7 Agriculture Sector - rioccadapt
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
7 Agriculture Sector Miguel Ángel Taboada (Argentina), Mercedes Busto (Argentina), Alejandro Oscar Costantini (Argentina), Andrea Maggio (Argentina), Adriano Perin (Brazil), Marcio Sampaio Pimentel (Brazil), Marta Andrea De Alfaro Valenzuela (Chile), Diego Pons Ganddini (Guatemala), Alejandro Ismael Monterroso Rivas (Mexico), and Ana María Loboguerrero (Colombia). This chapter should be cited as: Taboada, M.A., M. Busto, A.O. Costantini, A. Maggio, A. Perin, M.S. Pimentel, M.A. Alfaro Valenzuela, D. Pons Gandini, A.I. Monterroso Rivas, and A.M. Loboguerrero, 2020: Agriculture Sector. In: Adaptation to Climate Change Risks in Ibero-American Countries — RIOCCADAPT Report [Moreno, J.M., C. Laguna-Defior, V. Barros, E. Cal- vo Buendía, J.A. Marengo, and U. Oswald Spring (eds.)], McGraw Hill, Madrid, Spain (pp. 223-274, ISBN: 9788448621667).
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
CO N T E NTS
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 226
7.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 226
7.1.1. Conceptual framework of this Chapter.................................................................................................................................................... 226
7.1.2. Main figures of the sector or system......................................................................................................................................................... 227
7.1.3. Relationship of the sector or system with climate and climate change. Types of agriculture and conflicts
in Central America, the Caribbean, South America and the Iberian Peninsula..................................................................... 227
7.1.3.1. Description of existing tensions................................................................................................................................................ 227
7.1.3.2. Description of the agriculture and livestock sector in the Iberian Peninsula..................................................... 229
7.1.4. Review of previous reports............................................................................................................................................................................. 229
7.2. Risk components in relation to the sector or system.................................................................................................................................... 230
7.2.1. Hazards..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 230
7.2.2. Exposure................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 230
7.2.3. Vulnerability............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 230
7.3. Characterization of risks and their impacts........................................................................................................................................................ 231
7.4. Adaptation Measures ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 233
7.4.1. Adaptation options............................................................................................................................................................................................. 233
7.4.1.1. Structural or physical....................................................................................................................................................................... 233
7.4.1.2. Social........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 233
7.4.1.3. Institutional........................................................................................................................................................................................... 234
7.4.2. Adaptation actions in the agricultural sector (by region)................................................................................................................ 234
7.4.3. Planned adaptation activities........................................................................................................................................................................ 234
7.4.4. Autonomous adaptation activities............................................................................................................................................................. 238
7.5. Barriers, opportunities and interactions............................................................................................................................................................... 242
7.5.1. Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 242
7.5.2. Prevention of Land Degradation.................................................................................................................................................................. 242
7.5.3. Biodiversity and ecosystem services........................................................................................................................................................ 242
7.5.4. Food Security......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 244
7.5.5. Health......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 244
7.5.6. Poverty Reduction............................................................................................................................................................................................... 244
7.5.7. Water supply........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 244
7.5.8. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)................................................................................................................ 244
7.5.9. Sendai Framework priorities......................................................................................................................................................................... 244
7.6. Measures or indicators of adaptation effectiveness..................................................................................................................................... 245
7.7. Case Studies......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 245
7.7.1. Comparative analysis of agricultural developments in Argentina and Brazil....................................................................... 245
7.7.1.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 245
7.7.1.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 245
7.7.1.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 246
7.7.1.4. Limitations and interactions ....................................................................................................................................................... 248
7.7.1.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 248
7.7.2. Selection of adapted banana germplasm in Northeast Argentina ............................................................................................ 249
7.7.2.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 249
224 RIOCCADAPT REPORT
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
7.7.2.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 249
7.7.2.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 249
7.7.2.4. Limitations and interactions ....................................................................................................................................................... 250
7.7.2.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 250
7.7.3. Selection of rust-tolerant coffee plants in Peru.................................................................................................................................. 250
7.7.3.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 250
7.7.3.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 250
7.7.3.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 250
7.7.3.4. Limitations and interactions ....................................................................................................................................................... 250
7.7.3.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 251
