricultural productivity with carbon ertilization (%)

Source: Cline (2007)

Fig. 8



20


Fig. 9

Projected impacts o climate change by 2030 or fve major crops in each region

Notes: For each crop, the dark vertical line indicates the middle value obtained rom 100 separate model projections - boxes extend rom

the 25th to 75th percentiles, and horizontal lines extend rom the 5th to 95th percentiles. The number in parentheses is the overall rank o

the crop in terms o importance to ood security, as calculated by multiplying the number o malnourished in the region by the percentage

o calories derived rom the crop concerned.

Source: Lobell et al. (2008).

West Asia

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Wheat (10)

Rice (63)

Maize (69)

Potato (79,5)

Sugarbeet (79,5)

Andes

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Sugarcane (47)

Rice (57)

Maize (64)

Wheat (66)

Cassava (77)

West Africa

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Rice (30,5)

Cassava (30,5)

Maize (48,5)

Sorghum (48,5)

Millet (53)

Central Africa

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Cassava (7)

Maize (18)

Palm (34)

Wheat (43)

Rice (55,5)

Brazil

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Sugarcane (39)

Rice (62)

Wheat (65)

Soybean (72)

Maize (76)

Southeast Asia

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Rice (2)

Sugarcane (12)

Wheat (17)

Maize (35,5)

Cassava (35,5)

Central America/ Caribbean

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Maize (21)

Sugarcane (32)

Wheat (40)

Rice (42)

Cassava (89)

Southern Africa

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10

Maize (9)

Cassava (15)

Wheat (41)

Sugarcane (46)

Rice (67)

Sahel

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Sorghum (19)

Millet (33)

Groundnut (51)

Wheat (58)

Rice (68)

South Asia

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Rice (1)

Wheat (3)

Sugarcane (5)

Millet (14)

Maize (24)

China

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Rice (4)

Wheat (6)

Soybean (13)

Potato (28)

Sugarcane (28)

East Africa

-10 0 10 20 30 40

Maize (8)

Wheat (11)

Cassava (16)

Sorghum (20)

Barley (38)

that cereal imports in developing countries will increase

by between 10 to 40 percent by 2080. Economies that de-

rive a large share o GDP rom agriculture will be most

vulnerable, in terms o aected ood production systems.

O most concern is the act that developing countries are

overwhelmingly geographically low latitude economies;

ones already acing signicant development challenges.

Future ood availability depends on a number o actors

and not only climate impacts on production, including

trade policy, ood-aid, and storage capacity. Food security

2.2.2 Socioeconomic and Food SecurityImplications

The spatial dierences between low, middle and high lati-

tudes highlighted above allude to the great regional varia-

tion that climate change is expected to have on agriculture.

As a result o dierences in predicted production capabili-

ties, some regions will benet rom increases in yield while

others will be let to importing an increasing amount o

ood to help meet demand. Fischer et al. (2002), estimate



21


such management decisions could have on diminishing

the eects o global warming.4

The meta-analysis conducted by Easterling et al. (2007)

is again useul or considering the eects o adaptation in

mitigating climate eects on yields or major staples. In

general, on-arm adaptation has a positive eect on yields,and is estimated to have an overall 10 percent yield benet,

as compared to yields generated in the absence o adapta-

tion. While these estimates may point to the ability arm-

ers have to avoid the negative impact o climate change

on ood production, model-based results are not able to

capture the probability o an individual armer embrac-

ing adaptation in the ace o perceived climatic variations.

Each armer would weigh the risks, costs, and potential

benets o changing management practices. In addition,

many armers may be ill-equipped to adapt or may not

understand the risks that climate change imposes. As a re-

sult, inormation sharing, such as that involving climate

orecasting, will likely play an integral part in managing

climate change risk. In the next section, adaptation capac-

ity, strategies, and policy will be discussed in urther detail

to help characterize the role that adaptation can play in

diminishing the negative eects o climate change.

utures are predicted by making assumptions about trade

policy and other aspects o socio-economic development,

and by integrating these with the results o crop and gen-

eral circulation models. To date, however, only one eco-

nomic model has been used to predict impacts on ood

security, albeit under diering crop models (Schmidhuber

and Tubiello, 2007). Schmidhuber and Tubiello synthe-

size the results o these models and estimate that an addi-

tional 5 to 170 million people will become malnourished,

depending on the scenario employed. In addition, Arica

will likely become the region with the highest populationo ood insecure, accounting or up to 75 percent o the

world total by 2080 (Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007).

