Bryan, Elisabeth

Herrero, Mario T.

Koo, Jawoo

Okoba, B.

Ringler, Claudia

Silvestri, Silvia

CGSpace

Triple Wins for Kenyan Agriculture - Capturing Synergies Between Agricultural Productivity, Climate Change Adaptation & GHG Mitigationon behalf of Elizabeth Bryan, Barrack Okoba,Jawoo Koo, Mario Herrero, and Silvia SilvestriWorld Bank, Washington, DC 4 May 2011 Claudia Ringler, IFPRIWorld Bank support through TFESSD OUTLINE1. Background and Conceptual Framework2. Management Practices and Adaptation Strategies3. Agricultural Mitigation and Productivity4. Productivity and Profitability5. Triple-Win StrategiesINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEBACKGROUND & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKSecond-generationbiofuelsConservation tillage/ residue management [when tradeoffs with livestock feed]Integrated soil fertility managementImproved seedLow-energy irrigation Conservation tillage/residue managementImproved fallowOvergrazingSoil nutrient miningBare fallowGW pumpingMechanized farmingLow HighLowHighFood Security ProspectsMitigation PotentialSource: Adapted from FAO (2009)Synergies and Tradeoffs between Mitigation and Food SecurityINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEAdaptationSYNERGIES & TRADEOFFSMitigationProfitabilitySYNERGIES: WHAT THE LITERATURE SUGGESTSManagement practices Productivity Variability Adaptation Mitigation potentialshort term long termImproved crop varieties and/or types ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ Depends on variety/typeChanging planting dates ↓ +++Improved crop/fallow ↓ ↑ ++ High, particularly for rotation with legumesrotation/rotation with legumesUse of cover crops ↑ ↑ ++ HighAppropriate fertilizer/manure use↑ ↑ ↓ +++ High, particularly when underutilized as in SSAIncorporation of crop residues↑ ↑ ↓ +++ HighReduced/zero tillage ↓ ↑ ↓ + HighAgroforestry ↓ ↑ ↓ + HighIrrigation/water harvesting ↑ ↑ ↓ +++ when well designed and maintainedLow to high depending on whether irrigation is energy intensive or notBunds, terraces, ridge and furrow, diversion ditches ↓ ↑ ↓ +++ Low, minus soil carbon losses due to construction Grass strips ↓ ↑ ↓ +++ Positive mitigation benefitsSources: FAO 2009, Smith et al. 2008STUDY SITES & DESIGNDistrict AEZ Freq.Garissa Arid 134Mbeere South Semi Arid 97Njoro Semi Arid 104Mukurweini Temperate 95Othaya Temperate 88Gem Humid 96Siaya Humid 96710METHODS TO ASSESS SYNERGIES/TRADEOFFS Descriptive analysis of land management practices and adaptation strategies Just and Pope production function to show yield and yield variability implications of management strategies The CERES-Maize 4.5 model and DSSAT-CENTURY module to simulate maize growth/yield and soil organic matter dynamics ILRI livestock simulation modelINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEMANAGEMENT PRACTICES & ADAPTATION STRATEGIESWHAT LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE FARMERSUSING ON CROPLAND?36.632.919.115.711.39.07.2 7.0 6.1 6.00510152025303540%Source: IFPRI-KARI survey 2010WHAT ADAPTATION STRATEGIES HAVE FARMERSADOPTED?19.432.819.717.78.67.0 6.6 6.5 5.205101520253035%Source: IFPRI-KARI survey 2010WHAT ADAPTATION STRATEGIES WOULD FARMERSLIKE TO ADOPT?48.739.132.28.4 8.3 7.3 7.3 6.8 6.3 6.3 5.90102030405060%Source: IFPRI-KARI survey 2010INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEMITIGATION AND PRODUCTIVITYARE FARMERS AWARE OF THE LINKAGES BETWEENAGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE? • 67% of farmers stated that they are aware of the link between agriculture and CC, possibly because of Extensive media reports Government campaigns and speeches related to climate change 1st Ag Carbon Mitigation project located in KenyaFARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICESTHAT REDUCE CLIMATE CHANGE (%)59.48.76.0 4.6 3.8 1.7 1.5 1.0010203040506070%Source: IFPRI-KARI survey 2010YIELD AND SOC UNDER ALTERNATIVEMANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (GARISSA-SAND)YIELD AND SOC UNDER ALTERNATIVEMANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (OTHAYA-LOAM)TOP 5 MAIZE MITIGATION PRACTICES FOR SOCMANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT INCREASE SOC (DSSAT MODELING) Crop residues increase SCS considerably Inorganic fertilizer only increases SOC when applied with manure, mulching and/or