A Thriving Agriculture Sector in a Changing Climate: A Global Perspective for Africa

A Thriving Agriculture Sector in a Changing Climate: A Global Perspective for Africa

• 1.
  A Thriving AgricultureSector in a Changing Climate: A Global Perspective for Africa Mark W. Rosegrant Division Director Environment and Production Technology Division International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
• 2.
   Impacts ofClimate Change on Agriculture and Agriculture on Climate Change  Can Policies, Investments, and Technologies Provide Food Security with Climate Adaptation?  Can Agriculture Provide Significant Mitigation?  Policy Implications Outline
• 3.
  Biophysical impacts of climatechange on crop yields are large Without adoption and economic feedbacks global maize yields projected 30% lower in 2050 compared to no climate change Source: IFPRI DSSAT simulations. (HadGEM2, RCP 8.5)
• 4.
  Climate change impacts arelower with economic feedback effects Average of 5 global economic models for coarse grains, rice, wheat, oilseeds & sugar -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Yields Area Production Prices Trade Percentchangein2050 SSP1-RCP4.5 SSP2-RCP6.0 SSP3-RCP8.5 Source: Wiebe et al., Environmental Research Letters (2015)
• 5.
  2030 with ClimateChange and Alternative Investments  Uses CC scenario as reference point; overlays scenario that combines several investments (starting in 2015) targeted at ameliorating major constraints in global food system  R&D: CGIAR and national agriculture research system investments in agricultural R&D to increase agricultural productivity in the developing world (specified at the crop- and region-specific level in consultation with other CGIAR centers)  Water: Expansion of irrigation systems along with enhancing water use efficiency and soil management (no-till, ISFM, rainwater harvesting)  Infrastructure: Investment in transportation and energy sectors to benefit agricultural production and value chains Alternative Investment Scenarios
• 6.
  Hunger in 2030by climate and investment scenario (bars showing numbers on the left axis, dots showing shares on the right axis) Note: 2030-NoCC assumes a constant 2005 climate; 2030-CC reflects climate change using RCP 8.5 and the Hadley Climate Model, and 2030- COMP assumes climate change plus increased investment in developing country agriculture. Source: IFPRI, IMPACT model version 3.3, October 2016
• 7.
  Reducing Agricultural GHG Emissions
• 8.
  Global Greenhouse Gas Emissionsby Economic Sector Electricity and Heat Production, 25% Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, 24% Industry, 21% Transportation, 14% Other Energy, 10% Buildings, 6% Total Annual Global GHG Emissions ~ 46 GtCO2e Source: IPCC 2014 cited in EPA, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
• 9.
  Source: CAIT ClimateData Explorer. 2015. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at: http://cait.wri.org. Agriculture , 20% Waste , 5% Land-Use Change and Forestry, 40% Energy, 31% Industrial Processes, 3% Share of Greenhouse Gas by Sector, Sub-Saharan Africa, 2014
• 10.
  Global CO2 Emissions Source:IWR (2009) and UNFCC (2007. Map created by Benjamin Hennig, Sasi Research Group, University of Sheffield – www.viewsofttheworld.net
• 11.
  Per Capita CO2Emissions
• 12.
  Existing CSA Practices help,but not enough Description Maize Wheat Rice Production (% change) +2.3 ˗ +2.4 +2.3 ˗ +2.2 +2.2 ˗ +2.2 Price (% change) -4.9 ˗ -5.4 -6.2 ˗ -7.3 -7.6 ˗ -7.9 Area (% change) -0.1 ˗ -0.5 -1.0 ˗ -1.2 -1.2 ˗ -1.3 Pop risk of hunger (% change) -3.4 ˗ -3.1 Malnourished children (% change) -0.8 ˗ -0.9 Yearly mean emission reduction (million tons CO2 eq.) 20.4 ˗ 13.9  Baseline adoption rates by 2050: - No-till = 70% - ISFM = 40% - AWD = 40% - UDP = 40%  Simulations using IFPRI’s IMPACT system of models and DSSAT crop model  Maize, Wheat, and Rice (~41% of global harvested area)  Practices: No-till; Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM); Alternate Wet and Dry (AWD); Urea deep placement (UDP)  Two GCMs: GFDL and HadGEM, RCP 8.5
• 13.
  Potential for AgriculturalGHG Emission Reduction is substantial (at carbon tax of $20/mt CO2 equivalent) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Pasture management Livestock management Cropland management Dietary change Soil carbon sequestration GtCO2eperyear Source: Synthesized from Wollenberg et al. 2016; Smith et al., 2008 and 2013; Del Grosso and Cavigelli 2014; Springmann et al. 2016; Havlík et al. 2014; Stehfest et al. 2013
• 14.
   Pasture management:Improved grasses and pasture management, use of legumes  Livestock management: Optimizing animal feed mixtures and feed additives, improving manure management systems, reproductive efficiency, breeding for reduced methane emissions  Cropland management: Improved nitrogen use efficiency through precision agriculture, slow release fertilizer, N-use efficient new varieties, stabilized N sources (polymer-coated urea and nitrification inhibitors), improved rice management, water management to reduce runoff  Dietary change: Taxes, education, long-term life-style change  Soil carbon sequestration: Conservation tillage, integrated soil fertility management, restoring cultivated organic soils and degraded lands, retaining crop residues, growing high residue crops Technologies Considered for GHG Emissions Reduction Computations
• 15.
  Policy Implications
• 16.
  Policy Implications  Menuof management, technology, and investment options for adaptation and mitigation is essentially the same that has been developed for agricultural productivity growth  The same constraints apply: risk, uncertainty, imperfect markets, lack of credit and insurance  What difference does Climate Change make?
• 17.
  Good Agricultural Policy Increased investment in agricultural R&D  Increased investments in irrigation  Removal of fertilizer, water, and energy subsidies Climate Change Policy  Increased proportion on nitrogen use efficiency, drought tolerance, livestock efficiency and GHG reduction  Some investments in large dams due to increased variability; but greater emphasis in small-scale irrigation for flexibility  Same policy: double dividend from increased production efficiency and reduced GHG Climate Change Policy is Good Agricultural Policy Plus . . .
• 18.
  Good Agricultural Policy Agricultural insurance  Removal of agricultural trade and macroeconomic distortions  Promotion of healthy diets Climate Change Policy  Benefits likely higher due to increased risk; but is insurance subsidy greater value than other investments?  Same policy: higher benefits due to increased risk of imports under climate change  Increased importance due to GHG emission reductions benefit Climate Change Policy is Good Agricultural Policy Plus . . .
• 19.
  Africa Climate SmartGrowth: Rapid Agricultural Growth with Carbon Offsets from Forests Agricultural Emission Reduced Deforestation Net Change -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 MtCO2equivalent Years Plausible Pathway for Change in Annual GHG emissions from Agriculture and Forestry  Potential to save 265 MtCO2eq annually from African agriculture by 2030 (Smith et al. 2008)  But is this compatible with rapid growth given current emission of 300-400 MtCO2eq?  Potential GHG emission through afforestation and reduced deforestation = 1.9 BtCO2eq annually (Nabuurs et al. 2007)  To meet Paris Accord goals: need regional GHG accounting; improved land rights and governance in forests; heavy funding from Global Climate Funds