7.7.4. Diversification of coffee plantations with avocado in Mexico..................................................................................................... 251
7.7.4.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 251
7.7.4.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 252
7.7.4.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 252
7.7.4.4. Limitations and interactions ....................................................................................................................................................... 253
7.7.4.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 253
7.7.5. Change in sowing date to harness moisture in Central Mexico.................................................................................................... 253
7.7.5.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 253
7.7.5.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 254
7.7.5.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 254
7.7.5.4. Limitations and interactions ....................................................................................................................................................... 254
7.7.5.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 254
7.7.6. Promoting climate-smart sustainable agriculture in Central America and the Caribbean and western
South America....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 255
7.7.6.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 255
7.7.6.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 255
7.7.6.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 255
7.7.6.4. Limitations............................................................................................................................................................................................ 256
7.7.6.5. Interactions and co-benefits........................................................................................................................................................ 257
7.7.6.6. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 258
7.7.7. Efficient water use in rice growing in Colombia................................................................................................................................... 258
7.7.7.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 258
7.7.7.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 258
7.7.7.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 258
7.7.7.4. Limitations and interactions........................................................................................................................................................ 259
7.7.7.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 259
7.8. Main knowledge gaps and priority lines of action........................................................................................................................................... 259
7.9. Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 260
Frequently Asked Questions...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 261
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 261
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 262
Annex to Chapter 7........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 268
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 225
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
Executive Summary • Variety switching and crop relocation. In the Iberian
Peninsula there are various salient national initiatives for
scientific networking and information exchange on climate
RIOCC countries show a marked heterogeneity in terms of change and agriculture in Spain, the AdapteCCa platform
the agricultural sector and the type of adaptation measures and the REMEDIA network (Medina Martín, 2016). For
that are possible. While in some countries the population example, simple measures are proposed in response to
carries out small-scale agriculture that is very climate de- climate risk scenarios for vineyards, such as changing
pendent, while in others agriculture is technified and fo- soil management with green and straw cover and goblet
cused on exports. In most Latin American and Caribbean pruning, to more complex and costly measures, such as
countries, a medium to high proportion of the rural population moving vine areas to higher altitudes, or changing varie-
carries out a type of small-scale agriculture that has little or ties.
no bearing on international markets. It often revolves around
subsistence-based family and peasant farming using ances- • Direct seeding. In large-scale agriculture, the adoption of
tral practices, although some family farms also engage in soil management technology with direct seeding contri-
capitalist production. In contrast, countries with a smaller buted to creating an economically profitable work scale
rural population and a larger land area (e.g., Argentina. Brazil and to be able to plant crops such as corn and soybeans
and Paraguay) have a more entrepreneurial type of agricul- in more climatically vulnerable areas.
tural activity, with a strong focus on exportable balances. • Improvement of pastures and livestock breeds. With
The main climate hazards arise from thermal and water regard to livestock, technological adaptation options
stress to crops and livestock, crop and livestock losses due include improving the quality of fodder with drought-adap-
to erosion, droughts and floods, and the increased spread of ted varieties and hardier breeds of livestock in countries
pests and diseases. However, in some regions, new oppor- with grazing livestock, such as Nicaragua, Costa Rica
tunities have also emerged due to increased precipitation, and Mexico.
changes in seasonality and the possibility of exploiting new Although there are mitigation or soil conservation measures
varieties (megathermal or tropical species) in areas where with clear co-benefits, others entail adverse effects. There
they had not been commonplace. The level of exposure to are many adaptation measures that have clear co-benefits
these hazards varies greatly depending primarily on the so- in terms of climate change mitigation or prevention of land
cio-economic level of the affected population, the relative degradation and desertification, as shown in the recent IPCC
rigidity or flexibility of their productive systems to vary or Land and Climate Change Report (IPCC, 2019). This often
adopt technology, and the possibility of being assisted by happens because these measures protect soils by increasing
such technology and its availability. their carbon stores or decreasing their erosion rates. Other
Some examples of climate change adaptation actions include adaptation measures go in a different direction and produce
the following: significant adverse effects. A clear example is the change
in land use due to the increase in cultivation areas, which
• Protective measures. This includes the construction generated loss of biodiversity and carbon stores in grass-
of dams to contain landslides and prevent erosion and lands or forests, new pests and diseases —or resistance to
avalanches, the restoration of ecosystems and improve- them—, and major hydrological imbalances. If due attention
ments in water catchment. is not paid to these adverse effects, their negative impacts
• Climate-smart agriculture (CSA). In recent years, several may exceed any benefits being sought. In some cases, they
countries of the region have implemented so-called clima- could even cancel out those that had already been apparently
te-smart agriculture. CSA is based on three main pillars: achieved.
sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and inco-
me, adapting to and building resilience to climate change,
and reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. 7.1. Introduction
• Early climate warning systems. These are among the
most common planned measures, used to generate pre- 7.1.1. Conceptual framework of this
ventive measures against extreme weather events, such
as hailstorms, early or late frosts, heat waves or prolon- Chapter
ged droughts.
