Climate Smart Agriculture -ASB World Bank Presentation

Strategic Planning for Climate-Smart Landscapes

Part I: Climate Smart Agriculture and Landscape Approaches

Peter A Minang, Douglas White

About ASB • What is ASB?

– Consortium of over 50 Institutions (International, Universities and National) created in 1994

– Research on Forest-Agriculture-Environment interactions along tropical forest margins

• Goal – To raise productivity and income of rural households in the humid tropics

without increasing deforestation or undermining essential environmental services.

• Research Programmes – Landscape approaches to REDD+, Reducing Emissions from All Land Use- REALU

– Synergies between Mitigation & Adaptation for Rural Transformations 2-SMART

– Swiddens in Poverty Reduction, Climate and Environmental Services- SPACES

WWW.ASB.CGIAR.ORG

Mosaic Landscapes in Indonesia and Kenya: The dominant reality

Why Landscape Approaches for CSA?

1. CSA practices and activities will be part of landscapes and compete against other land uses. Hence tradeoffs and synergies need to be understood

2. Synergy between REDD+ and CSA

can lead to greater emission reductions and multiple productivity and resilience benefits

3. Farm level change is necessary but not sufficient. Communal use of resources and associated externalities (sedimentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss) requires coordinated social efforts. Higher level policy is also needed to enable scaling-up

4. Scaling-up CSA requires cross-

sectoral action and policy support at multiple scales

What constitutes Landscape Approaches?

• Heterogeneity (Mosaic of Landuses)

• Integration – Synergies, trade-offs – Multiple sectors, participants – CSA vs REDD vs NAMA vs … – Multiple practices – Mitigation and adaptation

• Scale – Appropriate Scale? – Multiple scales (3 nested

scales) – What problem?

Why? • For Analyzing and

Understanding REDD+ • For Planning and

Implementing REDD+, CSA and adaptation

• Most experience

– Geography – Biodiversity conservation – Water management….

1. CSA activities have to be seen as part of a Landscape

• CSA Practices and activities will be part of landscapes and compete against other land uses. Hence trade-offs and synergies need to be understood.

Agrarian dynamics: stages & trajectories

Point No. 2: Synergy between REDD+ and CSA can lead to greater emission reductions and multiple

productivity and resilience benefits

• Some CSA practices can support programs to control deforestation as a sustainable intensification strategy

• Therefore CSA could be related to REDD+ as same policy instruments promote both

Intensification of agriculture is necessary, but not sufficient, to stop deforestation

Source: Fischer et al. 2008

Can intensification spare forests?

• 3 conditions

– Yield increases

– Price decreases

– Area cultivated decreases

• Higher yield = more food on same land area

• Therefore sparing more land for forest conservation

• However, demand is elastic

• Therefore potentially resolve Agriculture – REDD conflict?????

Co-financing opportunities exist for both REDD+ and CSA

Challenges: • Increasing soil and tree

carbon takes time – sometimes up to 3 years to yield benefits

• Some CSA activities such as agroforestry systems do not generate profits during initial years of establishment

Solutions: • Required investments and

financing could be funded through REDD+ agricultural intensification approaches;

• It could also be argued that because these CSA activities increase resilience and productivity, they could be funded through adaptation investments in the landscape

Some CSA options do not yield immediate benefits, hence would need start up funding, e.g. Agroforestry

1 year 2 years 3 years

Relay Fallow

intercropping (2-3 tons)

Improved Fallows (3-4 tons) Gliricidia/maize

intercropping (3-5 tons)

Waiting Period before benefit accrual

Maize Yield

10th Crop

Point No. 3: Some CSA benefits to water and biodiversity need landscape level engagements

• Farm level focus is necessary but not sufficient.

• Communal use of resources and associated externalities (sedimentation, deforestation, biodiversity loss) requires coordinated social efforts.

• Higher level supporting policy is also needed.

• Picture of ag in biodiversity context

Farm-level Productivity & Resilience: Improved Fallow and Drought Mitigation

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1)

After maize

After Sesbania

Year 1 (1001)

Year 2 (1017)

Year 3 (551)

Year 4 (962)

Year 5 (522)

Chipata, Zambia (5-year average rainfall = 811 mm)

An Landscape Example from Indonesia: RUPES at Lake Singkarak

• Prospects for bringing CSA as part of a landscape approach

Lake Singkarak Landscape

CO-BENEFITS: Cocoa Intensification, increased productivity, biodiversity, and income diversification

• In E. Ghana, shaded cocoa recorded more than 3x avian &, mammalian species, 4x butterfly species and 30 times plant species than full sun (Ofori-Frimpong and Asase, 2005).

