Climate change Food and farming after Copenhagen
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The magazine of the Food Ethics Council
Climate
change
Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 www.foodethicscouncil.org
Food and farming
after Copenhagen
Ruth Bond | Bruce Campbell | Charlie Clutterbuck | David Croft | Dan Crossley
Mark Driscoll | Gareth Edwards-Jones | Saleemul Huq | Peter Kendall | Rattan Lal
Madeleine Lewis | James MacGregor | Patrick Mulvany | Gerald Nelson | Rajendra
Pachauri | Helena Paul | Damian Ryan | Vandana Shiva | Paul Willgoss
From the editor | Tom MacMillan
The politics of farming carbon
Contents
Farmers have always been weather quality, fertility and productivity of land. Even if we hope carbon markets can
watchers. Now they’re the ones under work well, we should ask at what social
Introduction scrutiny. While the outcome of this In effect, agriculture is a loophole in price. The transaction costs associated
month’s Copenhagen conference is current carbon markets and, at with totting up and trading carbon mean
03 From the editor
uncertain, we can be sure agriculture will Copenhagen, the pressure will be on that it’s a game for big players. The
Tom MacMillan be more central than it has been in any negotiators to correct that. At one level prospect that marginal farmers and rural
04 Copenhagen climate change conference previous round of climate talks. it’s a no-brainer: farming emits a lot of communities might benefit in any big
Damian Ryan GHGs; allowing farmers to trade way from REDD or a soil carbon market
Food Ethics, the magazine of the Food Ethics Council, The transformation is remarkable. Until emissions could create an incentive to seems a bit like hoping pensioners would
08 Climate change and food security
seeks to challenge accepted opinion and spark fruitful recently, farming was seen to be at the make major savings. But behind this tidy be the winners from the hedge fund
Gerald Nelson debate about key issues and developments in food receiving end of climate change and at logic is a mess of winners and losers, boom.
and farming. Distributed quarterly to subscribers, each the heart of efforts to adapt to changing politics, and real-world experience that
issue features independent news, comment and weather patterns. Now agriculture is suggests we should be careful what we If we really want solutions that help the
HOT SPOTS
analysis. also targeted as a major source of wish for. world’s poorest people, suggest Helena
11 Global food security and soil carbon sequestration greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – Paul (p.21) and Patrick Mulvany (p.24,
Rattan Lal The Food Ethics Council challenges government, about 30% of the global total – and a A carbon market that includes we should listen to them. Policies on
business and the public to tackle ethical issues in food huge potential carbon sink. agriculture may be more rational than agriculture and the climate should
14 Livestock consumption and climate change
and farming, providing research, analysis and tools to one that leaves it out, but how much respect small-scale low-input farming as
Mark Driscoll
help. The views of contributors to this magazine are Only some of farming’s emissions are should we rely on carbon markets to a boon to biodiversity and sustainable
17 The herbivore's dilemma not necessarily those of the Food Ethics Council or its down to fossil fuel use. Much comes tackle climate change? They are the livelihoods. Carbon markets, they argue,
Gareth Edwards-Jones members. from cutting down forests to grow food, centrepiece of post-Kyoto efforts by do quite the opposite.
from churning up the soil and releasing governments, businesses and NGOs
19 REDD to REDD+
Please do not reproduce without permission. the CO2 it had trapped, and from the alike. Yet argue some critics, they may The warning from these concerns over
Bruce Campbell front and back ends of animals.
Articles are copyright of the authors and images as not be all they’re cracked up to be. carbon trading is that the urgency of
credited. Unless otherwise indicated, all other content brokering a global agreement to tackle
is copyright of the Food Ethics Council 2008. At Copenhagen, forests and soil look set Recent reports from The Corner House climate change should not blind us to
The Big Question
to cause most excitement. Forests are and Friends of the Earth both see close the ethics of different options. When
21 Peter Kendall | Helena Paul w Editorial team: the focus of REDD (Reducing Emissions parallels with the derivatives trading agreement is reached, whether at
Vandana Shiva | Paul Willgoss Liz Barling, Agnes Dalosi, from Deforestation and Forest that underpinned the financial crisis, Copenhagen or after, the assumptions
Ruth Bond | Dr Rajendra Pachauri Susan Kerry Bedell, Tom MacMillan Degradation), a scheme introduced at where creating fictional commodities (in negotiators have made about how the
Charlie Clutterbuck | Patrick Mulvany Design: Onneke van Waardenburg, the Bali climate conference in 2007. As that case uncertainties and in this case world works will become the rules
www.ondesign.eu.com Bruce Campbell (pp. 19-20) explains, the emissions) gave birth to volatile, setting how it should.
idea is to put a price on carbon saved by vulnerable and unsustainably complex
adaptation Printed by: Newman Thomson Limited, Burgess Hill. not chopping down forests, so the trees markets. 1 Key among these are assumptions about
25 UK agriculture: farmers on the front line Printed on 80% post-consumer recycled paper. are worth more left standing than the role and power of governments.
Madeleine Lewis Produced with kind support from the Polden replaced with ranches or plantations. Aside from the threat this raises of a Carbon trading was born in a world
Puckham Charitable Foundation subprime-style carbon bubble, critics are where businesses were expected to obey
27 Rural agriculture and climate change in low income ISSN 1753-9056 The same logic behind REDD can apply also concerned that carbon markets the law mainly if it paid. A stronger role
countries to soil. According to Rattan Lal (pp. simply won’t work. The experience of for governments would see more direct
Saleemul Huq and James MacGregor Food Ethics Council 11-13) restocking the world’s soils with Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme intervention to decarbonise the
30 Sustainability throughout the supply chain 39 - 41 Surrey Street even a fraction of the carbon content (ETS) - the largest such market in the economy and greater leadership to
David Croft Brighton BN1 3PB UK we’ve stripped from them in recent world - is certainly inauspicious, skewing promote sustainable consumption.
decades could make a noteworthy dent spending towards quick and cheap cuts, Markets are never the only game in
32 Beyond sea walls T: 0845 345 8574 in net GHG emissions. If carbon markets and funding projects that might have town.
Dan Crossley or +44 (0) 1273 766 654 paid farmers the same price to sequester happened anyway. The incentive created 1. Lohmann, L. (2009) When markets are poison.
