Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes410 views
The document discusses the lessons learned from a side event on climate-smart livestock and food crop intensification systems, highlighting the challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation. It emphasizes that agricultural intensification alone is insufficient, revealing trade-offs between food security and adaptation, while stressing the need for transformative practices to achieve the 2°C target. The document concludes that significant shifts in practices, finance, and technology are required to enhance agricultural resilience and productivity.
Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems
- 1. Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS November 10, 2016 Lessons Learned for Climate Smart Livestock and Food Crop Intensification Systems COP22 Side event hosted by the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research & Development (IAARD)
- 2. 2 The challenge of climate change adaptation and mitigation Is more agricultural intensification enough?
- 3. Climate drives 32-39% of yield variation Our systems are sensitive to climate, not resilient to it Ray et al. 2015
- 4. Synergies (32%) and tradeoffs (62%) of food security and adaptation with CSA Mean effect from random sample of 130 studies (55 comparisons) -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 Productivity Adaptation 6% 16% 46% 32% SynergiesTradeoffs Tradeoffs
- 5. 11/16/2016 5 Drought tolerant maize can increase yields 20-30% in dry conditions
- 6. 11/16/2016 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 tCO2-eq/ha*season 4.9 3.9 -20% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -22%-28% 6.0 4.7 6.4 4.6 Hilly mid-slopes Delta low-lying Summer- Autumn Winter- Spring Sander et al. in press IRRI AWDConventional
- 7. 11/16/2016 7 Landscape transitions Crop transitions Rice crops Crops (non rice) Fertilizer Livestock - 4.7M TotalAnnualtCO2e 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
- 8. 11/16/2016 8 Contributions of mitigation scenarios compared to the 2°C mitigation goal for agriculture 0.21 0.40 0.92 1.19 1.23 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 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 G o a l
- 9. 9
- 11. 11/16/2016 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