• In Cameroon 286 plant species counted (Sonwa et al. 2006)

• Important for biodiversity in buffer zones

Gockowski et al., 2006

Point No. 4: Promoting and developing CSA activities would not be complete

• Other sectoral interventions may be needed to enable the full scale carbon, resilience and productivity benefits from CSA

• Policy frameworks that allow emission reductions (e.g. REDD+) and adaptation investments in CSA would provide a great opportunity.

• An enabling legal and policy environment would be necessary

– to enable cross-sectoral planning,

– with a functional and viable extension system for enabling CSA

– for tree rights and ownership (e.g., landscape transformations in Niger and Mali)

– for investments in physical and market infrastructure necessary for handling (e.g. processing) increased crop and tree products from CSA

Why multiple sectors and policies in Landscape approaches to CSA?

Briamoh, 2012

Part II: Tools for integrating CSA into Landscape Approaches

Doug White, Peter A Minang

Analytical tools

• Synergies & tradeoffs amongst land uses

– ASB experience

– CSA and all land uses

ASB Matrix Example: Pucallpa, Peru Amazon

Smallholder

Land useCarbon

storageBiodiversity

Soil bulk

density

Available

Phosphorus

Returns to

land

Employ-

ment

Returns to

land

Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45

Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84

Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296

Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156

Long fallow agriculture 20 36 1.25 15 302 27 197

Short fallow agriculture 14 26 1.3 15 466 32 209

Improved pasture 5 12 1.4 10 1069 7 6

Traditional pasture 2 23 1.45 5 553 8 -11

Unit (per ha)

tC,

AG,time-

averaged

plant

species

richness

g/cm3 ppmNPV 30y,

5% discount

workdays

per year

NPV 30y,

15% discount

Global environmentAgronomic

sustainabilityNational policy

Evaluation criteria

Land uses

White, et al. 2006, 2011 Based on Tomich, et al. 1998.

scientists devised metrics and conducted measurements that fill cells

users defined units of analysis and criteria


Smallholder

Land useCarbon

storageBiodiversity

Soil bulk

density

Available

Phosphorus

Returns to

land

Employ-

ment

Returns to

land

Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45

Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84

Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296

Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156





Unit (per ha)

tC,

AG,time-

averaged

plant

species

richness

g/cm3 ppmNPV 30y,

5% discount

workdays

per year

NPV 30y,

15% discount



Evaluation criteria

Land uses



Smallholder

Land useCarbon

storageBiodiversity

Soil bulk

density

Available

Phosphorus

Returns to

land

Employ-

ment

Returns to

land

Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45

Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84

Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296

Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156





Unit (per ha)

tC,

AG,time-

averaged

plant

species

richness

g/cm3 ppmNPV 30y,

5% discount

workdays

per year

NPV 30y,

15% discount



Evaluation criteria

Land uses


Other qualitative measures can be used such as: •Soil structure •Nutrient export •Crop protection Participatory soil quality measures can also be used


Smallholder

Land useCarbon

storageBiodiversity

Soil bulk

density

Available

Phosphorus

Returns to

land

Employ-

ment

Returns to

land

Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45

Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84

Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296

Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156





Unit (per ha)

tC,

AG,time-

averaged

plant

species

richness

g/cm3 ppmNPV 30y,

5% discount

workdays

per year

NPV 30y,

15% discount



Evaluation criteria

Land uses


Measures of Resilience?

Other qualitative measures can be used such as: •Soil structure •Nutrient export •Crop protection Participatory soil quality measures can also be used


Smallholder

Land useCarbon

storageBiodiversity

Soil bulk

density

Available

Phosphorus

Returns to

land

Employ-

ment

Returns to

land

Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45

Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84

Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296

Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156





Unit (per ha)

tC,

AG,time-

averaged

plant

species

richness

g/cm3 ppmNPV 30y,

5% discount

workdays

per year

NPV 30y,

15% discount



Evaluation criteria

Land uses



Smallholder

Land useCarbon

storageBiodiversity

Soil bulk

density

Available

Phosphorus

Returns to

land

Employ-

ment

Returns to

land

Forest 250 63 1.2 10 73 45

Logged forest 123 66 1.2 10 122 84

Cocoa 43 27 17 4734 42 296

Oil palm 41 1,247 99 156





Unit (per ha)

tC,

AG,time-

averaged

plant

species

richness

g/cm3 ppmNPV 30y,

5% discount

workdays

per year

NPV 30y,

15% discount



Evaluation criteria

Land uses


Are criteria salient, credible and legitimate?