F: +44 (0) 1273 766 653 carbon in soil that they would need to by carbon markets is to find quick The Corner House, Briefing 40.
info@foodethicscouncil.org pay geo-sequestration projects – it costs returns through low-cost efficiencies,
Regular features www.foodethicscouncil.org about €60/t to inject carbon into old oil one-off sequestration projects and
2. Clifton, S-J. (2009) Dangerous obsession.
Friends of the Earth, London.
34 Business directory fields – then this could prove a handy innovative financial instruments that
The Food Ethics Council, registered charity number earner. Unlike burying carbon in rock, work around the profound economic
35 Book reviews 1101885 trapping it in the soil has the added restructuring needed to meet even
Cover image: T. Lindenbaum benefit of improving the biological optimistic GHG reduction targets.
Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 3
Introduction
Copenhagen climate
change conference
The road to recovery or off the rails?
All hopes rest
on Copenhagen
As up to fifteen thousand people NIOS
descend on Copenhagen for what
some consider the most important The Convention also established a formal distinction between change. A new negotiating mandate was therefore agreed at was always recognized that further emission reduction
international meeting since 1945, developed and developing countries based on the principle of the first UNFCCC conference held in Berlin in 1995. Two commitments would need to be made beyond 2012. The
“common but differentiated responsibility”. This required years later this resulted in the adoption, in the Japanese city Protocol therefore included a provision to initiate negotiations
Damian Ryan asks how did we get developed countries to take the lead in combating climate of Kyoto, of a new protocol to the Convention. on a second commitment period seven years before the end of
to this point? Why here, why now? change due to their greater economic capabilities and their the first (that is, before December 2012). This trigger point
historic responsibility for existing atmospheric GHG levels. The Kyoto Protocol was an important advancement on the was reached at the 2005 UN climate conference in Montreal.
What is Copenhagen trying to Under the Convention, these countries “committed” Convention. First and foremost it set binding emission targets At this meeting, countries agreed to establish a negotiating
achieve? What are the obstacles? themselves to implementing policies and measures with a goal for developed countries. The overarching target was a 5 process that would set new emission reduction commitments
of reducing their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Crucially, percent reduction in emissions relative to 1990 levels over the beyond 2012 for those developed countries that had ratified
And what implications, if any, does it this target was largely aspirational rather than binding. five year period from 2008-2012. Individual country targets, the Protocol.
have for the agriculture and food Developed countries also made commitments to provide however, ranged from -8 percent (for most European
financial and technological support to developing countries to countries) up to +10 percent (for Iceland). The Protocol also It was clear by this time however, that developed country
sectors? assist their efforts in addressing climate change. No figures, created the framework for emissions trading and the creation action alone – especially in the absence of the US – would be
however, were placed on what such support should be. of carbon offsets credits in developing countries. It also set insufficient to deal with the rapidly growing levels of global
out the specific gases to be reduced and the economic sectors emissions. The rise of China and other emerging economies as
For their part, developing countries made more general in which reduction was to occur. With respect to agriculture industrial power-houses had greatly altered the source and
It may surprise some to learn that international discussions on commitments. These related to policies and measures this included animal methane production, manure trajectory of emissions growth. Developing countries,
the issue go back some 30 years to the first World Climate covering such things as technology and scientific cooperation, management, rice cultivation, soil management and burning however, were reluctant to agree to new negotiations,
Conference in 1979. This meeting initiated a process of education, sustainable management and adaptation (these of agricultural residues. Gases covered, of relevance to legitimately pointing out that developed countries still had far
international scientific debate culminating in the commitments also applied to developed countries). The agriculture, were carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. higher per capita emissions and unfulfilled obligations under
establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Convention, however, made it clear that the overriding priority Emissions associated with land-use change, for example the Convention and the Protocol (especially with respect to
Change (IPCC) in 1988. The mandate of this new UN body for developing countries remained poverty reduction through switching from forestry to agricultural production and vice- financial and technological support). Poverty reduction and
was to provide governments with a scientifically robust and sustainable development. Loosely translated, this meant that versa, were also dealt with. All of these measures related to sustainable economic development remained their overriding
independent assessment of humanity’s role in climate change. developing countries were allowed to increase their emissions developed countries only. priorities. The US's lack of participation in Kyoto was also a
The IPCC’s first assessment report, delivered in 1990, until they were wealthy enough to take appropriate mitigation sore point.
provided sufficient evidence to convince governments that action. In the interim, emission reductions beyond those Unlike the Convention’s relatively rapid entry into force, the
collective international action was necessary. Within two achieved through sustainable development policies, would Protocol’s ratification process was far more prolonged. In part As a compromise, countries agreed to establish a non-
years an international treaty – the UN Framework Convention need to be supported by developed country finance and this reflected the difficult follow-on negotiations dealing with negotiating ‘Dialogue’ in Montreal to discuss how developed
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – was drafted and signed at the technological support. the specific rules on how emission targets were to be met. and developing country action under the UNFCCC could be
Rio Earth Summit in 1992, entering into force two years later. These were not agreed until 2001 at the seventh UN climate proved. The Dialogue dealt with issues relating to mitigation
The Convention also put in place the administrative structure conference in Marrakesh. The other principle obstacle was (of emissions), adaptation, technology and financing ,and was
The UNFCCC for managing the climate regime. This included a dedicated reaching the level of participation (55 percent of signatories) held in parallel sessions to the Protocol negotiations through
As the name suggests the UNFCCC established the basic secretariat staffed by UN personnel and agreement to hold and emission coverage (55 percent of developed country 2006 and 2007.
