lessons learned for climate smart livestock and food crop intensification systems

11
Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS November 10, 2016 Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems COP22 Side event hosted by the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research & Development (IAARD)

Category:

Science


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS November 10, 2016

Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification SystemsCOP22 Side event hosted by the Indonesian Agency for

Agricultural Research & Development (IAARD)

Page 2: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

2

The challenge of climate change adaptation and mitigation

Is more agricultural intensification enough?

Page 3: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

Climate drives 32-39% of yield variation

Our systems are sensitive to climate, not resilient to it

Ray et al. 2015

Page 4: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

Synergies (32%) and tradeoffs (62%) of food security and

adaptation with CSA

Mean effect from random sample of 130 studies (55 comparisons)

ProductivityAd

apta

tion

6% 16%

46% 32%SynergiesTradeoffs

Tradeoffs

Page 5: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

11/9/16 5

Drought tolerant maize can increase yields 20-30% in dry conditions

Page 6: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

11/9/16 6

Safe Alternate-Wetting-and-Drying (AWD)

30% water

20-50% GHG

Without compromising yield

• Keep flooded for 1st 15 days and at flowering

• Irrigate when water drops to 15 cm below the surface

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16 15.0

8.7

-42%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

t CO

2-eq

/ ha

*sea

son

4.93.9

-20%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

-22%-28%

6.04.7

6.44.6

Hilly mid-slopes Delta low-lying

Summer-Autumn

Winter-Spring

Sander et al. in press IRRI

AWD Conventional

Page 7: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

11/9/16 7

Landscapetransitions

Crop transitions

Rice crops

Crops(non rice) Fertilizer Livestock

- 4.7M

Tota

l Ann

ual t

CO2e

Landscape and crop transitions

Management practice improvements

Increased emissions

Reduced emissions/ increased C

sequestration

(1,865,626)

(905,776)

(433,447)(616,320)

(32,068)

(819,848)

435,313

1,723,672

5,802

2.1 M

Agricultural development’s mitigation co-benefits

Page 8: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

11/9/16 8

Contributions of mitigation scenarios compared to the 2°C mitigation goal for agriculture

Series1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.21

0.40

0.92

1.19

1.23

Mitigation (GtCO2e/yr)

RCP2.6 (IMAGE) (2)

GCAM2.6 (3)

MESSAGE2.5 (4)

Technical practices USD20/t (8)

GLOBIOM USD20/t (9)

1 GtCO2e/yr mitigation target to

stay within 2° C

Goal

Page 9: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

9

Page 10: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

11/9/16 10

See https://sites.google.com/a/irri.org/ccac/home

Page 11: Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems

11/9/16 11

The transition to CSA will require major shifts

• Agricultural intensification and productivity is not enough• trade-offs with adaptation (>half of time)• mitigation co-benefits are substantial, but not enough to

meet the 2 °C target• Need more practices with joint adaptation-productivity

outcomes• And need more transformative mitigation practices (2.5-5x)• Finance, capacity enhancement and technology transfer are

needed, but so is technology development for CSA