This presentation by Marius van den Berg from the Institute for Environment and Sustainability explains briefly what climate-smart agriculture is what effects and interrelations farm management practices associated with CSA have, how CSA was adopted and which policies enabled it and what can be taken home from that.

1. Climate Smart Agriculture:
Opportunities and Stumbling blocks
Maurits van den Berg
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Joint Research Centre
1

2. Overview
•
Context: What are we talking about
•
Farm management practices
associated with CSA
• Effects (advantages and
disadvantages)
• Interrelations
•
Adoption of CSA
•
Enabling policies
•
Take-home messages
25 November 2013
2

3. What are we talking about?
The three pillars of climate smart agriculture:
• Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes
• Adapting and building resilience to climate change
• Reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases emissions, where
possible
(FAO, 2013)
25 November 2013
3

4. Global population
Food consumption per capita
billion
kcal per capita per day
Animal products
Other crops
Oil crops
Cereals
Non-OECD
OECD
(Source: PBL, 2010)
25 November 2013
4

5. Agricultural land use in 2000
(Source: van den Berg et al., 2011)
25 November 2013
5

6. Agricultural land use in 2050,land use change
Project business as usual scenario
(business as usual scenario)
(Source: van den Berg et al., 2011)
25 November 2013
6

7. Adapting and building resilience to
climate change
Trend, change in temperature (°C, 1901 to 2012)
25 November 2013
7

8. Change in average precipitation (1986-2005 to 2081-2100)
in two distinct emission scenarios
8

9. Agriculture
(Source: EDGAR dabase, courtesy G. Maenhout-Janssens, JRC; LULUCF: IMAGE Calculations)
9

10. Climate smart agriculture
To sustain the three pillars:
• Increase in crop yields and animal feed use efficiency
• Minimise conversion of (semi-)natural land to arable land
• Improve/sustain soil health and biodiversity to adapt and build
resilience to climate change
• Efficient use of inputs (water, fertilizers, agrichemicals)
25 November 2013
10

11. Examples of measures
• Adapted/more productive/resilient crop varieties or animal breeds
• Adapted crop calendar
• Crop rotation / Intercropping (especially with N-fixing crops)
• Minimum soil disturbance (e.g. no till or minimum tillage)
• Crop residues left on the land
• Semi-natural vegetation intertwined with cropland
• Better irrigation practices
• Smarter use of chemicals (only when needed, at the right place and the
right time; biological pest control when possible)
• Rehabilitation of degraded land
• Improved animal husbandry
• Better integration of animal manure in crop production
• Minimise harvest and post harvest losses
25 November 2013
11

12. Example 1: Conservation agriculture
25 November 2013
12

13. Example 1: Conservation agriculture
• Crop rotation (e.g. soybean - wheat)
• Minimum soil disturbance (direct drilling, no-till)
• Crop residues left on the land after harvest
Advantages:
• High yield potential thanks to improved soil-health and water conservation
• Less need of fertilisers
• Higher C-storage in the soil
• less CO2 from field machinery use
• Less labour requirements
Stumbling blocks:
• Crop residues left on the land cannot be used for other purposes
• No-till can pose difficulty to crop emergence (esp. during transition phase)
• New pest/diseases may appear (esp. during transition phase)
• Weed infestations
• Lack of local knowledge farmers, suppliers, extension officers
25 November 2013
13

14. Example 2: Intertwine semi-natural
vegetation with cropland
vs

15. Example 2: Intertwine semi-natural
vegetation with cropland
• A coherent network of semi-natural features (hedgerows, buffer strips, flower strips,
woodlots, semi-natural grasslands etc.) in agricultural areas
Advantages:
• provides corridors for species migration,
• Pollination
• Bioogical pest control
• Erosion control
• Opportunities for supplementary income (e.g honey, agritourism)
Stumbling blocks & drawbacks:
• Loss of crop land area
• Implementation costs
• Use of heavy field machinery restricted
• New pest/diseases may appear (esp. during transition phase)
25 November 2013
15