architecture for how the international community would annual ‘Conferences of the Parties’ (or COPs), which would act emissions) necessary to trigger the Protocol’s implementation.
collectively address the problem of global warming. This as the decision making body of the Convention. Copenhagen The Bush administration’s decision not to ratify the Protocol At the same time as these formal UN efforts were underway, a
included setting an “ultimate objective” of stablising will be the fifteenth conference and hence is often referred to in 2001 was a serious (although not unexpected) blow in this range of other initiatives and events were also having an
greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations “at a level that would as COP-15. regard. In the end, it was Russia’s ratification in 2005 that impact on the international climate change debate. The
prevent dangerous manmade interference with the climate finally saw the treaty enter force – some eight years after it publication of the Stern Review in 2006, the release of Al
system”. This level was to be achieved in a timeframe that The Kyoto Protocol was signed. Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and the IPCC’s 4th Assessment
allowed ecosystems to naturally adapt, ensured food Within a year of the UNFCCC coming into force the IPCC Report of 2007, all added weight to growing calls for concerted
production was maintained, and allowed for sustainable released its second report. This updated assessment made it The road to Copenhagen and collective global action on climate change.
economic development. clear that more ambitious action was needed to tackle climate From the beginning of negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol it
4 Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 5
Introduction | Copenhagen climate change conference
The 13th UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia in 2007 was depends on the domestic US legislative process. Climate and (for example New Zealand). Others may deal with the
therefore viewed as a critical meeting for establishing a clear energy bills currently making their way through the US emissions using different forms of regulation or perhaps
roadmap for delivering a new global climate deal beyond 2012. Congress will determine the mandate of the US delegation in through subsidising the introduction of new technologies or
In this regard it largely delivered, with countries adopting the Copenhagen. it is now almost inevitable that this legislation practices.
‘Bali Action Plan’. This established a formal negotiating may not be passed before COP-15 gets underway and that as a
process under the Convention, running in parallel with the consequence US negotiators will not be in a position to take By contrast, the agriculture sector in developing countries will
existing Kyoto track. This new process was based around four any final decisions. In the absence of substantive US almost certainly not face any mandatory emission limitations
main pillars of negotiation, relating to commitments on engagement it is highly unlikely that Copenhagen will be able or reductions. The political sensitivity around food production
emission reductions (by both developed and developing to deliver anything other than a high-level political and the importance of rural development in these economies
countries), adaptation to climate impacts, technology (both communiqué and agreement to recommence negotiations makes such an idea unthinkable. Voluntary measures, which
the development and transfer of) and financing (for all of the early in 2010. generate large volumes of carbon offset credits for sale, are
above). Critically, it brought the US back to the negotiating however a possibility with the right carbon market reforms.
table and also recognition from the major developing countries But even if things did come together, what could we The priority for many developing countries will be securing
that they too needed to address their emissions growth. realistically expect from a successful Copenhagen conference? financial and technological support to allow their agricultural
Countries agreed to conclude both negotiation tracks within The most likely optimistic outcome is a broad framework sectors to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The good
two years, that is, by December 2009. agreement, light on detail but with enough substance to news is that countries agree on the need to ensure sustainable
maintain political momentum for ongoing negotiations and to agriculture production, and there appears to be support for
Great expectations: but what can provide business with the confidence to continue investing in greater developed-developing country cooperation in
Copenhagen really deliver? low-carbon technologies and services. Ideally, it would merge developing both mitigation and adaptation technologies for
Despite nearly two years of negotiations major divisions still the outcomes of the two negotiating tracks into a new, single, agriculture.
exist between countries, largely along coherent text, thereby removing much of
developed and developing country lines. the complexity stifling the current One cloud on the horizon is the prospect of so-called ‘border
Under the Convention, track officials face negotiations. The agreement would set a tax adjustments’ or ‘carbon tariffs’. These measures are
The lack of
a 200-page negotiating text containing long-term (that is, 2050) global emission supposed to address ‘carbon leakage’ concerns and ensure a
multiple options on each of the four target (for example a 50-80 percent cut level playing field is maintained between countries with
pillars. This must be whittled down to a relative to 1990); agree short term (that different GHG reduction regimes. Most economists generally
size manageable for ministers to progress has is, 2020) targets for developed countries agree that such concerns have little basis in practice. However,
understand and debate when they arrive (efore example, a 25+ precent cut relative this spectre has been raised at high political levels in both
in Copenhagen for their three days of
actual face-to-face negotiation. It is
frustrated to 1990); require major developing
countries to adopt low-carbon growth
France and the US in response to lobbying pressure from a
number of industries. Developing countries have seen these
worth bearing in mind that both the
Convention and the Protocol are
developing plans; create a framework for financing
activities that reduced and avoided
proposals as disguised trade protectionist measures.
Regardless of the motivation for their use, they have the
documents of less than 30-pages each, so
negotiators have a considerable and
countries deforestation in developing countries; set
up a mechanism for supporting
potential to add yet another obstacle to securing a global
climate deal, as well as cause headaches for the ongoing WTO
unenviable task ahead of them. adaptation to climate impacts particularly trade talks.
in least-developed countries; reform key
The Protocol negotiations also face an elements of carbon markets in order to An outcome of some kind
uphill battle. Agreement on new medium-term (ithat is, to increase scale, efficiency and the level of private financing; The prognosis for Copenhagen remains difficult. The chances
2020) emission reduction targets, for example, was supposed create a mechanism or mandate for effectively sharing low- of a fully fledged, signed, sealed and delivered agreement are
to have been reached well in advance of Copenhagen. The carbon and adaptation technologies; and include commitments certainly receding. But it will be politically unconscionable for
offers currently on the table from some, but not all, developed from developed countries to collectively provide substantial negotiators to fail to produce some kind of tangible outcome.