RIOCC countries are notoriously heterogeneous in terms of
• Shifts in sowing areas. Changes or shifts in agriculture the climate-related hazards affecting the agricultural sector.
towards marginal areas are often autonomous responses This heterogeneity can be classified into three pillars or
by farmers. Some examples include a shift of the agricul- sectors: a) the risks of exposure to damage or deteriora-
tural frontier to the northwest of Argentina (in response to tion due to climate change; b) the vulnerabilities that affect
changes in rainfall distribution), and the shift of coffee- populations and ecosystems; and c) the opportunities that
growing areas to higher ground in mountainous areas (in climate change can provide. Figure 7.1 briefly describes this
an attempt to avoid temperature increases and pests). conceptual framework.
226 RIOCCADAPT REPORT
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
a) Risks: these include the negative consequences that cli- indicators among the set of countries included in the study
mate change has or may have on crops and livestock (Table 7.1). The rural sector (outside urban centers) makes
rearing. The most noticeable change is the increase in av- up for almost 130 million inhabitants. The two countries with
erage temperatures and daily minimums (warmer nights), the largest rural populations are Brazil and Mexico. As a
although extreme events can also be expected such as percentage of the total population, eight countries are con-
heat waves, fewer days with frost, drought and excess sidered highly rural (> 30% of the population), while the rural
water in the form of storms and hailstorms. population in Uruguay and Argentina is less than 10%.
b) Vulnerabilities: this includes a list of factors that can in- The implemented actions are quite varied. They depend on
crease or aggravate the magnitude of the damage, and the heterogeneity of regions, rural population rates and pov-
decrease the capacity for resilience at this time, such erty levels (Table 7.1), and types of agriculture. The region
as high poverty rates, the disappearance of forests and plays a major role as a food producer for crops such as
pastures, and the poor institutionality of some countries wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, coffee, cocoa, seasonal fruits,
that leads to the lack of regulatory frameworks or effec- among others, which are largely exported to overseas mar-
tive enforcement. kets. This activity is mainly carried out by various types of
c) Opportunities: Although most climate changes are neg- companies, ranging from multinationals to family business-
ative, there are some cases of changes that may favor es. They basically stand out for the scale on which they work,
agricultural production. Some examples include the trop- their application of technology, access to market information
icalization of regions that allow cultivating megathermal and possibility to integrate value chains.
species, or increased rainfall, which under certain circum- Rural land use in RIOCC countries is subdivided into agriculture
stances may allow shifting or increasing cultivation areas. and livestock (over 78 million hectares), forestry (43 million
hectares) and other uses (31.4 million hectares). Three RIOCC
countries together (Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) account for
7.1.2. Main figures of the sector or 68.8% of all agricultural land. These lands are mostly used
system (72.5%) to produce livestock fodder (pastures and grazing
land). These countries jointly produce a total of 250.8 million
According to FAO statistics (FAOSTAT, 2019), there are im- tons of cereals and oilseeds, of which four countries (Brazil,
portant differences in social and rural sector development Argentina, Mexico and Spain) account for 84% of production.
RISKS OPPORTUNITIES 7.1.3. Relationship of the
Adverse climate changes Favorable climate changes sector or system
• Thermal stress for crops and animals
• Ability to sow megathermal species with climate and
• Water stress in crops and livestock thirst
• Loss of crops and soils due to erosion,
• Expansion of agriculture and livestock
rearing to rainier zones
climate change.
floods or droughts
Types of agriculture
• Greater incidence of plagues and diseases
and conflicts in
Central America, the
VULNERABILITIES
Caribbean, South
Population and Ecosystems exposed to damage
America and the
• High poverty levels
• Deforestation and pasture replacement
Iberian Peninsula
• Agricultural development in vulnerable areas
with regard to soil and climate 7.1.3.1. Description of
• Lack of a regulatory framework and/or effective
enforcement of the law
existing tensions
Given the variety of prevailing issues in
the participating countries and as shown
by the indicators in Table 7.1, it is not
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ACTIONS easy to provide a clear-cut definition of
the types of agriculture being carried out.
Figure 7.1. Conceptual framework describing the risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities of the On the other hand, far from being stat-
agricultural sector in RIOCC countries in the face of climate change. Source: prepared by the ic, the agricultural sector has undergone
authors. strong transformations since the second
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 227
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
Table 7.1. Descriptive information of the rural sectors of RIOCC countries. Source: FAOSTAT (2019).