crop residues Rotation of maize and beans—a key management practice used in much of Kenya—has only limited SCS benefits (insufficient biomass generation) MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT INCREASE SOC (DSSAT MODELING) Soil water conservation technologies—represented as increased soil water availability prior to planting—show mixed results regarding carbon sequestration, even under a drier future, but are important in arid Garissa Results are similar under dry and wet climate scenariosLivestock productivity and emissions with improved feedingDistrict Scenario Milk production Manure productionMethane productionMethane per liter milkProsopisGarissa 1.5 kg 64 0 -2 -403 kg 136 0 -5 -60DesmodiumGem 1 kg 21 5 -3 -202 kg 36 10 0 -26Napier grassMbeere 2 kg 12 11 3 -83 kg 17 16 2 -12HayNjoro 1 kg 18 -5 6 -102 kg 49 -5 18 -21DesmodiumMukurwe-ini 1 kg 9 11 2 -72 kg 8 11 0 -7HayOthaya 2 kg 9 11 2 -74 kg 8 11 0 -7Napier grassSiaya 2 kg 42 0 12 -213 kg 79 10 16 -357 districts Average 36 6 4 -20Note: Results are in percent deviations from the respective baseline (no improved feeding)Improved feeding summary On average, the supplementation strategies increased milk production by 36%, and increased total manure and methane production by 6% and 4%, respectively However, methane production per kg of milk was reduced by 20% The largest improvements were in the districts that have the poorest diet quality (Garissa, Gem, MbeereSouth, and Siaya) Producers could also engage in destocking to reduce overall methane emissionsINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEPROFITABILITY/PRODUCTIVITYDO MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCREASEPRODUCTIVITY AND/OR REDUCE RISK?VariableMaize Beans CoffeeMean Variance Mean Variance Mean VarianceSoil bunds +Residues --Rotation/fallowing --Soil bunds*residues --Intercropped plot +Amount own seed + + -- --Amount purchased seed +Improved seed variety + +Labor + +N fertilizer -- -- --P fertilizer + +K fertilizer +N 931 931 788 788 53 53Source: IFPRI-KARI survey 201040-year average annual net revenues from SOC and yield (USD/ha), 50% of residues in fieldPackage 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4RES50RES50, FERT & MNRRES50, FERT, MNR, SWC & ROTFRT, MNR, RES50, SWC, ROT, & IRGAEZ SoilRevenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Revenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Revenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Revenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Arid Clay 1 -16 9 -195 15 7 24 1151Arid Sand 1 35 2 -221 10 241 8 892Semi-arid Loam 2 177 22 910 22 1072 21 1023Semi-arid Sand 2 116 8 231 6 309 5 162Semi-arid Clay 2 210 19 1626 19 1920 17 1947TemperateLoam 2 12 24 816 23 910 22 736Humid Loam 0 116 13 1431 12 1513 11 1061Notes: incremental revenues compared to a baseline scenario with no management practices, assumes a carbon price of 10 USD per tCO2e, price per kg of maize is 0.375 USD, includes livestock costs (for feed replacement and manure), 50% of residues left on the fieldSource: IFPRI-KARI survey 201040-year average annual net revenues from SOC and yield (USD/ha), 75% residues in fieldPackage 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4RES75RES75, FERT & MNRRES75, FERT, MNR, SWC & ROTFRT, MNR, RES75, SWC, ROT, & IRGAEZ SoilRevenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Revenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Revenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Revenue from carbon (USD/ha)Net revenue from yield (USD/ha)Arid Clay 1 -10 2 -269 11 177 9 866Arid Sand 2 -1 9 -198 16 14 27 1180Semi-arid Loam 4 168 26 933 25 1099 25 1025Semi-arid Sand 3 108 9 197 7 296 6 155Semi-arid Clay 2 392 21 1746 21 2011 19 1782TemperateLoam 3 -16 28 817 26 916 25 722Humid Loam 2 57 16 1384 15 1472 14 1016Notes: incremental revenues compared to a baseline scenario with no management practices, assumes a carbon price of 10 USD per tCO2e, price per kg of maize is 0.375 USD, includes livestock costs (for feed replacement and manure), 75% of residues left on the fieldSource: IFPRI-KARI survey 2010Profitability of improved feeding practicesBaseline feeding Improved feedingDistrict Net revenue (USD)Net revenue per liter of milk (USD)Scenario Net revenue (USD)Net revenue per liter of milk (USD)GarissaProsopis1.5 