countries generally fall short of the 25-40 percent cut by 2020 public funding, in the tens of billions of dollars per annum, for Growing scientific concerns about climate impacts, increasing
(from 1990 levels) suggested by the IPCC. The EU’s 20-30 supporting many of preceding activities. business pressure for policy clarity and raising public
percent offer is an important exception. Work also remains on expectations for ‘green growth’ will weigh heavily on ministers’
issues relating to emissions trading, carbon offsets, and other Implications for agriculture and the food sector minds. At a minimum, political leaders will be unable to leave
rules governing an amended Protocol. Developed countries So what does all this mean for the agriculture and food Copenhagen without agreeing a timetable for continuing and
have argued that these rules need to be agreed first, before the sectors? What we can say with certainty is that agricultural concluding a deal in 2010. In short, while Copenhagen might
targets are set. While there is an obvious logic in this emissions in developed countries will definitely be covered (as not deliver the deal that was envisaged in Bali two years ago, it
approach, the lack of progress has frustrated developing they already are under Kyoto), either through an amended is certainly not the end of the story. Watch this space.
countries who feel that the industrialised countries are failing Protocol, or in a new ‘Copenhagen Agreement’. How this
to deliver on their obligation to take the lead in combating impacts on agriculture in the UK, or indeed any other Damian Ryan is a Senior Analyst with The Climate Group’s international
climate change. developed country, will depend on how individual policy team based in London. His current areas of work include: the Tony
Blair-led ‘Breaking the Climate Deadlock’ project focused on building
governments choose to account for emissions from the sector. support for an ambitious new global climate treaty; and the Aviation Global
Critical to removing the obstacles to a successful deal in Ultimately, an agreement in Copenhagen will only provide the Deal project, an airline-led initiative for reducing CO2 emissions from
Copenhagen will be the positions and objectives of major high-level architecture for achieving emission reductions. As international aviation. Prior to joining The Climate Group, Damian worked
for New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade, dealing with
developed and developing countries. The US is the lynchpin in with most regulation, the real action will occur at national and
international climate change and World Trade Organisation (WTO)
this regard, since where it leads others (particularly China) will regional levels. Some countries, for example, may choose to negotiations, including both the Nairobi and Bali climate change
follow (or at least calibrate their own positions). But much include the agriculture sector in emissions trading schemes conferences.
6 Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 7
Introduction
Climate change and food security:
The case for agriculture at Copenhagen
Drawing on a recent report from the transfers to developing countries to support mitigation efforts
should be part of the outcomes.
International Food policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), Gerald Nelson Even if a robust agreement emerges from the Copenhagen
meetings, the challenges of combating climate change are
assesses the importance of
daunting. The negative implications of climate change for food
agricultural adaptation and mitigation security, particularly in developing countries, as well as
agriculture’s contribution to emissions, must be addressed if
in negotiations at Copenhagen and
we are to successfully minimize climate change’s impact on
beyond. poor people.
What it means for crops and health
A recent report from the International Food Policy Research Feeding station in Kenya Amanda Rose
Institute (IFPRI) - “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and
Costs of Adaptation” - examines climate change’s harmful
Prior to 2009, agriculture was barely a blip on the radar of impacts on crop production, food prices, calorie availability, over 60 percent higher without climate change; climate change of the developing world greater expenditures on agricultural
international climate change negotiators. Although nominally and child malnutrition. For the first time, detailed modeling of adds almost 35 percent more. Higher prices affect the poor research and extension are needed.
included in the mitigation requirements for developed crop growth under climate change is combined with insights directly because they spend a larger share of their income on
countries under the Kyoto Protocol, the only significant from an extremely detailed global agriculture model, using two food, and higher feed prices (i.e. for maize) will in turn result Substantial uncertainty remains about specific climate change
mandatory emissions reduction programme, that of the EU, climate scenarios to simulate future climate. We at IFPRI used in higher meat prices. Without investments to offset the impacts in various locations. Investing in improved and better-
exempted farmers from caps. Agricultural emissions from our estimate of the number of malnourished children less than negative effects of climate change on coordinated research, systematic global
developing countries were entirely excluded. And the Clean five years old - which will increase by 25 million in 2050 under agricultural productivity, climate change information and data collection and
Development Mechanism, the programme that generates climate change - to determine the dollar amount that will be will cause a substantial fall in cereals dissemination, and strengthened
tradable greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, required annually for agricultural adaptation to avoid the consumption. Higher prices knowledge of local conditions that can
essentially ignores agriculture. worse impacts. The report focuses on three types of be shared among areas with similar
investments that will enhance agricultural productivity, and The potent combination of reduced crop affect the poor environments are critical to filling these
Yet agriculture, broadly defined to include pastures and thus increase food availability and reduce malnutrition: yields and higher food prices threatens knowledge gaps and improving resilience
forests, accounts for about 30 percent of total annual agricultural research, irrigation expansion and efficiency to reverse decades of progress on directly because to climate change.