Yet, Parry et al. (2005) have shown that regional variation

in the number o ood insecure is better explained by pop-

ulation changes than climate impacts on ood availability.

As a result, economic and other development policies will

be critical to infuencing uture human well-being.

While not considering the ull economic eects o produc-

tion and consumption, Lobell et al. (2008) identiy crops

and regions that may be “climate risk hot spots” based onpredicted yield changes due to climate change and impor-

tant diet considerations (Figure 9). The authors identiy the

top ve crops required or ood security (based on calorie in-

take and population) and then synthesize results rom vari-

ous crop models. Probabilities are given or a range o crop

yield changes. For example, 95 percent o the models pre-

dict that climate change will to some extent depress yields

or South Asian wheat, South-East Asian rice, and Southern

Arican maize. These are also the “more important” regions

and crops in terms o possible threats to ood security.

2.3 Impact o arm-level adaptation

The eects o arm-level management changes in response

to climate change — reerred to in the literature as “ad-

aptation”— have been considered in a number o model

predictions. Adaptation measures generally considered

are listed in Table 3, and the potential o each will be dis-

cussed urther in the ollowing section. In general, model-

based results are not able to consider the decision-makingcapability o armers, but rather the overall impact that

Adjustment time(years)

Adaptation

Variety adoption

Variety development

Tillage systems

New crop adoption: soybeans

Opening new lands

Irrigation equipment

Fertilizer adoption

3-14

8-15

10-12

15-30

3-10

20-25

10

Farm-level adaptation responses and speed o adoption

Source: adapted rom Reilly (1995)

Adjustment time (years)

4 Mendelsohn and others examine the prot maximizing behavior o

armers when deciding whether to adapt to perceived climate change in a

number o microeconomic studies (e.g. Seo and Mendelsohn, 2008)

Tab. 3



22

Formally dened, adaptation to climate change is an ad-

justment made to a human, ecological or physical sys-

tem in response to a perceived vulnerability (Adger et al.,

2007). Adaptation responses can be categorized by thelevel o ownership o the adaptation measure or strategy.

Individual level or autonomous adaptations are considered

to be those that take place in reaction to climatic stimuli

(ater maniestation o initial impact), that is, as a mat-

ter o course and without the directed intervention o any

public agency (Smit and Piliosova, 2001). Autonomous

adaptations are widely interpreted to be initiatives by

private actors rather than by governments, usually trig-

gered by market or welare changes induced by actual or

anticipated climate change (Leary, 1999). Policy-driven

or planned adaptation is oten interpreted as being the re-

sult o a deliberate policy decision on the part o a public

agency, based on an awareness that conditions are about

to change or have changed, and that action is required to

minimize losses or benet rom opportunities (Pittock and

Jones, 2000). Thus, autonomous and policy-driven adap-

tation largely correspond to private and public adaptation,

respectively (Smit and Piliosova, 2001). Table 4 provides

examples o autonomous and policy-driven adaptation

strategies or agriculture.

As implied in the previous section, autonomous adapta-

tion responses will be evaluated by individual armers in

terms o costs and benets. It is anticipated that armers

will adapt “eciently”, and that markets alone can en-

courage ecient adaptation in traded agricultural goods

(Mendelsohn, 2006). Yet, in situations where market im-

perections exist, such as the absence o inormation on

climate change or land tenure insecurity, climate change

will urther reduce the capacity o individual armers to

manage risk eectively. Moreover, responses at the indi-

vidual level tend to be costly to poor producers and otencreate excessive burdens. As a result, an appropriate bal-

Adaptation

in

agriculture 3.



23


ance between public sector eorts and incentives, such as

capacity building, creation o risk insurance and private

investment, needs to be struck so that the burden can shit

away rom poor producers.

Key points on adaptation in summary:

Adaptation is dened as an adjustment made to a hu-

man, ecological or physical system in response to a per-

ceived vulnerability.

Changes in tillage practices or adjusted livestock breeds

are short-term measures.

Longer-term measures, such as improved water man-

agement or the building o irrigation systems, can help in

adapting to a changing climate.Supporting policies that promote adaptation measures

can help towards more eective implementation.

Modes o external assistance range rom allocating inor-

mation, advice, and training on adaptation measures, to

developing institutional capacities and policies.