Continent/Region Country Rural population Land use (ha x 1,000) Agricultural area (ha x 1,000)
Inhabitants x Perennial Grasslands
% Total Agriculture Forests Other Agriculture
1,000 crops and pastures
North America Mexico 25.877 20,2% 10.671 6.604 2.165 2.291 270 8.110
Costa Rica 1.103 21,5% 181 276 54 23 31 127
Cuba 2.547 22,7% 624 320 96 301 50 272
Dominican Republic 2.108 19,4% 235 192 56 80 36 120
Central America El Salvador 2.105 32,4% 160 27 21 75 22 64
and the Caribbean Guatemala 8.103 47,5% 379 354 338 93 106 180
Honduras 3.859 44,1% 324 459 336 102 46 176
Nicaragua 2.606 40,6% 507 311 386 150 29 328
Panama 1.349 32,8% 226 462 56 56 19 151
Argentina 3.415 8,0% 14.870 2.741 9.676 3.920 100 10.850
Bolivia 3.493 30,7% 3.770 6.009 1.536 434 22 3.300
Brazil 28.592 13,8% 28.259 494 5.069 8.002 657 19.600
Chile 1.848 10,1% 1.579 1.774 4.083 131 46 1.402
Colombia 11.672 23,0% 4.467 5.850 778 169 189 3.831
South America
Ecuador 5.978 35,8% 579 1.255 650 107 148 324
Paraguay 2.892 39,8% 2.189 1.532 252 480 9 1.700
Peru 6.633 20,8% 2.433 7.397 2.970 415 138 1.880
Uruguay 152 4,4% 1.445 185 121 241 4 1.200
Venezuela 3.506 10,9% 2.160 4.668 1.992 270 70 1.820
Spain 9.481 20,0% 2.627 1.842 534 1.234 470 923
Iberian Peninsula
Portugal 3.758 35,4% 370 318 228 113 75 182
Total 131.077 78.052 43.068 31.397 18.689 2.534 56.538
half of the last century, and these transformations are prob- ty, based on local and traditional knowledge (Mastrangelo
ably not yet complete. et al., 2014).
In the case of the Central and South American countries, Family farming supplies most of the food consumed by the
there is a growing tension between business-oriented produc- population of Latin America, makes up for the largest source
tion models for the export of minimally processed products of labor and allows for food security and sovereignty of the
(e.g., coffee, soy, cocoa, beef, etc.), and whose commercial- populations (Schejtman, 2008; Nogueira et al., 2017). All
ization responds to market forces, against other models that these types of production are affected by climate change,
defend types of rurality, which may be subsistence-based, or sometimes in their favor and sometimes at their disadvan-
based on a greater diversification of products, centered on tage (Rever et al., 2017).
family production units, agroecology and farmer movements, In terms of international tensions, the countries of Central
in which women play a key role in farm management (Kay, America and the Caribbean and South America are often
2006; Segrelles Serrano, 2007; Schejtman, 2008; Grau confronted against European agricultural producers in their
and Aide, 2008; Altieri and Nicholls, 2017). These tensions domestic markets, because the latter are able to offer their
awaken strong social and political controversies, in terms of products at low prices, while LAC agricultural products face
development models, ethnicity, social exclusion, urban-rural greater limitations to access European markets due to the
conflicts, rural work, etc. In particular, farmer agriculture de- application of new environmental regulations (Villalobos et
fends values such as security of land tenure, food sovereign- al., 2015).
228 RIOCCADAPT REPORT
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
7.1.3.2. Description of the agriculture Although this century has seen socio-economic improve-
ments in the region’s countries, rural populations still remain
and livestock sector in the Iberian at risk from the impacts of climate change. Climate-related
Peninsula changes in agricultural productivity impacting food security
are expected to vary greatly in terms of space. Therefore,
The Iberian Peninsula is home to three countries (Andorra, a large part of the region’s plains are expected to increase
Spain and Portugal) with significant differences in terms of their productivity by mid-century because of increased rain-
surface area, population and the characteristics of their ag- fall. In contrast, declining rainfall can adversely affect crop
ricultural sectors. Rural population in Spain is considered production in much of Central America, NE Brazil and the
to be in decline, with some regions at risk of being com- Pacific coast.
pletely vacated. Natural vegetation in the peninsula—mostly
Given current human well-being issues, a first step towards
Mediterranean forests (Walter 1994)—has been profoundly
adaptation to future climate change in many countries of the
transformed by anthropogenic action, which may also be
region is to reduce vulnerability to the current climate. Adap-
explained by its high population density, especially when
tation measures in the agricultural sector differ according to
compared to large sectors of South America. The area is cur-
regions and types of agriculture. For example, in countries
rently used for agriculture and livestock, although the region
with large scale commercial agriculture (e.g. Brazil, Argentina
also has the largest area dedicated to forestry.
