Kenya synergies between agricultural adpatation and mitigation
1. SYNERGIES BETWEEN MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE:
EXPERIENCE FROM KENYA
Glwadys Aymone Gbetibouo
University of Pretoria
on behalf of Barrack Ok oba, Carla Roncoli,
Claudia Ringler, and M ario Herrero
Copenhagen, COP 15
December 11, 2009
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
2. OUTLINE
1. Impact of climate change on Kenya
2. Synergies between adaptation and
mitigation
3. Farmer perceptions of adaptation and
mitigation - Preliminary results
4. Conclusions
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3. IMPACT OF CLIMATE
CHANGE ON KENYA
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
4. WHY CLIMATE MATTERS FOR KENYA
4.0 10.0
DROUGHT INDEX
3.0 GDP GROWTH 8.0
2.0
6.0
1.0
0.0 4.0
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
-1.0
2.0
-2.0
0.0
-3.0
-4.0 -2.0
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI
5. KENYA: TEMPERATURE ON THE RISE
Mostly:
• in the cold
season
• for min
night temps
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: Ogutu et al. (2007)
6. KENYA: CHANGE IN PRECIPITATION
Small increase expected in Dec-Jan
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IPCC (2007), Herrero (2009)
7. IMPACT OF CC ON MAIZE YIELDS
Kenya
2000-2050
Green= increase
in yields
Brown=
decrease in yields
Source: Jones
and Thornton
(2003)
8. IMPACT OF CC ON MAIZE YIELDS
Kenya
SSA Kenya
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000 2050 no CC 2050 2050 2050 2050
NCAR369 CSIRO532 CSIRO369 Hadley369
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI
9. IMPACT OF CC ON CHILD MALNUTRITION (%)
Projected to 2025
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2000 2025 no CC 2025 CSIRO 2025 NCAR 2025 Hadley
369 369 369
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI
10. SYNERGIES BETWEEN
ADAPTATION AND
MITIGATION
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
11. SYNERGIES & TRADEOFFS
Profitability Adaptation
Mitigation
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
12. MITIGATION:
POTENTIAL IN AGRICULTURE
Estimated total technical and economic mitigation potential (0-20$/ton) on
all agricultural land, incl. all management practices and all GHG
Mitigation Potential by 2030
Total Agric.
Land Economic at
Technical Technical
(M ha) (t CO2e/ha/yr) (Mt CO2e / yr) 0-20$/ton CO2eq
(Mt CO2e / yr)
East Africa 364 1.10 400 109
Central
177 1.02 180 49
Africa
North Africa 113 0.80 90 25
South Africa 138 0.58 80 22
West Africa 302 0.73 220 60
Total 1093 0.89 970 265 (27%)
• Largest potential for agricultural CF projects in East Africa (41%)
Note: Estimates calculated from data provided by Smith et al (2008) (for SRES scenario B1)
13. MITIGATION:
POTENTIAL IN AGRICULTURE
Smallholder
Commodity Livestock- Maize Biofuels Coffee Tea Sugar
Maize Systems
Area available Semi-arid:
3 1.6 0.15 0.15 0.14
in ha (million) 0.9
SALM: 1) Shade 1) No/ burning
trees, Inter- of residues
Agronomy Jatropha croppin
multiple 2) Mulching
GHG mitigation Nutrient mgmt Residue 1) Fuel- g no
cropping systems
activities Water mgmt mgmt. switch option
2) Mulching 3) Fertilizer
Agroforestry 2) AR in
3) Fertilizer Kenya related
Set aside land use eff emissions
Existing
extension - - - + ++ +
service
Tech. GHG 1) 1-12
mitigation 2) 2.5-5.0
2-5 0.5 3–8 ----- 7.8 in 6 years
potential in t High
CO2e/ha/y. bandwidth
Economic mit.