Adaptation is not a stand-alone activity, and its integra-

tion into development projects, plans, policies, and strate-

gies will be crucial.

Synergies between mitigation and adaptation should bemaximized.

3.1 Role o adaptation policy

Decisions about what adaptation measures to adopt are not

taken in isolation by rural agricultural individuals, house-

holds or communities, but within the context o a widersociety and political economy (Burton and Lim, 2005).

End choices are thus shaped by public policy, which can ei-

ther be supportive or which can at times provide barriers or

disincentives to adaptation. Possible supporting policies to

help promote adaptation measures are shown in Table 5.

Adaptation policy is in many cases an extension o devel-

opment policy that seeks to eradicate the structural causes

o poverty and ood insecurity. The complementarities

between the two will enable a streamlined approach to-

wards achieving both adaptation and poverty alleviationgoals. General policies that should be supported include

those: promoting growth and diversication; strengthen-

ing institutions; protecting natural resources; investing in

research and development, education and health; creating

markets in water and environmental services; improving

the international trade system; enhancing resilience to dis-

asters and improving disaster management; and policies

promoting risk-sharing, including social saety nets and

weather insurance.

Adaptation options and their supporting policies shouldbe adopted by the appropriate level o government and im-

Adaptation responses and issues

Source: Authors

Type of response

Short-run Crop choice, crop area, planting date

Risk-pooling insurance

Improved orecasting

Research or improved understanding o climate risk

Long-run Private investment (on-arm irrigation)

Private crop research

Large-scale public investment (water, storage, roads)

Crop research

Issues Costly to poor

Social saety nets

Trade-os with integration

Uncertain returns on investment

Costs

Autonomous Policy-driven

Tab. 4



24


Adaptation options and supporting policies given climate change

Source: Adapted rom Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal (2003)

Adaptation Option Supporting Policies

Short-term

Crop insurance or risk coverage

Crop/livestock diversifcation to increase productivity and

protect against diseases

Adjust timing o arm operations to reduce risks o

crop damage

Change cropping intensity

Livestock management to adjust to new climate conditions

Changes in tillage practices

Temporary mitigation or risk diversifcation to withstand

climate shocks

Food reserves and storage as temporary relie

Changing crop mix

Modernization o arm operations

Permanent migration to diversiy income opportunities

Defning land-use and tenure rights or investments

Both short- and long-term

Development o crop and livestock technology adapted to

climate change stress: drought and heat tolerance, etc.

Develop market efciency

Irrigation and water storage expansion

Efcient water use

Promoting international trade

Improving orecasting mechanisms

Institutional strengthening and decision-making structures

Improved access, risk management, revise pricing incentives,

etc

Availability o extension services, fnancial support, etc.

Extension services, pricing policies, etc

Improved extension services, pricing policy adjustments

Provision o extension services

Extension services to support activities, pricing incentives

Employment/training opportunities

Improving access and aordability, revising pricing, etc.

Promote adoption o technologies

Education and training

Legal reorm and enorcement

Agricultural research (crop and livestock trait development),

agricultural extension services

Invest in rural inrastructure, remove market barriers,

property rights, etc

Investment by public and private sectors

Water pricing reorms, clearly defned property rights, etc

Pricing and exchange rate policies

Inormation needs to be distributed across all sectors, etc

Reorm existing institutions on agriculture, etc

Tab. 5



25


due to the high economic costs incurred in related research

and development (Njie et al., 2006). Thereore, multiple

criteria should be used in order to make a judicious selec-

tion o adaptation measures rom environmental, techni-

cal, social, and economic standpoints.

The methods discussed above emphasize a project specic

decision-making ramework, mainly because adaptation

would take place locally. Yet, comprehensive economic as-

sessments o multi-sectoral and regional adaptation costs

and benets are “currently lacking” (Adger et al., 2007).

Global scale assessments will likely be integral to highlight-ing intra-regional variation in the benets accrued rom

adaptation. These, in turn, would enable more and better

targeting o unds. For example, recent research has helped

to identiy potentially ood insecure regions as a means

o prioritizing investment needs (Lobell et al., 2008).

Moreover, as indicated by the Mali and Gambia studies,

many low-cost adaptation strategies are likely to be insu-

cient in terms o minimizing risk. As a result, it can be

concluded that urther evaluation criteria need to be devel-

oped in order to direct necessary external assistance.