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and significant potential is investments, and rural roads. alleviating malnutrition in the
claimed for both above and below ground sequestration of developing world. Calorie availability in they spend a Global efforts to collect and disseminate
carbon. Furthermore, agricultural productivity is uniquely Climate change will cause yield declines for the most 2050 will not only be lower than in the data on the location-specific - or spatial
dependent on the local effects of climate - farmers choose crop important crops in developing countries, with bigger no–climate-change scenario, it will larger share - aspects of agriculture are woefully
varieties and management systems based on their reductions than in industrialized countries. South Asia and actually decline relative to 2000 levels inadequate for the task at hand and
performance under local temperature and precipitation Sub-Saharan Africa will be hardest hit. In developing countries throughout the developing world. The of their income need to be strengthened. Regular,
regimes. As climate change occurs, farmers will incur as a whole, without new technology and adjustments by decline in calorie availability leads to an repeated observations of the surface of
substantial costs in adapting to the changes. farmers, climate change will reduce average irrigated wheat increase in child malnutrition in 2050 on food the earth via remote sensing are
yields in 2050 by around 30 percent, and irrigated rice yields by 20 percent - or 25 million additional essential, with systematic
To prevent grave consequences for global food security, will fall by 15 percent compared to a no-climate change children - relative to a world with no complementary ground-based
agriculture adaptation and mitigation must be a central part of scenario. These averages conceal great variation at individual climate change. observations. Funding for national
the outcomes of the United Nations Framework Convention locations, and depend on the climate model used. statistical programmes should be increased so that they can
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings in Copenhagen this Adaptation: how, and how much? fulfill the task of monitoring global change. Understanding
December. Thanks to the efforts of key agricultural sector Even without climate change, food prices will rise - driven by IFPRI estimates that avoiding the damaging impacts of climate agriculture and climate interactions well enough to support
stakeholders, following the addition of REDD (Reducing population and income growth and biofuels demand - but change on human well-being will require aggressive adaptation and mitigation activities based on land use requires
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) to the climate change exacerbates the extent of the increase. Prices agricultural productivity investments of over US$7 billion major improvements in data collection, dissemination, and
agenda, agriculture is now a part of the UNFCCC’s negotiating will climb for the world’s staple crops. Without climate change, annually. The type of investment differs by region. In Sub- analysis.
text. However, the extent of its inclusion in any follow-up to 2050 wheat prices increase by almost 40 percent; climate Saharan Africa, low road density hinders the ability of farmers
the Kyoto Protocol remains uncertain. While there is a growing change adds an additional 90 percent. Rice is projected to to market their produce and purchase inputs; the study In many parts of the world, national research and extension
recognition of the need to support adaptation in developing increase 60 percent without climate change and an additional suggests road investments there are critical. In South and East systems lack the human and physical resources to acquire
countries, there is less consensus on whether financial 12 to 14 percent with climate change. 2050 maize prices are Asia, investments in irrigation efficiency are key. In all regions information and translate it into locally useful products. More
8 Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 9
INtroduction | Climate change and food security HOT SPOTS | Soil
Global food
security and
and better trained scientists are needed, as well as the facilities livestock species and improving feed practices. Again,
to undertake the research. Partnerships with other national information exchange is essential to spreading the word about
systems and international agricultural research centres are these efforts.
soil carbon
part of the solution. Collaboration among local farmers, input
suppliers, traders, and consumer groups is also essential for One of the sticking points in the negotiations is the extent to
effective development and dissemination of locally which agricultural mitigation can be effectively MRVed, to use
appropriate, cost-effective techniques, seeds and animals.
Within countries, extension programmes can play a key role in
the acronym of the negotiations (monitoring, reporting and
verification). Monitoring effectiveness is necessary to ensure
that mitigation is actually being achieved, particularly if the
sequestration
information sharing by transferring technology, facilitating actions are included in any new carbon offset programme.
interaction, building capacity among farmers, and encouraging Promising technologies are in the works for tracking
farmers to form their own networks. Extension services that mitigation programme performance - microsatellites that Professor Rattan Lal explains why soil diversity of soil fauna (for example
specifically address climate-change adaptation include provide frequent, high-resolution land cover imaging; earthworms and termites), production
sequestration is so important for restoring soil
disseminating locally-adapted seeds of drought-resistant crop inexpensive, standardized methods to test soil carbon; and and emission of GHGs (that is, CH4,
varieties, teaching improved management systems, and simple assessment methods to quantify the effects of quality, reducing CO2 emissions, increasing N2O, CO2), and transformation/
gathering information to facilitate management technologies on methane mineralization of biomass. Ecological
biodiversity and - above all - for global food security.
national research work. Farmer and nitrous oxide emissions. processes, at landscape or watershed
organisations can be an effective scale, are important to nutrient cycling,
information-sharing mechanism and
have the potential to provide cost-
It seems A strong monitoring system will better
enable innovative payment mechanisms
soil and water conservation, NPP at
ecosystem scale, ecosystem C pool in soil
effective links between government
efforts and farmer activities.
obvious that that encourage agricultural mitigation.
Payment mechanisms will have to deal Global issues during the first decade of (SOC) reserves. Restoring SOC reserves
and biota, and ecosystem services for
human wellbeing and nature
Agriculture’s role in climate
agriculture must with the fact that agriculture is
different from other sources of GHGs,
the 21st century include: (i) food-
insecurity affecting 1.02 billion people
of cropland and agricultural soils above
the critical level is essential to enhancing
conservancy.