and Paraguay), genetic advances, adequate soil manage-
Throughout the coastal strip of the Mediterranean, there is ment, water access and management technology, alternative
a strong presence of fruit and wine growing, which is more production models, they can all help increase the yields of
widespread towards the interior (e.g. La Rioja, Castilla-La some crops. Water management is critical in drier regions
Mancha). Important transformations have taken place in the and countries or where climate change predictions project
last 30 years as a result of the agricultural policy imple- more frequent or intense water deficits (e.g., Peru, Chile and
mented by the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. northeastern Brazil). This is done, for example, through more
This has resulted in the abandonment of vulnerable lands, efficient irrigation or water collection and storage systems,
afforestation and an increase in intensive production with or conservation practices that increase water use efficiency.
low irrigation and in greenhouses (Fernández Nogueira and Water supply costs need to be adjusted. This also paves
Corbelle Rico, 2017). On the other hand, there are traditional the way for consensus-driven decision-making and changes
agricultural production methods, some of which are massive- some water distribution schemes in irrigation districts based
ly important in scope, such as the grasslands (dehesas in on volume. In coffee-producing countries (Brazil, Costa Rica,
Spain and montados in Portugal) in the west of the peninsu- Colombia, Nicaragua and others), adaptation strategies for
la. These are mainly used for livestock and have the added crops include high-density planting, vegetated soil, precise
advantage that, upon being abandoned, their regeneration irrigation and breeding programs, and shading (tree-planting)
leads to shrub encroachment and quercine forests (Domín- management systems.
guez et al., 2018).
There are important examples of autonomous adaptation in
the region, such as changes in rainfall displacing crop sow-
7.1.4. Review of previous reports ing areas operated by producers in Argentina, or changes in
cultivation practices by Peruvian and Bolivian Andean pro-
All information on Central and South America comes from ducers. Organic or agro-ecology-based production systems
chapter 27 of the IPCC’s 5th Climate Change Report (Magrin could improve adaptive capacity through the application of
et al., 2014). Another relevant precedent arises from a study traditional skills and farmer knowledge, soil fertility (re)build-
by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carib- ing techniques and a high level of diversity.
bean (ECLAC) in the region by the same author, who, to an ex- Local and indigenous knowledge has the potential to pro-
tent, sources information from the IPCC Climate Change Re- vide solutions in the face of changing climate conditions.
port (Magrin, 2015). These reports already warned that, as However, migration, climate change and market integration
a result of significant trends in precipitation and temperature have reduced autonomous capacities to deal with climate
observed in the region, together with and increase in extreme and climate risk, not only because of reduced crop diversifi-
events (e.g., droughts and floods), main watercourses have cation, but also because traditions that were usually passed
experienced changes in their flows, affecting regions that down through generations are being lost. An example of this
are already vulnerable as they are. Changes in land use, es- would be the crop diversification used in the Peruvian Andes
pecially the deforestation of tropical rainforests, forests and to suppress pest explosions and buffer the transmission of
natural woodlands, contributed significantly to environmental pathogens.
degradation, thereby exacerbating the negative effects of
climate change. This conversion of natural ecosystems gen- As far as the Iberian Peninsula is concerned, this informa-
erated biodiversity losses and became a regional factor for tion can be referenced in Chapter 23 of the IPCC’s 5th Cli-
climate change, mainly due to changes in water and thermal mate Change Report, which talks about Europe, especially
flows between the soil and the atmosphere. with regard to the situation in Southern Europe (Kovats et
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 229
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
al., 2014). Climate change (decrease
in precipitations, increase in extreme RISKS OPPORTUNITIES
events) is expected to constrain agri- Adverse climate changes Favorable climate changes
cultural economic activity in southern
Europe more than in other sub-regions • Thermal stress for crops and animals
• Ability to sow megathermal species
and may increase future intraregional • Water stress in crops and livestock thirst
• Expansion of agriculture and livestock
disparity. Climate change is likely to • Loss of crops and soils due to erosion, rearing to rainier zones
lead to declines in crop yields and milk floods or droughts
production, as well as changes in the • Greater incidence of plagues and diseases
geographical distribution of wine grape
varieties, with a reduction in the value
of wine products and the livelihoods of Main adaptation actions
local wine-growing communities. Adap-
tive capacity in Europe is high compared • Production zone changes
to other regions around the globe, but
there are significant differences in im-
pacts and response capacity between
Main adaptation actions
and within European sub-regions.