kg 104.1 0.2392.1 0.33 3 kg 118.8 0.18GemDesmodium1 kg 172.3 0.2662.2 0.11 2 kg 169.2 0.23Mbeere S.Napier grass2 kg 150.8 0.1631.3 0.04 3 kg 146.2 0.15NjoroHay1 kg 279.9 0.19175.8 0.14 2 kg 357 0.19MukurweniDesmodium1 kg 547.4 0.24383 0.18 2 kg 511 0.23OthayaHay2 kg 348.8 0.16311.1 0.15 4 kg 233.2 0.11SiayaNapier grass2 kg 239.1 0.24109.6 0.16 3 kg 169.2 0.23Summary – Profitability of management practices Most cropland management packages increase net profits even including costs for livestock (replacement feed and manure) Exceptions are packages 1 and 2 in arid areas with clayey soil and package 2 in arid areas with sandy soil. In these scenarios, the costs outweigh the benefits from increased productivity Net revenues still increase with management packages including 75% residue retention in most scenarios compared to the baseline (no management) However, there are more cases where the management packages with 75% residues are less profitable than the same packages with 50% residues  In most cases, improved feeding practices increase productivity and net profits per liter of milk Exceptions: Garissa and Othaya—due to the large cost of purchasing replacement feed  These producers would need additional incentives to adopt improved feeding practicesSummary – Profitability of management practicesINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEWIN-WIN-WIN STRATEGIESINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEWIN-WIN-WIN STRATEGIES01020304050Profitability/ProductivityMitigationAdaptationSoil nutrient management, incl residuesAgroforestryImproved livestock feedsSynergies among adaptation, mitigation, and productivity/profitabilityManagement practices Adaptation benefitsaMitigation potentialbProductivity/ProfitabilityCropland managementImproved crop varieties and/or typespositive mixed unclearChanging planting dates positive unclear unclearImproved crop/fallow rotation/rotation with legumespositive mixed mixedAppropriate fertilizer/manure use positive positive positiveIncorporation of crop residues positive positive positive cWater managementIrrigation/water harvesting positive mixed positiveSWC positive mixed mixed dLivestock/grazing land managementImproved livestock feeding positive positive positiveDestocking positive positive positivea As reported by farmersb As calculated with DSSAT and livestock mitigation modelsc Tradeoff with livestock feed in certain areasd Positive impacts in areas where soil moisture is a constraint, depends on combination of technologiesPOLICY IMPLICATIONSWin-win-win strategies among adaptation, mitigation, and profitability do exist, but have yet to be strategically exploited To do so will require capacity building at national level to ensure that agricultural productivity and food security strategies and policies explicitly include climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects (including NAMA preparation) Better dialogue between Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment (UNFCCC focal point) can support triple-win strategiesPOLICY IMPLICATIONSTo exploit agricultural mitigation potential requires• Financial support for early action and capacity building (are existing funding options sufficient?) • Innovative financing instruments might push triple-wins and reduce adoption barriers• Further enhance knowledge base Impacts of climate variability and change on agricultural systemsGeneration of triple-win technologiesPOLICY IMPLICATIONSSome options for financial support: Carbon markets Adaptation funds Mitigation funds/NAMAs with less strict MRV requirements Financial instruments such as guarantees/loans to private sector (and other institutions) Micro-financePOLICY IMPLICATIONSTo exploit agricultural mitigation potential requires• Development of capacity on MRV systems and agriculture baseline• Dissemination of triple-win technologies • Advice to farmers based on demand-driven approaches

Triple wins for Kenyan agriculture—Capturing synergies between agricultural productivity, climate change adaptation & GHG mitigation

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/3875/1/Ringler_WBppt_mitigation.pdf

Triple wins for Kenyan agriculture—Capturing synergies between agricultural productivity, climate change adaptation & GHG mitigation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace