1

Mitigation Opportunities in AgricultureIdentifying Strategies for Philanthropy

Dr Charlotte Streck

2

Background

Climate Focus and California Environment Associates (CEA) have been contracted by the Climate and Land-use Alliance (CLUA) to produce an analysis of the international opportunities for agricultural GHG mitigation and the potential role for philanthropy within the context of existing or planned activities. These slides summarize some preliminary findings.

- Background:

– Since 2008 CLUA is actively supporting the design and implementation of REDD+ policies and activities around the globe through collaboration of its member foundations.

– The reduction of emissions from agriculture is an important global mitigation opportunity comparable in volume to sectors such as transportation, power production and industry (10-12% of total global anthropogenic emissions).

– A number of the strategic opportunities offer “triple win” opportunities in that they contribute to mitigation, adaptation, and food security.

The project started in May 2013 and will be finalized in spring 2014.

Phase 1: Assessment of technical mitigation potential

Phase 2: Strategic Assessment of Promising Agricultural Mitigation Opportunities 

Both technical and strategic advisory panels to help guide this work.

2

3

- This analysis is focused on greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities in agriculture. Yet, we recognize that there is nothing more important to the human species than producing the food we all eat. Agriculture lies at the intersection of many essential agendas, including global food security, economic development and poverty alleviation, biodiversity protection, water availability and resource use, and climate change adaptation.

– Food security: Over 1 billion people endure chronic hunger, a result of food insecurity and food prices.1 Efficiencies of production, when paired with enabling structures, can help to feed the world.

– Development: Agriculture employs 2.6 billion people annually, and in most developing countries, agriculture accounts for 20-60% of GDP.1 A complicated relationship exists between agriculture, trade, and equity, where advances in productivity can be a double-edged sword to poor and vulnerable communities.

– Water use: 70% of the world’s freshwater use is for irrigation2; water scarcity is an issue of growing importance, with major implications for food security, biodiversity, and political stability.

– Land conversion and environmental impacts: Agriculture covers nearly 40% of the world’s land area.3 The conversion of natural habitats to agriculture, and ongoing agricultural practices, influences everything from global biodiversity to biochemical cycles. The long list of secondary effects include impacts to riparian and marine environments, exposure of humans and wildlife to chemicals, the salinization of groundwater, and invasive species introductions.

- In laying out a greenhouse gas mitigation plan, we are acutely aware that food security and development remain the primary concerns of most actors working in the agriculture arena. While greenhouse gas mitigation is not at the heart of those agendas, we believe it is possible to pursue and better incorporate a mitigation agenda that does not undermine these other priorities. There are many opportunities that could yield “triple win” solutions that address food security, climate mitigation, and climate adaptation.

Agriculture is at the heart of many agendas

3Sources: 1) UNCTAD 2010. 2) UNWater 2013. 3) Antarctica excluded; calculated from FAOStat and World Bank database.

4

Sources of these emissions include land use change (deforestation, peat loss, and fire), upstream and downstream emissions connected to agricultural supply chains, and emissions normally attributed to other sectors but related to the production of agriculture (i.e. energy for water pumping), and direct emissions from agricultural production.

Roughly half of emissions come directly from production. Another

half comes from deforestation and emissions across the supply

chain.

Notes: 1) These emissions vary significantly temporally. Fire numbers are draft; the final estimate will show a range. 2) Not comprehensive – does not include food processing or preparation. Sources: CEA analysis of many sources , including FAOStat, EDGAR 4.2, FRA 2012, Harris 2012, Blaser 2007, data provided by Paul West, UMN Institute on the Environment (personal communications), Vermeulen 2012, and others.

Post-production (e.g.

cold chain)

Agric. production not usually counted in

ag. inventories

599

Deforestation driven

by agriculture

Pre-production

(e.g. fertilizer

production)

Other fires, non-CO2 (ag

waste burning, savanna

and grass)

682

Direct agricultu

ral producti

on

Peat and peat fires

Land use change and fire (2008)1

532

Agricultural production and food supply chains (varying years)Mid-estimate, in MtCO2e#

Low estimate(where available)

Middle estimate

Upper estimate(where available)

10,650MtCO2e~20-25% total global GHG emissions

~10% total global GHG emissions

2620813

4654

2

4

5

Asia, which possesses 60% of the world’s population and 30% of its land area, accounts for 45% of global agricultural emissions.

Asia leads direct agricultural emissions

5Source: FAOStat data from 2010 (accessed 2013); area of pie charts scaled to regional emissions. Land use change emissions are note included here.

Rice

Ag soils

Manure left on pasture

Manure management

Enteric fermentation

Africa580

Europe547

Asia2169

North America & Caribbean534

South America701

Oceania136

RegionAg emissions in MtCO2e

Asia includes Indonesia, Turkey, and the Middle East

Europe includes Russia

Includes Central America

Ag soils includes synthetic fertilizers, manure applied to crops, field application of crop residues, and nitrous oxide from cultivated organic soils.

6

EMISSIONS

Geographies and Commodities

6

Source: CEA analysis based on fertilizer emissions data from Paul West, UMN Institute on the Environment (personal communication) and all other data FAOStat 2010 (accessed 2013).

MtCO2e

Palm

750

Soy

250

Other cerea

ls

Other anima

ls

65

Maize

130

Chicken

130

Wheat

160

Other

crops

180

Pigs

235

Dairy

600

Rice

Non-cattle

ruminants

750

Beef

2000

65

650

LUC, peat, and fire emissions

BrazilUnited StatesIndonesia

European Union

AfricaIndiaChinaRest of world

Beef, dairy, and rice are the commodities that have the largest emissions from direct agricultural production, globally. Soy and palm oil have considerable emissions footprints only when deforestation emissions are included. Note that supply chain emissions (“upstream, downstream”) are not included in this chart.