3.3 Enabling adaptation

It is clear that there will be an important role or public

policy in assisting adaptation to climate change (Adger

et al., 2007). Planning or adaptation and implementing

a well-targeted adaptation policy will require resources

beyond the capacity o most governments in develop-

ing regions. In addition, lack o awareness or even reluc-

tance to take action present urther barriers to adaptation.Incentives and investments will be necessary or creating

and diusing improved technology and management tech-

niques. As a result, national governments, NGOs and the

international community all have a role to play in creating

the means and cooperation required or adaptation.

Policy driven or planned adaptation strategies need to

address high priority areas such as irreversible and cata-

strophic climate change impacts (i.e. where reactive meas-

ures are not enough), long-term investments (e.g. irriga-

tion inrastructure), and unavorable trends, such as soilquality degradation and water scarcity (Smith and Lenhart,

plemented by institutions in direct contact with beneci-

aries. For example, adaptation responses such as changing

planting dates and tillage practices may require technical

services provided by local extension agents, which are co-

ordinated by regional universities and research institutions.

Agricultural research, including crop breeding to develop

drought and heat tolerant crop varieties, will require both

public and private investment. Structural adaptation meas-

ures, such as creating water markets and price incentives,

will need to be implemented on a national level, most like-

ly in partnership with economic cooperation unions.

3.2 Evaluating adaptation options

Selecting appropriate adaptation measures to pursue is

context and project specic. Criteria to consider include

the: net economic benet; timing o benets; distribution

o benets; consistency with development objectives; con-

sistency with other government policies; costs involved;

environmental impacts; spill-over eects; implementation/

implementing capacity; and social, economic and techni-cal barriers (Leary et al., 2007). Once an adaptation strat-

egy has been evaluated, the measure that yields the greatest

net benet should be chosen.

Methods presented by Fankhauser (1997), Calloway et al.,

(1999), and Calloway (2003) have been integral to devel-

oping the benet-cost analysis or adaptation strategies.

Using these methods, Calloway et al., (2006) developed a

policy-planning model to evaluate the benets, costs and

risks o avoiding detrimental climate change due to ine-

cient water allocation to competing users in the Berg Riverbasin area o South Arica. Their study ound that switch-

ing to allocation by water markets provided net benets o

between 10 to 20 percent over a no adaptation scenario in

the area concerned.

Technical capabilities o changing and/or improving ag-

ricultural practices can be assessed by determining their

agronomic potential. Crop production in Mali has been

ound to be responsive to the adoption o heat resistant

cultivars, but not to changes in planting dates (Butt et

al., 2005). In Gambia, however, technologically easibledrought resistant cultivars were ound to be impractical



26


Ensuring fnance

A common concern o developing countries has been that

their participation in multilateral environmental agree-

ments imposes costs in terms o undertaking new obliga-

tions to address the global environmental problems largely

created by industrialized countries. Climate change is a

salient issue o this kind. It seems realistic, thereore, to

suggest that developed countries should scale up their

support to developing countries or adapting to climate

change. This would not only help ensure that climate is-

sues are adequately considered in national developmentplans and sectoral policies, but also reassure donors and

investors that climate change adaptation measures are

well-conceived and represent good investment.

Promoting insurance

A urther suggestion concerns the provision o insurance

against climate risks. Countries, communities and individ-

uals in most developing countries have little or no insur-

ance coverage against the extreme weather events linked to

climate change. The private insurance industry is poorly developed in many cases, and a ear that large catastrophe-

related losses are unlikely to be covered by insurance pre-

mium income poses a signicant deterrence to its growth.

3.3.2 Synergies between adaptation and miti-

gation

A nal comment should be made on the synergies between

adaptation and mitigation. Practices that increase the resil-

ience o production systems may also reduce emissions or

sequester carbon. In general, strategies to conserve soil and

water resources (such as restoring degraded soils, agro-or-

estry, and biogas recovery) also enhance ecosystem unc-

tioning, providing resilience against droughts, pests, and

other climatic threats. However, adaptation can also come

at the expense o mitigation, or example, when increased

nitrogen ertilizer usage or increased ood production also

expands nitrous oxide emissions. In order to maximize

synergies and reduce trade-os, mitigation and adaptation

strategies should be developed together, recognizing that

in some cases hard decisions will need to be made betweencompeting goals.