++ ? ? ++ 0 +
potential
Source: Timm Tennigkeit
14. SYNERGIES BETWEEN
ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION
Positive correlation between soil carbon and crop
yield Agricultural practices that improve soil
fertility and enhance carbon sequestration also
improve yield
Increased fertilizer application, ideally combining
inorganic with organic soil fertility types
Increased and more efficient agricultural water
management (reduces CO2 from fuel/electricity,
conserves land)
Agricultural R&D, advisory services, and
information systems support both adaptation and
mitigation
Page 14
15. TRADEOFFS BETWEEN
ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION
Tradeoff between crop residues and animal
feeds in parts of Kenya
Lack of application of labor-intensive soil &
water fertility management practices on
marginal soils (too costly/risky)
Increased fertilizer application (in conjunction
with soil fertility management) reduces soil
mining and supports mitigation and
adaptation, over-fertilization increases GHG
16. FARMER PERCEPTIONS OF
ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
17. Farmers Are Aware Of The Link Between
Agriculture And Climate Change
Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351
18. “Which Agricultural Practices Can Help
Reduce Climate Change?”
14 61%
12
10
8
(%)
6
4
2
0
Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351; multiple responses possible
19. “What Have You Done In Response To
Perceived Climate Change?”
60
50
40
(%)
30
20
10
0
Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible
20. “What Would You Like To Do In Response To
Perceived Climate Change?”
60
50
40
(%)
30
20
10
0
Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible
21. “Why Are You Not Implementing Desired
Adaptations?”
No access to money
No water
No access to inputs
No access to land
Lack of information
Shortage of labor
No access to credit
No market
Pests and diseases
0 20 40 60
(%)
Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351
22. “Which Developments Do You Need Most
Urgently?”
60
50
40
(%)
30
20
10
0
Only responses > 20% included
Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible
23. “Which Solutions are Most Effective and
Desirable to Deal with CC Impacts? ?”
High Potential Low Potential
Nyeri Syaya Mbere Njoro Garissa
Irrigation technology/water
infrastructure 1 1 3 2
Farmer organizations 2
Training, capacity building 4 1 4
Education 1
Credit/capital 3 1 2 2
Seed/seedlings provision 2
Mechanization of agriculture 3
Corruption eradication 4 3
Markets, market controls 4
Natural forest restoration 4
Moving from pastoralism to
farming 3
Ranking 1 2 3 4
Source: focus groups, KARI-UGA, n=69 men
24. “What are the causes of climate change?”
Deforestation
Pollution
Land clearning
Cutting (indigenous) trees
Lack of soil conservation
Overuse of chemical inputs
Overgrazing
Planting exotic, inappropriate trees
God's will, punishment
Farming in sacred sites
Extracting sand from river beds
Loss of habitat
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of mentions (N=32)
Source: focus groups, KARI-UGA, n=69
26. CONCLUSIONS
Mitigation to climate change may yield substantial
benefits for smallholder farmers in Kenya (US$2.2
billion in East Africa) that can be used to support
adaptation and development efforts
Given the low price of carbon offsets (US$5-
20/ha) mitigation activities alone do not yield
sufficient benefits: the latter need to be
complemented by co-benefits from adaptation and
increased productivity/profitability
Therefore it is essential to focus on activities that
advance all three areas: profitability, adaptation,
and mitigation
27. CONCLUSIONS
Changing crop varieties/types and planting dates
are among the most common adaptive strategies at
the farm level
The main constraint to implementing other
adaptions is lack of access to capital and credit
(ex.: irrigation is widely desired but expensive to
establish and operate)
Some of the priorities for development identified
by farmers (irrigation, extension, capacity building,
etc.) will support the synergies of mitigation and
adaptation to climate change
28. CONCLUSIONS
Farmers are aware of the connection between
agriculture and climate change and of the benefits
of planting trees to mitigate climate change
There is less awareness about the mitigation
potential for soil and water conservation and
integrated soil fertility management and their
potential synergies with adaptation