7

MITIGATION

Technical mitigation opportunities

7Source: CEA synthesis of literature and expert interviews.

India - cattle

(enteric)

China - livestock (manure)

Brazil -cattle

(enteric)

Southeast Asia -

rice

Globally, Brazil, China, India, and the U.S. are the largest agricultural emitters (and the largest agricultural producers). Not surprisingly, these countries present the largest technical potential for emissions reduction (roughly 55% in aggregate - not including soil sequestration).

KEYIncreasing opportunity for GHG mitigation

India - crops

(fertilizer)

U.S. - cattle (soil

carbon)

Sahel -cattle

(enteric) Indonesia -

reduced pressure

on forests (crops)

Brazil -reduced pressure

on forests (cattle

and crops)

China - crops and supply chain (fertilizer)

China and Central Asia cattle (soil

carbon)

Australia - cattle

(soil carbon)

India, China, Eastern Africa, Indonesia, Russia -

crops (soil carbon: biochar, agroforestry,

restoration of peatlands)

U.S. - crops

(fertilizer)

U.S. - cattle

(enteric)

Additional opportunities

EU - cattle

(enteric)

EU – livestock (manure)

Asia – crop

residue burning

8

There are several approaches to reducing emissions from agriculture

Mitigation in the AFOLU sector can be approached from a number of different angles:

1) Shifting demand for agricultural products away from high-carbon intensity products such as livestock or reducing overall demand (e.g., by cutting food waste)

2) Reducing the emissions intensity of agricultural production

3) Increasing the ability of agricultural lands (croplands and grazing lands) to serve as carbon sinks

8

Shift/reduce demand for agricultural products

Sequester more carbon in agricultural lands

Reduce GHG emissions from agricultural production

Reduce biofuel demand

Reduce food waste

Reduce emissions from upstream and downstream activities and equipment use• Improve fertilizer

production efficiencies• Energy efficiencies of on-

farm machinery• Efficiencies in

transportation and storage

Reduce emissions from livestock and crop production• Reduce enteric fermentation;

improve manure management

• Improve nutrient and water management for crops

Reduce emissions from land use change driven by agriculture• Increase

intensification of cropland and grazing land

• Protect high-C lands from conversion

• Restore degraded lands

Restore degraded lands

Increase sequestration of carbon in croplands

Shift consumer demand away from high-GHG foods Increase sequestration of

carbon in grazing lands

9

The cost of mitigation in the agriculture sector- Cost data for mitigation in the agriculture sector is extremely limited, and few

cost curves have been published to date either for the globe or by region

o The couple global cost curves are likely out of date (US-EPA 2006, McKinsey 2009), and the best-known McKinsey cost curve does not disclose its assumptions

o There are several newer country-focused cost curves (UK, France, China), as well as work currently underway by the FAO to produce a global cost curve for the livestock sector

- Mitigation options and costs will vary significantly by region due to:

o Variation in local natural resources, the maturity of local markets / distribution chains, and willingness of national/local govts to subsidize, promote, and regulate mitigation practices

o Variation in what practices have already been implemented in regional agriculture systems

- However, there are a few themes regarding relative cost and potential size of the mitigation options:

o Nutrient/fertilizer management on croplands was low or often negative cost, with moderate relative mitigation potential

o Grasslands management was generally low/moderate cost with relatively significant relative mitigation potential

o Methane flaring or digestion was generally moderate cost with relatively significant relative mitigation potential

o Livestock supplements/additives to reduce enteric fermentation were generally “high cost” with small relative mitigation potential

9

10

Possible Agricultural Mitigation Strategies for

CLUA

- At the national level (targeting specific geographies based on GHG emission sources)

– Shifting dietary trends (China, US, Europe)

– Dealing with food waste (US, Europe)

– Improving the sustainability of biofuels

– Sustainable intensification of agricultural production (India, Brazil, global intensification road map)

– Restoration of degraded lands (US, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia)

– Reducing emissions from agricultural production (China, SE Asian countries, US, Europe)

- At the international level

– Improving food supply chains

– Changing agricultural finance

– Increasing traceability and MRV systems for agriculture

10

11

Figure 2. Carbon intensity of food products2

Example: Shifting dietary trends

11

Figure 1. Carbon intensity of food products1• Livestock production has a large carbon footprint, accounting for approximately 50% to 70% of direct agricultural GHG emissions.

• The potential for emissions reductions from shifting demand for meat range from 10 to 125 Mt CO2e per year by 2030.

• Possible interventions: 1) facilitating policy change, 2) mobilizing the private-sector, and 3) influencing consumers.

Source: 1) Alejandro Gonzalez et al., “Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation”, Food Policy 36 (2011) 562-570. 2) lke Stehfest et al., “Climate benefits of changing diet”, Climatic Change (2009) 95: 83-102. DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6. These scenarios were generated using an integrated assessment model (IMAGE 2.4) and Pete Smith et al., “How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?” Global Change Biology (2013), doi: 10.1111/gcb.12160.

12

Parallel and Complementary: Agricultural Readiness

- Climate Focus with the support of CCAFS and IFPRI assesses the benefits and design of an agricultural readiness process.

- The objective is to facilitate a process of preparation and policy development that allows the effective use of climate finance for climate-friendly agriculture as well as climate-proving of existing agricultural programs and investments.

- The process would build on the lessons from REDD+ but take into account the different circumstances of the agricultural sector and its exposure to climate change.

Title, Presenter

13 13

DRAFT

14

Questions Recommendations SuggestionsCorrections:

Charlotte Streck+1 202 684 1455C.Streck@climatefocus.com

Title, presenter