change mitigation
Globally, agriculture contributed about
play a key role as the sources are individually small,
geographically dispersed, and often
mostly in South Asia/Pacific and Sub-
Saharan Africa, (ii) soil degradation and
food security. Soil carbon sequestration
The conversion of natural to agricultural
14 percent of annual GHG emissions in
2000, and land-use change and forestry
in addressing unsupported by adequate
infrastructure. Schemes that take
desertification in the tropics and sub
tropics with adverse impacts on
Soil quality and soil
organic carbon reserve
ecosystems depletes the SOC pool
because of: lower addition of biomass C,
a further 19 percent. Agriculture
contributes more than half of the
climate change advantage of these differences and can
be scaled up beyond project-specific
agronomic productivity and
environment quality, and (iii) energy
The quantity and quality of the SOC
pool play an important role in improving
higher rate of decomposition of soil
organic matter (SOM), and more losses
world’s emissions of nitrous oxide and funding might include land retirement demand leading to emissions of CO2 and sustaining soil quality. The latter is of the SOC pool by erosion, runoff, and
methane. Overall, the developing world contracts, one-time payments for and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) and defined as the capacity of a soil to leaching. The higher rate of
contributes about 50 percent of agricultural emissions and 80 physical infrastructure investments that have long-term the attendant emphasis on biofuels provide ecosystem goods and services. decomposition in agricultural compared
percent of land-use change and forestry emissions, but the mix mitigation effects, and payments for institutional innovations which exacerbate food insecurity. All four components of soil quality are with natural ecosystems is caused by
differs by region. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, that encourage mitigating behavior in common property affected by the SOC pool, its dynamic changes in the soil moisture and
agriculture’s share of total emissions is 13 percent and land- resources. But there remain concerns that the measurement These inter-connected issues (coupled and inherent characteristics. The SOC temperature regimes. Consequently,
use change and forestry contribute over 60 percent. In Asia, technologies and institutional innovations required are not yet with the fact that the world’s population pool moderates soil physical quality most agricultural soils contain a lower
agriculture contributes 14 percent and land-use change and ready for widespread use in a carbon offsets programme. is projected to increase to 9.2 billion by through its impact on aggregation and SOC pool than their natural capacity
forestry contribute about 27 percent. 2050) mutually reinforce one another by stability of aggregates, porosity and pore determined by climatic, pedologic, and
Copenhagen is only the beginning reducing net primary productivity size distribution and continuity, water physiographic characteristics. Transfer
The formal inclusion of REDD in the climate change To someone with strong roots in agriculture and an interest in (NPP), accentuating emissions of GHGs retention and transmission, along with of atmospheric CO2 into the SOC pool
negotiations signals an appreciation of land use as a source of the well being of the world’s poor, it seems obvious that from terrestrial (soils and biota) infiltration rate and available water via the addition and humification of
GHGs and initial findings of low-cost opportunities to reduce agriculture must play a key role in addressing climate change. biosphere and reducing ecosystem capacity, soil air composition and biomass-C is called soil C sequestration
them. At this point, it is important to identify and support the However, the history of the negotiations and the relatively services, and decreasing income of the gaseous diffusion, crusting and (Lal, 2008a). In addition to increase in
most promising mitigation actions in farmers’ fields and small role agriculture played in their early days suggests that resource-poor farmers and land compaction, and susceptibility to runoff the SOC pool as humus, C in soil can
develop inexpensive monitoring mechanisms. now is not the time for the supporters of agriculture to be managers while exacerbating poverty and erosion. The soil chemical quality also be sequestered through formation
complacent. Now is the time to make the case persuasively at and jeopardizing access to food. effects of the SOC pool are through its of secondary/pedogenic carbonates.
Agriculture has great potential to mitigate GHGs cost- Copenhagen and beyond. Consequently, the United Nations impact on soil reaction, nature and These are formed through dissolution of
effectively through improvements in agricultural technologies For more information on both documents go to www.ifpri.org Millennium Development Goals of density of charge on the exchange CO2 in soil air to form dilute carbonic
and management practices. These modifications include cutting hunger and poverty by half by complex, intensity and capacity factors acid and its reaction with cations (Ca+2,
changing crop mixes to include more plants that are perennial Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. 2015 will not be met. affecting plant nutrient reserves, and Mg2+, K+), a process important in soils
or have deep root systems, using cultivation systems that leave Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in movement/diffusion of soluble of arid and semi-arid climates. The rate
residues and reduce tillage, and shifting land use to pasture Copenhagen These three intertwined global issues of nutrients. of soil C sequestration as humus is more
and agroforestry. All of these actions help increase soil carbon food insecurity, climate change, and soil (50-1500 kg/ha/yr) than that by
stocks. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions can be reduced Dr. Gerald Nelson is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Food degradation are driven in part by the Soil biological quality is impacted by formation of secondary carbonates (5-10
through changes in crop genetics and better management of Policy Research Institute, where he leads the organization’s climate decline in soil quality caused by severe rhizosphenic processes in relation to kg/ha/yr) (Lal, 2004).
irrigation, fertilizer use, and soils, as well as using different change research. depletion of the soil organic carbon microbial biomass, activity and species
10 Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 11
HOT SPOTS | Soil Global food security and soil carbon sequestration
The processes, factors, and practices the most cost-effective option
leading to C sequestration in soil as (McKinsey & Co., 2009a; b). In
humus and secondary carbonates are comparison with the cost of aroundEuro
outlined in Fig. 1. The rate of SOC 60/t of CO2 for geologic sequestration,
sequestration, with a range of 50-1500 SOC sequestration has a net benefit,
kg/ha/yr, is greater in soils of cool and because it improves agronomic yield and
moist than warm and arid climates, in reduces input (fertilizers.) (McKinsey &
fine-textured and those with expanding Co., 2009a; b). Assuming that the price
lattice (2:1 type) than in coarse-textured paid to farmers for SOC sequestration is
and fixed lattice (1:1 type) clay minerals, equivalent to the cost incurred in
and in foot-slope rather than in geologic sequestration, it means
shoulder-slope or summit landscape payments for soil C credits at the rate of
positions. around US $100/t of CO2 or $367/t of
C. For an average SOC sequestration rate
The technical potential of soil C of 250 kg/ha/yr, farmers can receive an
sequestration is about 1 Gt C/yr in soils additional income of ~$80-100/ha/yr
under each of the three cropland, Processes, factors and practices leading to formation of humus and secondary carbonates ($32-40/acre/yr). Even if farmers receive
grazing land and degraded/desertified as principal mechanisms of carbon sequestration in soil. $50/ha/yr, this is a strong incentive
ecosystems (Pacala and Socolow, 2004). towards adoption of RMPs, and for
With the adoption of recommended restoration of degraded soils and
management practices (RMPs), technical increase in SOC pool by 1t C/ha/yr is land holders can neither afford the ecosystems. Decisions made at the
C sink capacity (maximum/potential 9±2 Mt/yr (Lal, 2006b). In addition to inputs required nor are they prepared to UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen in
capacity) can be filled by 2050. The rate quantity, improvement in soil quality take risks under changing unpredictable December 2009 towards accepting
of SOC sequestration for most cropland would also enhance the nutritional value and harsh climate. Emergency aid, in my agricultural soils as offsets to mitigate
soils is 250-500 Kg C/ha/yr (Lal, 2004). of food especially in relation to the opinion a knee jerk approach, and other climate change would be step in the
micronutrients (Lal, 2009). A healthy adhoc interventions, although done in right direction.