• Greater diversification of systems and products
The World Bank estimates that the
costs of adaptation in agriculture, wa- • Varieties and/or types of adapted animals
ter resources, infrastructure, coastal • Protection measures (watering, cutwaters, terraces)
areas, public health, extreme weath- • Early warning and response systems
er events and fishing will amount for • Land planning and integrated management
less than 0.3% of the Latin American
region’s total GDP, or between US$16.8 Figure 7.2. Conceptual framework describing the risks, opportunities and main adaptation
billion and US$21.5 billion per year up measures that can be adopted in the agricultural sector of the RIOCC countries. Source:
to 2050 (World Bank, 2010). prepared by the authors.
7.2. Risk components spread of pests and diseases. However, there are new oppor-
tunities in some regions thanks to higher rainfall, changes
in relation to the sector or in seasonality and the possibility of introducing crops with
megathermal or tropical species.
system
7.2.2. Exposure
7.2.1. Hazards
The level of exposure to these hazards varies greatly based
As stated in the regional chapters of the IPCC’s 5th Climate on the socio-economic level of the affected population, the
Change Report, temperature rises, especially daily lows relative rigidity or flexibility of their productive systems to
and lack of night-time cooling, will become widespread in vary or adopt technology, and the possibility of being as-
most IPCC countries under high-emission scenarios. In Ibe- sisted by such technology and its availability, such as, for
ro-America, changes in agricultural productivity associated example, climate forecasting or early response systems, or
with changes in climate are expected to exhibit great spa- access to new varieties resistant to pests or stress. In less
tial variability. A large part of the region’s plains will see developed countries, the strength of technical assistance
their productivity increase by mid-century, due to increased and extension systems is key.
rainfall. Conversely, declining rainfall can negatively affect
crop production in much of Central America, NE Brazil and
the Pacific coast (Magrin et al., 2014; Magrin, 2015). In 7.2.3. Vulnerability
the Iberian Peninsula, climate change (higher temperatures,
decreased precipitation, and increased extreme events such Vulnerability is the inability to resist when a hazardous phe-
as heat waves, droughts, etc.) is expected to limit agricultural nomenon occurs, or the inability to recover after a disaster
economic activity more than in other sub-regions (Kovats has taken place. It can also be defined as the risk that a
et al., 2014). This translates into risks to food production person, system or object may suffer in the face of imminent
(Figure 7.2). As shown in this figure, the main hazards arise hazards, be they natural disasters, economic, political, social
from the occurrence of thermal and water stress to crops or cultural inequalities. For example, people who work or live
and domestic livestock, losses of crops and livestock due to on plains are more vulnerable to flooding than those who live
erosion processes, droughts and floods, and the increased at higher altitudes. According to the IPCC (2014), vulnerabil-
230 RIOCCADAPT REPORT
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
ity can be defined as the degree to which a system is sus- 7.2), which in general terms are: thermal or thermal stress
ceptible to—and unable to cope with—the adverse effects of in crops and animals, water stress in crops and lack of water
climate change, including climate variability and extremes. for animals, increased incidence of pests and diseases, and
loss of soils and structures due to erosion and landslides.
Taking the above into account, the vulnerability of agricultural
production in RIOCC countries is determined by: the places In recent decades, numerous natural disasters related to the
where production is located and the ability to vary these plac- impact of natural phenomena have affected RIOCC countries,
es, access to technological resources that allow for preemp- demonstrating the vulnerability of local agriculture to extreme
tive or early responses to extreme events, such as access episodic events. It is increasingly important for farmers to
to irrigation, or climate forecasting systems, and finally, the proactively manage climate risks in agriculture in order to
economic capacity to face investments. However, people in protect their livelihoods. The reasons for these failures can
poor rural areas are the most vulnerable to the impacts of cli- be attributed to inadequate education and training of farm-
mate change, either because they are at risk (e.g., mountain ers, lack of tools to help facilitate the practical application
slopes, flood-prone environments, etc.) or because they have of risk management concepts, and lack of communication
less capacity to respond to extreme weather events (e.g., between ecotechnological and farming communities (Shan-
severe storms, droughts, fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.). On non and Motha, 2015).
many fronts of the agricultural frontier, there are often pock-
In some regions and countries, the problems are compound-
ets of conflict between market-driven corporate agriculture
ed by the presence of high poverty rates and low socio-eco-
and peasant agriculture. These conflicts derive, on the one
nomic development. We may see clear examples in some
hand, from the commercial exploitation of formerly marginal
Caribbean countries, which share similar economic and sus-
areas/territories and, on the other hand, from the precarious-
tainable development challenges: lack of resources, suscep-
ness of land tenure of farmer populations.