1996). In general, climate change should be considered in

long-term planning (Easterling et al., 2004) in order to

maximize adaptive capacity. Specic policy driven meas-

ures or the agricultural sector include: drought contin-

gency plans; ecient water allocation; seed research and

development; the elimination o subsidies and taxes; e-

cient irrigation; conservation management practices; and

trade liberalization (Smith and Lenhart, 1996).

3.3.1 Moving the adaptation agenda orward:

Three suggestions

Clearly the adaptation agenda is very large. Much o the

action required is at the local level, and its precise nature

would depend a lot on local circumstances. Specic prob-

lems in particular areas call or explicit remedies. There

is also much that can be done at the national level with

international support to acilitate and promote adaptation

at the local level. Three actions could be undertaken at the

national and international levels that would move adapta-

tion orward.

Promoting adaptation strategies and integration into de-

velopment planning

All countries, as part o their responsibilities under the

Convention could make national adaptation strate-

gies. This would involve taking a broad strategic view o

the uture development path o a country and consid-

ering how it could best be designed or modied in the

light o expected climate change. Within such a strategic

view, policies or sectors and regions could be examined

and adjusted to take account o climate change. Sectoral

policies would likely include those or agriculture, orests

and sheries, water and other natural resources, health, in-

rastructure, and ecosystems. In addition to the sectoral

approach, policy review could cover the management o

extreme events such as droughts, storms and foods, and

areas o particular risk, or example, exposed coastal zones,

steep mountain slopes etc. Specic adaptation measures

could then be evaluated and selected within the context

o a climate-sensitive strategy and set o policies. Related

documents should be integrated with national develop-ment planning in order to be eective.



27

In this paper, the state o knowledge on climate change

and agriculture has been reviewed. In general, agriculture

impacts climate change signicantly through livestock pro-

duction and the conversion o orest to land cover that haslow carbon sink or sequestration potential. Nitrous oxide

emissions rom crop production and methane rom rice

production are also signicant. Mitigation options that

are the most technically and economically easible include

better rice, crop- and pastureland management.

Although there are viable mitigation technologies in the

agricultural sector, particularly in developing countries,

some key constraints need to be overcome. First, rules o

access — which still do not credit developing countries or

reducing emissions by avoiding deorestation or improv-ing soil carbon sequestration — must be changed. Second,

operational rules, with their high transaction costs or de-

veloping countries and small armers and oresters in par-

ticular, must be streamlined.

Climate change is also likely to have a signicant nega-

tive impact on agricultural production, prompting output

reductions that will greatly aect parts o the developing

world. Adaptation, including crop choice and timing, has

the ability to partially compensate or production declines

in all regions. While a number o models have predictedthis development, there is still a range o specic regional

eects to be considered. Furthermore, insucient atten-

tion has been given to multiple stressors, like extreme

weather events, pests, and diseases. In addition, to date,

only a limited number o studies have ocused on the

climate change and carbon ertilization eects related to

crops o importance to the rural poor, such as root crops

and millet.

As a result o changes in production, ood security will be

aected by climate change. Indeed, climate change aloneis expected to increase the number o ood insecure by an

Conclusions

and

policy

considerations4.



28

Conclusion and policy consideration

4tions in the eects o climate change. These studies would

clariy the range o outcomes possible under plausible cli-

mate and adaptation scenarios, which would then assist in

the targeting o high priority areas. Once areas o prioriti-

zation have been identied, evaluation criteria should be

applied, that not only consider net economic benets, but

also environmental and social appropriateness. In addition,

adaptation measures should maximize the complementa-

rities between existing rural and sustainable development

objectives.

Finally, climate change adaptation and mitigation have toproceed simultaneously. Since adaptation becomes cost-

lier and less eective as the magnitude o climate changes

increases, mitigation o climate change remains essential.

The greater the level o mitigation that can be achieved at

aordable costs, the smaller the burden placed on adap-

tation. Policies ocused on mitigating GHG emissions, i

careully designed, can help generate a new development

strategy; one that encourages the creation o new value in

pro-poor investments by increasing the protability o en-

vironmentally sustainable practices. To achieve this goal,

it will be necessary to streamline the measurement and

enorcement o osets, nancial fows, and carbon credits

or investors. It will also be important to enhance global

nancial acilities and to reorm their governance, namely

to simpliy rules and to increase the unding fows or mit-

igation in developing countries.