The SOC pool to 2m depth in world soils human diet must contain seven good faith, have proven
is estimated at 2400 Gt (Batjes, 1999). macrominerals (Na, K, Ca, Mg, S, P, Cl) counterproductive. These measures have A win-win
Both SOC and biotic pools, together Sorghum Peter Hanegraaf and 16 microelements (Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn, suppressed initiative and created Soil carbon sequestration is essential to
called the terrestrial pool, have been the I, F, B, Se, Mo, Ni, Cr, As, Li, Sn, V, Co). dependency. harnessing numerous co-benefits and
source of atmospheric CO2 ever since adaptation to and mitigating climate 2050 (Wild, 2003). This jump in food These elements must be supplied ecosystem services including the
the dawn of settled agriculture change. production must come through adoption through soil, and SOC pool is an There is a need to create another income restoration of soil quality, improvements
(Ruddiman, 2003; 2005). The terrestrial of those RMPs which restore and essential reservoir for both macro and stream for farmer/land managers so that of water resources, increase in
C pool has been and is being depleted by Food security enhance quality of soil and water micro-elements (Lal, 2009). they have resources to invest in adopting biodiversity, and decrease in net
deforestation, biomass burning, Improvements in soil quality by SOC/ resources so that yield potential of the RMPs. Commoditization of soil C emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse
drainage of wetlands and cultivation of biosequestration can lead to increases in elite varieties can be realized. Commoditization of soil carbon through trading of C credits is a viable gases. Above all, it is also essential to
peat soils (Fargione et al., 2008; agronomic productivity through the There is a wide range of RMPs for option. The price of soil C (presently achieving food security. With a potential
Searchinger et al., 2008), and soil tillage enhancement in use efficiency of input A synthesis of field experiments sustainable management of soil and ~US $2/t of CO2 or US $7.30/t of C) to reduce atmospheric CO2
and tillage-induced erosion and (for example, fertilizers, irrigation). conducted worldwide shows that water resources, especially in relation to paid through voluntary organizations concentrations by 50 to 100 ppm over
degradation (Lal, 2004). It is the Achieving food security implies increasing SOC pool by 1 t C/ha/yr can SOC sequestration (NRC, 2009). (i.e., Chicago Climate Exchange) is an the 21st century, it is the most cost-
depletion of the SOC pool in soils of increasing average cereal grain yield per improve crop yields (kg/ha/yr) at the Important among these for soil important start. However, the price effective option for mitigating
agroecosystems which has created the so hectare, especially in developing rate of 100-300 for corn, 20-50 for management are conservation must be determined with due anthropogenic climate change. The
called soil C sink capacity. Thus, countries. Vertical expansion, increasing soybeans, 20-70 for wheat, 10-45 for agriculture, integrated nutrient consideration of the societal value of soil adoption of recommended management
assuming that the soil C pool can be yield per unit area and unit input into rice, and 30-60 for beans (Lal, 2006a). management (INM), cover cropping and C. The latter encompasses the ecosystem practices among resource-poor farmers
increased by 10% by 2100, it would existing agricultural lands, is necessary Such an improvement in soil quality in complex systems including agroforestry, services that soil humus (SOC pool) can be promoted through
amount to a gain of 240 Gt C to 2m because of the scarcity of any new land conjunction with ithe ntroduction of use of soil amendments including provides to the world community. commoditization of soil C and trading
depth. This amount of soil C that can be brought under cultivation. improved varieties and appropriate biochar and zeolites, enhancing Important ecosystem services include credits. Soil C sequestration is a win-win
sequestration, through the production of Global average cereal grain yield of 2.64 cropping/farming systems, would rhizospheric processes for creating mitigation of climate change, strategy. It is a bridge to the future,
biomass via photosynthesis and its t/ha in 2000 will have to be increased to enhance production of cereals and food disease-suppressive soils, and improvement in quality and quantity of leading to low-C or no-C fuel sources.
conversion into humus, is equivalent to 3.60 t/ha (+36 percent) by 2025 and legumes in developing countries by accentuating soil biodiversity. The renewable fresh water resources, Implementation of this strategy requires
110 ppm of drawdown of atmospheric 4.30 t/ha (63 percent) by 2050 if dietary 32±11 million t (Mt)/yr (Lal, 2006a). strategy is to create positive C and increase in biodiversity, and political will to accept agricultural soils
CO2 (1 Gt of soil C = 0.47 ppm of CO2). preferences stay the same (Wild, 2003). Soil C sequestration and improvement in elemental (N, P, S, K) budgets. enhancement of terrestrial processes of as offsets for industrial emissions. The
Hansen et al. (2008) estimated that the With likely increase in animal-based diet soil quality would also increase yields of importance to human well being and time to act is now.
Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the
atmospheric CO2 concentration can be in emerging economies (for example, roots and tubers, which are important Despite the existence of proven RMPs, nature conservancy. References available
Ohio State at www.foodethicscouncil.org
University’s Carbon Management
decreased by about 50 ppm through China and India), however, the required food staples in Africa (e.g., cassava, yam, the adoption rate has been slow and Sequestration Center and Professor of
biosequestration. Thus, biosequestration cereal yield is 4.40 t/ha (+67 percent) by sweet potato, taro). The estimated especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and Sequestration of C in soils and terrestrial Soil Science in the School of Environment
is an important strategy of both 2025 and 6.0 t/ha (+127 percent) by increase in roots and tubers through South Asia. Resource-poor and small size ecosystems, as a natural process, is also and Natural Resources.