tibility to natural disasters, excessive dependence on interna-
In terms of policy implementation, it is important to provide all tional trade and high vulnerability to climate change. In other
farmers with information that will help them adapt to climate regions, such as the Amazon, studies point to turning points
change, using appropriate agricultural practices and technol- that should not be transgressed: 4°C of global warming or
ogies. In Chile, a study by Roco et al. (2015) showed the deforestation of 40% of the total area (Nobre et al., 2016).
importance of education and access to meteorological infor- The debate on regional development has focused on trying
mation with regard to climate change perception: younger, to reconcile maximizing conservation while intensifying tra-
more educated producers and those who own their land tend ditional agriculture.
to have a clearer perception of climate change than older, less
Tucker et al. (2010) tested the hypothesis that farmers’
educated or tenant farmers. In coffee-producing countries (Bra-
perceptions of risk in Mexico and Central America lead to
zil, Costa Rica, Colombia, Nicaragua and others), adaptation
adaptive responses. Evidence showed that climate variability
strategies for crops include high-density plantations, vegetat-
is perceived as a production hazard, yet it is not the most
ed soil, precise irrigation and breeding programs, and shading
important one. In contrast, price shocks are clearly perceived
(tree-planting) management systems (Rapidel et al., 2015).
as being particularly stressful, which can therefore motivate
The role of women in agriculture is an overarching issue that adaptive responses. Famers who associated high-risk events
affects all types of agriculture. Although they play a major did not show an increased likeliness to participate in specific
role in rural work, women make up only a quarter of the adaptations. Adaptive responses were more clearly associ-
landowners in Latin America (Tafur et al., 2015a, b). For ex- ated with access to land than with risk perception, suggest-
ample, in Cuba they are responsible for almost half (46%) of ing that adaptation is more closely related to exogenous
all rural work (Martínez Montenegro and Baeza Leiva, 2017). constraints on decision-making than perception itself. In the
In the environments in which they work, their transformative Mediterranean area of Chile, a study by Roco et al. (2015)
effect is quite profound. Being an entrepreneur or working in found that younger, more educated producers and those who
a highly male-dominated activity is a transgression of gender own their land tend to have a clearer perception of climate
stereotypes and therefore constitutes a driver for change, change than older, less educated or tenant farmers.
because it creates a reference that can be imitated by other
The countries of the region under study play an important
women (Porto Castro et al., 2015). In some countries, such
role in the global supply of honey. The impacts of climate
as Mexico, the rural sector (social - farmer) is predominantly
change are not yet well known due to lack of data on trends
led by women, as young people have migrated.
in beekeeping activities and losses of bee colonies. Direct
effects lead to intraspecific responses by plant species, such
as spatial-temporal mobility towards higher latitudes and to
7.3. Characterization of risks the population dynamics of bee colonies. Indirect changes
include economic social perceptions on risks to profitability
and their impacts as a result of increased adaptation practices, thus leading to
a possible abandonment of the activity (Castellanos-Poten-
Figure 7.3 briefly analyzes the main risks of the agricultural ciano et al., 2016). In these countries bees are chronically
sector due to climatic events (previously shown in Figure subjected to agrochemical cocktails, while being simulta-
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 231
Chapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
neously exposed to new parasites accidentally spread by may be reduced by improving flower resources and adopting
human beings. Climate change is likely to exacerbate these quarantine measures, and by monitoring bee populations
problems in the future, and some of the stress on bees (Goulson et al., 2015). In Spain, the Grupo de Trabajo Ecoflor
Main risks identified Main climatic driver Importance Urgency Extension
ected regions)
Risk of thermal stress of crops and animals due to rises
in average and minimum daily temperatures (less night !
cooling) and heat waves. These are accompanied by
shorter and warmer winters and fewer days with frost
Risk of water stress in crops and thirst in livestock: the
decrease in rainfall, increase in continuous days without
rain, added to competition with other uses, produce
restrictions in the availability of water for irrigation and
for drinking by animals
Risk of crop and soil loss due to erosion and flooding:
extreme storm and flood events, often also associated
ect crops and cause soil
loss due to avalanches, flooding and salinization
Risk of increased incidence of pest or insect outbreaks
and diseases. The tropicalization of the climate favors the
incidence of pest or insect outbreaks (diseases, insects,
cult to control because they
develop resistance mechanisms
Risk of water depletion for irrigation due to decreased
rainfall or snow
Risk of loss of flow in rivers in Andean or mountain
areas, due to a decrease in liquid or snowy rainfall, which
reduces water flows by thawing
Main climatic drivers: Importance. One of the following levels Extent:
Flooding was assigned: unimportant, important
and very important; in terms of the Mexico Central America IBE
and Caribbean
Temperature Rise significance of its impacts on natural or human Iberian Peninsula
Drought MEX
systems, including the number of people
+ ected. CAC Amazon
Precipitation Increase Sea Level Rise
Urgency. One of the following three levels
AMZ
was assigned: imminent (that may Northern NEB N.E. Brazil
Precipitation Decrease Ocean Acidification be occurring or occur at any time), Andean-Pacific NAP
medium-term (that is expected to occur in the Central SSA
medium term, by mid-century, or when 1.5°C CAP Southeast America
! Extreme Temperatures Changes in Seasonality Andean-Pacific
is exceeded), long-term (that is expected
Intense Storms and CO2 to occur after mid-century or when 2°C of PAT Patagonia
CO2 Fertilization
Hurricanes warming is exceeded).