An example landscape tradeoff: Carbon – Profits

Dense forest (95% canopy)

Selective logged forest (80%

canopy)

Logged forest (65% canopy)

Agriculture 8yr fallow

Agriculture 4yr fallow

Oil palm

Cocoa

Improved pastures

Degraded pastures

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Pri

vate

pe

rsp

ect

ive

pro

fits

(NP

V, $

/ha)

Above-ground Carbon (tC/ha)

REDD+ benefits and costs

Policy and program options evaluated according different environmental equity and economic criteria:

Environmental

Economic

Equity

Efficiency Carbon rents

Air/Climate

Environmental service compensation

Benefits Costs

Livelihoods & income

Implementation

Transaction

Opportunity

Socio-cultural rights & traditions

Biodiversity Water

CSA and REDD+

Environmental

Economic

Equity

Efficiency Carbon rents

(Soils) Air/Climate

Environmental service compensation

improved productivity

enhanced climate

resilience

increased mitigation and

carbon sequestration

CSA

Benefits Costs

Livelihoods & income

Implementation

Transaction

Opportunity

Socio-cultural rights & traditions

Biodiversity Water

Planning a Land Use Strategy Helpful to merge CSA, REDD+, NAMA

Key steps:

1. Diagnose contexts – Stakeholder

– Existing technologies, practices, policies and institutions

Stakeholder interests & land use

Political administrations (national, sub-

national) Agriculture

ministry

Forestry ministry

Environment ministry

Finance ministry

Energy ministry Defense

ministry

Export ministry

Transport ministry

Hunter- gatherers

Farmers

Loggers

Private citizens

Private industry

CBOs

NGOs

Existing policies affecting land use Peru

Policy intervention Promotional Restrictive

Economic sector Subsidy Tax break Taxes & fees

Regulation & penalty

Forestry / Timber

Research & extension (e.g., reduced impact logging – RIL)

Timber export marketing

Concession fee per ha

Management plan fee

Tax m3 harvest

Illegal timber confiscation & fine

Agriculture/ Ranching

Research & extension

Seeds/plants (oilpalm, cocoa)

Processing facilities (oilpalm)

Coca plant eradication

Amazon region

Road construction

Land tenure

Fuel

Capital investment (machinery)

Mining


Key steps:

1. Diagnose contexts – Stakeholder

– Existing technologies, practices, policies and institutions

2. Develop a results framework – With economic, equity, environmental criteria

Land Use Policy Performance Criteria

• Climate

• Soils

• Water

• Biodiversity Quality, flow regulation

Emission reduction, carbon stock increase

Plants & animals

Environmental Sustainability

Fertility, health


• Climate

• Soils

• Water

• Biodiversity

• Income distribution

• Self-determination

• Cultural identity Quality, flow regulation


Participation and influence in policy process

Plants & animals

Livelihood traditions, community social capital

Social Equity


Fair opportunities and earnings

Fertility, health


• Climate

• Soils

• Water

• Biodiversity

• Agriculture

• Forest

• Mining

• Income distribution

• Self-determination

• Cultural identity Quality, flow regulation


Participation and influence in policy process

Plants & animals

Farms, ranches

Timber, firewood, hunting & gathering

Metals and energy

Livelihood traditions, community social capital

Social Equity

Economic growth


Fair opportunities and earnings

Fertility, health


Key steps:

1. Diagnose contexts

2. Develop a results framework

3. Identify scenarios

4. Estimate policy impacts – Stakeholders

– Clarify methods and assumptions

5. Identify stakeholder roles – Selecting priorities

– Fulfilling contract commitments (e.g., REDD+)

Land Use Planning for LoW Emission Development Strategies- LUWES

• A set of tools for incorporating emission reductions from all land uses including CSA, REDD+ and others with Sustainable Development Benefits

• Dewi et al. 2012 @ ASB / ICRAF Indonesia

Summary of key messages

• Synergies and tradeoffs

– Many performance criteria and measurement methods

– Need to address different perspectives and priorities

• Overlap of CSA, REDD+, NRM, breeding, agronomy, farming systems research, environmental service compensation, rapid rural appraisal, participatory research…


• For climate smart landscapes, attention is required of

– Genetic resources

• Improved plant germplasm / animal breeds and practices

– increased yields build trust and ability to take on longer term and collaborative efforts

– Fitting into existing farming systems

– Soil and water resources

• Investment - not mining, management - not use

– Green manure, compost, runoff erosion control

• Diversification

– crop rotation, agroforestry, silvopastoral

– animal manure management, fodder banks


• For climate smart landscapes, attention is required of

– Genetic resources

– Soil and water resources

– Human resources

• Improved farm management practices

• Participation in R&D and policy – community/watershed scale – environmental service

compensation

– sub-national/national level

Thank you

Climate Smart Agriculture -ASB World Bank Presentation

Technology

Transcript of Climate Smart Agriculture -ASB World Bank Presentation