12 Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 13
HOT SPOTS | Livestock
Livestock consumption and climate change
From fiction to fact
Mark Driscoll explains the goals
behind WWF-UK’s One Planet Food livestock). When this is taken into con- be developments in farm technology –
sideration our impact is even greater; crop yield increases, improvements in
programme, and calls for a vision for meat the report we’ll be publishing with the animal feed (perhaps to decrease meth-
production and consumption that everyone - Food Climate Research Network (FCRN) ane emissions from livestock) and more
later this month will, for the first time, efficient fertilisers. Progress is already
from farm to fork - can buy in to. detail how much greater. This is one of being made by the industry in some of
several reports we have been working these areas – which is to be commended.
on with experts in the field of food and
climate change – each geared towards But – and here’s what many in the
taking another step towards some industry are reluctant to accept – those
Seven hundred and thirty two. That’s We’d agree. Nevertheless, even in this answers, and our goals. advancements, in whatever series of
the number of comments posted on The context, the debate over whether we combinations, won’t get us to the magic
Times website on the back of their need to consume less livestock-based Our mission at WWF is to stop the deg- 70% (our report with FCRN will also
interview with Lord Stern last month. products (both meat and dairy) sparks radation of the planet’s natural environ- cover this in more detail). There will be
In two days. It was also covered in every frenzied, over-blown and polarised reac- ments and to build a future in which a gap to ‘plug’.
mainstream newspaper - and hundreds tion. ‘We’ve got used to eating lots of humans live in harmony with nature by
of websites besides. Columnists chimed meat, so why should we give it up?’ And conserving biodiversity, ensuring the Plugging that gap – and reducing emis-
in. Farmers shook their fists. And the ‘what about the farmers?’ These are sustainable use of resources and reduc- sions further – means talking about
phone lines of various radio-based dis- both common arguments. ing pollution and wasteful consumption. consumption. We don’t yet know the
cussions rang red. Everyone got The transition to a more sustainable extent to which our consumption needs
involved. All this hasn’t been helped by knee-jerk food system will be central to achieving to fall – there are issues to consider,
campaigns to cut meat consumption; that. such as the role of livestock grazing, or
So, what had Lord Stern, the author of some of the campaigns have served only how contraction in the UK might rein-
the influential 2006 Stern Review on to alienate consumers and over-simplify That’s why we created our One Planet force expansion of livestock farming in
the cost of tackling global warming, what’s a complicated issue. And it is Food programme, incorporating the low-cost exporting countries which
said? According to The Times, he’d complicated (something Lord Stern was, whole food chain, from the production could, in turn, drive further emissions
advised people to “give up meat to save no doubt, trying to get across in his of commodities (like palm oil and soya) through more land use change.
the planet”, before making “a demand interview). Unlike your average dairy through processing and on to consump-
for behavioural change”. Everyone cow this issue isn’t black and white. tion and disposal. The goals of the pro- What we do know is that consumption
seized on this as a tidy ‘climate chief Some of the science, however, is. gramme are to radically improve the key will have to fall, and we tasked the Food
says go veggie to save the planet’ mes- environmental impacts of the food that Ethics Council to look at how best to
sage. Food consumption is responsible for is eaten in the UK, including our impact achieve it. Its report, Livestock consump-
around a fifth of the UK’s direct green- on the parts of the world richest in bio- tion and climate change: a framework for
In fact, this isn’t what Lord Stern said, house gas emissions – and livestock is diversity. dialogue, was published in September,
as he asserted in a letter to the paper: the hotspot. Fact. The UK has 1% of the complete with a series of 27 possible
“It’s a fact that the production of meat world’s population but accounts for 2% This is a complex task – made more so interventions that could help address
can be relatively carbon-intensive of the world food system. Fact. The food by the emotion that surrounds livestock A jersey cow. Jamie Gordon the impact of livestock consumption on
because of the energy used to rear and we eat accounts for roughly a third of consumption. As Lord Stern found out: climate change. It’s worth noting that
feed the animals, and the methane our environmental impact on the world. mention it at your peril. The the FEC went to great lengths to recog-
emitted by livestock. I was not demand- Fact. Government won’t: Ben Bradshaw, age people to consume less meat. Such modelling suggests that emissions from nise the concerns of producers.
ing people become vegetarians, but Defra Minister did so two years ago measures are enforced behaviour food consumption need to be cut by
instead suggested that they should be Not only is the energy required to pro- when he said “if the impacts of climate change. What we’d like to see instead is 70% by 2050 to help avoid serious rises Encouragingly, they didn’t run for the
aware that the more meat that they eat, duce our food creating emissions (from change are as bad as predicted, we may more immediate constructive debate, in temperature. Early indications sug- hills. Now the dialogue needs to begin
the higher the emissions of greenhouse pesticides to packaging), there’s also a need to go back to rationing”. He didn’t perhaps led by Government, which will gest that de-carbonisation of the supply on which of the interventions could
gases that are implied in their diets; it is considerable amount of environmental mention it again. lead consumer change rather than force chain will help, as will using low carbon work to reduce emissions without penal-
in this sense of lower emissions that impact from land use change – for it. energy for cooking and energy recovery ising producers, harming diets or other-
less meat is ‘better’ for the planet.” instance, deforestation to grow palm oil We are, of course, a long way off ration- from food waste (as covered in wise causing more problems than are
(for processed products) or soya (to feed ing – or even fiscal measures to encour- And there will have to be a change. Our Autumn’s Food Ethics). There will also solved. Some caused a little controversy,
14 Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org Winter 2009 Volume 4 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.org 15
You can also read