There has been a tendency to treat adaptation to climate

change as a stand-alone activity, but this should be inte-

grated into development projects, plans, policies, and

strategies. Meanwhile, development policy issues must

be addressed in association with the climate change com-

munity. A combined perspective is required to ensure the

ormulation and implementation o integrated approaches

and processes that recognize how persistent poverty and

environmental needs exacerbate the adverse consequences

o climate change. Climate change will alter the set o

appropriate investments and policies over time, both in

type and in spatial location. Eective adaptation thereore

requires a judicious selection o measures within a policy

context and a strategic development ramework, but must

also explicitly counter the impact o climate change, par-ticularly with respect to the poor.

additional 5 to 170 million people by 2080, especially

in Arica. Nevertheless, socio-economic policy, especially

trade liberalization, can compensate or some o the nega-

tive impact here.

Even the most aggressive mitigation eorts that can rea-

sonably be anticipated cannot be expected to make a

signicant dierence in the short-term. This means that

adaptation is an imperative. Yet, in the ace o this impera-

tive, many developing countries are lacking in sucient

adaptive capacity. As a result, there is a large role or na-

tional governments, NGOs, and international institutionsto play in building the necessary adaptive capacity and risk

management structures.

In order to acilitate these roles, global scale assessments

should be conducted to help identiy intra-regional varia-



29

Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde,

K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit and K.

Takahashi (2007) Assessment o adaptation practices,

options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007:Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution o

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry,

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutiko, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.

Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK, 717-743.

Ainsworth, E. A. and S.P. Long (2005) What have we

learned rom 15 years o ree-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)?

A meta-analysis o the responses o photosynthesis, cano-

py properties and plant production to rising CO2. New

Phytol. 165, 351-372.

Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, and T.J. Grifs

(2007) Tillage and soil carbon sequestration - What do we

really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

118, 1-5.

Bumb, B. and C. Baanante (1996) World Trends in

Fertilizer Use and Projections to 2020. 2020 Brie #38,

International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,D.C.

Burton, I. and B. Lim (2005) Achieving Adequate

Adaptation in Agriculture. Climate Change 70, 191-200.

Butt, A.T., B.A. McCarl, J. Angerer, P.T. Dyke and J.W.

Stuth (2005) The economic and ood security implica-

tions o climate change. Climatic Change, 68, 355-378.

Calloway, J.M., D.B. Louw, J.C. Nkomo, M.E. Hellmuthand D.A. Sparks (2006) The Berg River Dynamic Spatial

Equilibrium Model: A New Tool or Assessing the Benets

and Costs o Alternatives or Coping With Water Demand

Growth, Climate Variability, and Climate Change in the

Western Cape. AIACC Working Paper 31, [Available on-

line at http://www.aiaccproject.org]

Callaway, J.M. (2003) Adaptation benets and costs -

measurement and policy issues. Environment Directorate,

Environment Policy Committee, OECD. ENV/EPOC/

GSP(2003)10/FINAL, Paris, France.

Callaway, J.M., Ringius, L., Ness, L. (1999) Adaptation

costs: a ramework and methods. In: Christensen, J.,

Sathaye, J. (Eds.), Mitigation and Adaptation Cost

Assessment Concepts, Methods and Appropriate Use.

UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment,

Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, DK.

Chan, K.Y.; Heenan, D.P., and So, H.B. (2003)

Sequestration o carbon and changes in soil quality un-

der conservation tillage on light-textured soils in Australia:a review. Australian Journal o Experimental Agriculture

43(4), 325-344.

CIFOR (2002) Making Forest Carbon Work or Low

Income Producers. Inobrie 2 (October 2002). Center

or International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta,

Indonesia. [Available online at http://www.cior.cgiar.org/

publications/pd_les/inobrie/002-Inobrie.pd].

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (2008) [Available online at http://cdm.unccc.int/index.html]

Cline, W. (2007) Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact

Estimates by Country. Center or Global Development.

Washington DC, USA. 250 pp

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steineld, S. Ehui, C.

Courbois (1999) Livestock to 2020: The Next Food

Revolution. Food, Agriculture, and Environment.

Discussion Paper No.28, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.

Reerences



30

Easterling, W.E., P.K. Aggarwal, P. Batima, K.M.