Figure 7.3. Main identified risks for agricultural resources. Source: prepared by the authors.
232 RIOCCADAPT REPORTChapter 7 – Agriculture Sector
workgroup (2016) have stated that the proper strategy is to ment refers to the increase or conservation of biological
use fewer pesticides and create more diverse landscapes, corridors, migration of endangered species, afforestation,
with smaller crop fields containing more semi-natural ele- protected land management, among others. In general, most
ments between them. The proliferation of wild bee species of these options are either targeted or planned. Finally, tech-
acting as pollinators should be encouraged. nological options can also be planned, although many of
them are not, and happen simply as adaptive responses
by the farmers themselves. This includes a wide range of
7.4. Adaptation Measures technologies—both inputs and processes—that seek to
achieve better management of crops, livestock and grazing.
These include adopting new varieties and types of crops
7.4.1. Adaptation options and animals, incorporating genetic improvements, displacing
cultivation areas, changes in sowing dates, using adapted
Public policies among countries are highly diverse, focused germplasms, better use of local knowledge, new cultivation
in certain sectors such as water, biodiversity, forests, agri- systems to improve water conservation, capturing nitrogen
culture, infrastructure and human settlements (Sánchez and from the atmosphere, waste recycling, integrated production
Reyes, 2015). Table 7.2 shows climate change adaptation (silvopastoralism - agriculture), agro-ecological system, which
actions based on agriculture, under the criteria established includes biological pest control, improving water use efficien-
by the IPCC WGIIAR5, chapter 14 (Noble et al., 2014). It is cy in dry and irrigated areas, reusing drainage and fertigation
sometimes difficult to separate actions based specifically on water, excluding grazing in pastures and adjusting animal
agriculture from those based on ecosystem management, load, distributing watering places, among others.
which is why only managed ecosystem actions will be refer-
enced. These actions can be classified into three categories:
(a) physical/structural; (b) social; and (c) institutional. 7.4.1.2. Social
This encompasses options based on information and human
7.4.1.1. Structural or physical behavior. Some of the first ones include the creation of risk
and vulnerability maps, early warning and response systems,
This comprises three types of options. Some require the use monitoring and systematic use of remote sensors. In general
of engineering and changes in the physical environment, terms, these options are planned or targeted. Those relat-
for example, the construction of irrigation systems, water ed to changes in behavior patterns include attitudes that
pumping, or the construction of water tanks for animals to encourage or enable adopting soil and water conservation
drink from or to irrigate crops. Second, ecosystem manage- practices, better livestock and agricultural practices, changes
Table 7.2. Categories and options for climate change adaptation actions based on agriculture. Adapted from Noble et al. (2014).
Category Examples of options
Environment engineering and
Water storage and pumping; improved drainage
construction
Increasing biological diversity; afforestation and reforestation; reduction of fires and
Ecosystem-based scheduled burning; shade trees; assisted migration, biological corridors; seed bank
Structural/physical
conservation; adaptive land management
New varieties and types of crops and animals; genetic techniques; traditional methods
Technology and techniques; efficient irrigation; water-saving technologies, including water
harvesting; risk mapping and monitoring technologies
Risk and vulnerability maps; early warning and response systems; systematic remote
Information
monitoring and tracking via sensors
Social
Soil and water conservation; change of livestock practices; change of crops, systems
Behavior
and planting dates; silvicultural options
Economic Payment for ecosystem services; incentives and subsidies
Land zoning laws; water agreements and regulations; definition of property rights and
Laws and regulations
security of tenure; protected areas
Institutional
Disaster preparedness and planning, including integrated water resource management,
Government policies and
basin and landscape management; adaptive management; ecosystem-based
practices
management; sustainable forest management; community-based adaptation
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 233You can also read