Brander, L. Erda, S.M. Howden, A. Kirilenko, J. Morton,

J.-F. Soussana, J. Schmidhuber and F.N. Tubiello (2007)

Food, bre and orest products. Climate Change 2007:

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution o

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry,

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutiko, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.

Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK, 273-313.

Eickhout, B., Van den Born, G.J., Notenboom, J., Van

Oorschot, M., Ros, J.P.M., Van Vuuren, D.P., Westhoek,

H.J. (2008) Local and global consequences o the EU

renewable directive or biouels: Testing the sustain-

ability criteria. Milieu en Natuur Planbureau Report no.

500143001.

Ferrentino, C. (2007) Potentials or Bioenergy to Mitigate

Climate Change: A Summary o recent ndings rom the

IPCC and the IEA, Global Bioenergy Partnership, GBEP

Secretariat.

Fischer, G., M. Shah, F.N. Tubiello, and H.van Velhuizen

(2005) Socio-economic and climate change impacts on

agriculture: an integrated assessment, 1990-2080. Phil.

Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 2067-2083.

Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, M. Shah and F.O.

Nachtergaele (2002) Global agro-ecological assessment

or agriculture in the 21st century: methodology and re-

sults. Research Report RR-02-02, International Instituteor Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.

Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal (2001) The poten-

tial o U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon. In: R.F.

Follett et al. (ed.) The potential o U.S. grazing lands to

sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse eect. CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL, 401-430.

Fankhauser, S. (1997) The costs o adapting to climate

change. Working Paper No. 13, Global EnvironmentalFacility, Washington, DC.

Giord, R.M. (2004) The CO2 ertilizing eect - does it

occur in the real world? New Phytologist 163, 221-225.

Gruhn, P., F. Goletti, and M. Yudelman (2000) Integrated

Nutrient Management, Soil Fertility, and Sustainable

Agriculture: Current Issues and Future Challenges. Food,

Agriculture, and the Environment. Discussion Paper

No.32, International Food Policy Research Institute,

Washington D.C.

Houghton R.A. (2003) Revised estimates o the annual

net fux o carbon to the atmosphere rom changes in land

use 1850-1990. Tellus, 55B, 378-390.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2006) World Energy

Outlook. Paris.

IPCC (2007) Summary or policy makers. Climate Change

2007: Synthesis Report. Fourth Assessment Report o the

Intergovernmental Panel or Climate Change. [Available

online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pd/assessment-report/ar4/

syr/ar4_syr_spm.pd]

Kimball, B. A., K. Kobayashi, and M. Bindi (2002)

Responses o agricultural crops to ree-air CO2 enrich-

ment. Adv. Agron. 77, 293-368.

Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn (2006) Modeling

Endogenous Irrigation: The Impact O Climate Change

On Farmers In Arica. CEEPA Discussion Paper No.

8 Special Series on Climate Change and Agriculture in

Arica.

Kurukulasuriya, P. and S. Rosenthal (2003) Climate

Change and Agriculture: A Review o Impacts and

Adaptations. Agriculture and Rural Development

Department Paper No. 91, World Bank, Washington DC,

USA. 96 pp

Lal, R, and J.P. Bruce (1999) The potential o world cro-

pland soils to sequester C and mitigate the greenhouse e-

ect. Environmental Science and Policy 2, 177-185.

Lal, R., M. Grifn, J. Apt, L. Lave, and M. GrangerMorgan (2004) Managing soil carbon. Science 304, 393.

» Reerences



31

Reerences

Leary, N. A., J.Adejuwon, V. Barros, P. Batimaa, B.

Biagini, I. Burton, S. Chinvanno, R. Cruz, D. Dabi, A.

de Comarmond, B. Dougherty, P. Dube, A. Githeko, A.

Abou Hadid, M. Hellmuth, R. Kangalawe, J. Kulkarni,

M. Kumar, R. Lasco, M. Mataki, M. Medany, M.

Mohsen, G. Nagy, M. Njie, J.Nkomo, A. Nyong, B.

Osman, E. Sanjak, R. Seiler, M. Taylor, M. Travasso, G.

von Maltitz, S. Wandiga and M. Wehbe (2007) A Stitch

in Time: Lessons or Climate Change Adaptation rom the

AIACC Project, AIACC Working Paper 48, Washington,

D.C. [Available online at http://www.aiaccproject.org].

Leary, N.A. (1999) A ramework or benet-cost analy-

sis o adaptation to climate change and climate variability.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies or Global Change 4

(3-4), 307-318.

Lobell, D., M. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M. Mastrandrea, W.

Falcon, and R. Naylor. 2008. Prioritizing climate change

adaptation needs or ood security in 2030. Program on

Food Security and the Environment, Policy Brie, Stanord

University. Available at: http://se.stanord.edu/

Long, S.P., Ainsworth, E.A., Leakey, A.D.B., Nosberger,

J., Ort, D.R. (2006) Food or thought: lower-than-expect-

ed crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations.

Science 312, 1918-1921.

Mendelsohn, R. (2006) The role o markets and govern-

ments in helping society adapt to a changing climate.

Climatic Change Special Issue on Climate, Economy, and

Society: From Adaptation to Adaptive Management 78,

203-215.

Pacala, S. and R. Socolow (2004) Stabilization wedges:

Solving the climate problem or the next 50 years with

current technologies. Science 305, 968-972.

Parry, M., C. Rosenzweig and M. Livermore (2005)

Climate change, global ood supply and risk o hunger.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 360, 2125-2138.

Pimentel, D., and T. Patzek (2005) Ethanol ProductionUsing Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production

Using Soybean and Sunfower. Natural Resources Research

14 (1), 65-76.

Pittock, B. and R.N. Jones (2000) Adaptation to what

and why? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

61(1), 9-35.

Reilly, J. (1995) Climate change and agriculture: Recent

ndings and issues. American Journal o Agricultural

Economics 77(Aug), 727-733.

Rosegrant, M.W., T. Zhu, S. Msangi, and T. Sulser(orthcoming) Global scenarios or biouels: Impacts and

implications or ood security. Review o Agricultural

Economics,.

Schmidhuber, J. and F. Tubiello (2007) Global ood secu-

rity under climate change. PNAS 104 (5), 19703-19708.

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong,

A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, T. Yu (2008)

Use o U.S. Croplands or Biouels Increase Greenhouse

Gases Through Emissions rom Land-Use Change. Science

319, 1238.

Seo, N. and R. Mendelsohn (2008) Measuring impacts

and adaptation to climate change: A structural Ricardian

model o Arican livestock management. Agricultural

Economics (38), 151-165.

Sitch, S., P. M. Cox, W. J. Collins, and C. Huntingord

(2007) Indirect radioactive orcing o climate change

through ozone eects on the land-carbon sink. Nature

448, 791-794.

Smit, B. and O. Piliosova (2001) Adaptation to climate

change in the context o sustainable development and

equity (Chapter 18). In: McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani,

N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.) (2001)

Climate Change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulner-

ability. Contributions o Working Group II, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen,P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B.



32

» Reerences

Scholes, O. Sirotenko (2007a) Agriculture. In: Climate

Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution o Working

Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report o the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz,

O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)],

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

and New York, NY, USA.

Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H.H. Janzen,

P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, R.J.

Scholes, O. Sirotenko, M. Howden, T. McAllister, G.Pan, V. Romanenkov, U. Schneider, S. Towprayoon, M.

Wattenbach, and J.U. Smith (2007b) Greenhouse gas

mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions o

the Royal Society, B., 363.

Smith, J.B. and S. Lenhart (1996) Climate change adap-

tation policy options. Climate Research 6, 193-201.

Steineld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M.

Rosales and C. De Haan (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow:

Environmental Issues and Options. Food and AgricultureOrganization, Rome, Italy, 390 pages.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2006)

Global Mitigation o Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. Oce

o Atmospheric Programs, Washington DC, USA

Wang, M., C. Saricks, and D. Santini (1999) Eects

o uel ethanol use on uel-cycle energy and greenhouse

gas emissions. Center or Transportation Research,

Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory:

Argonne, IL.

Wassman, R., K. Butterbach-Bahl and A. Dobermann

(2006) Irrigated rice production systems and greenhouse

gas emissions: crop and residue management trends, cli-

mate change impacts and mitigation strategies. CAB

Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science,

Nutrition and Natural Resources 1 (74), 1-13.

World Resources Institute (WRI) (2008) Climate Analysis

Indicators Toolkit (CAIT) [January 2008, available onlineat: http://cait.wri.org/].



Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

- German Technical Cooperation -

Climate Protection Programme

for Developing Countries

Agriculture Ang Climate Change

Documents

Transcript of Agriculture Ang Climate Change