16. Example 3: Better irrigation practices
25 November 2013
16

17. Source: van den Berg et al., 2011

18. Example 3: Better irrigation practices
• Reduce losses from reservoirs and channels
• Efficient, properly maintained equipment (e.g. drip, central pivot, short furrow)
• Improved irrigation scheduling
Advantages:
• Higher yields can be obtained with same amount of water
• Less negative off-site effects
• More efficient nutrient use
• Energy savings (from pumps)
Stumbling blocks:
• Initial investments at farm and catchment level
• Only works if water is valued
• Lack of knowledge / awareness
25 November 2013
18

19. Deficit irrigation: substantial amounts of irrigation water
can be saved with minor yield penalty
Irrigation water requirements:
Full irrigation
Deficit irrigation
Source: JRC (CAPRESE project)
19

20. Example 3: Better irrigation practices
• Reduce losses from reservoirs and channels
• Efficient, properly maintained equipment (e.g. drip, central pivot, short furrow)
• Improved irrigation scheduling
Advantages:
• Higher yields can be obtained with same amount of water
• Less negative off-site effects
• More efficient nutrient use
• Energy savings (from pumps)
Stumbling blocks:
• Initial investments at farm and catchment level
• Only works if water is valued
• Lack of knowledge / awareness
25 November 2013
20

21. Common features
• Fairly simple measures (more sophisticated measures also exist)
• Approaches can be applied to many environments, but local adaptation is required
• Measures tend to enhance each other (synergy)
• Drawbacks tend to be strong during initial phase
• Action required at farm and higher levels
• Costs tend to be concentrated on farmers, benefits for society as a whole
• Policies are required to overcome drawbacks
25 November 2013
21

22. Enabling conditions for adoption
• Prices of produce and inputs are fair and fairly predictable
• Markets are reliable
• Land tenure is secure
• Credit to invest in long-term land productivity is available and accessible
• Training opportunities
• Trust that adoption will improve stakeholders’ livelihoods
• Low yield risk; or technologies/insurance mechanisms are available to cope with risks
• Incentives exist to safeguard public goods and services
25 November 2013
22

23. Climate risk management –
Need for innovative financing mechanisms
DOI: 10.2788/713
•
Agricultural insurance as means to reduce risk;
•
Traditional insurance schemes are not fit for climaterelated risk;
•
Weather index-based insurance schemes provide
interesting alternative;
•
Many pilots in developing countries
•
Additional benefit: Farmers are exposed to intensive
and better use of climate information in the decision
making process;
23

24. CAP Direct Payments (Greening)
The 3 measures are:
Maintaining permanent grassland (National, or Regional, or farm)
Annual decrease of “Area grassland/total agriculture area” < 5%
Crop diversification (farm level)
At least 2 crops when arable land > 10 ha
At least 3 crops when arable land > 30 ha
Main crop cover < 75% of arable land, two main crops < 95% of the
arable land
Ecological focus areas of at least 5% of the arable area of the holding (farms with
area >15 hectares)
EFA: field margins, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape features, biotopes,
buffer strips, afforested area
This figure will rise to 7% after 2019 (after impact assessment in 2017)
NB: Organic farms, some Agri-environment schemes already compliant
25 November 2013
24

25. Take-home messages
• Implementation of climate smart agriculture is an issue of today
• Suitable approaches are available; many are based on simple technologies
• Climate smart agricultural practices tend to be synergistic. Synergism cannot be taken
for granted.
• Diverse pathways of climate smart agricultural development; no one-size-fits-all
solutions.
• Common stumbling blocks to adoption:

Initial investments and practical difficulties during transitional period

Costs mainly faced by farmers; benefits shared among wider community

Difficulty to achieve concerted action at several organisational levels

Minimum set of enabling conditions is often not in place
25 November 2013
25

26. Thank you for your attention!
Acknowledgements:
Frank Dentener
François Kayitakire
Neil Hubbard
Hervé Kerdiles
www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Greet Maenhout
Jean Michel Terres
Maria Luisa Paracchini
Andrej Ceglar
www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Serving society
Stimulating innovation
Serving society
Supporting legislation
Stimulating innovation
Supporting legislation

27. Reserve list
25 November 2013
27

28. 25 November 2013
28

29. Sustainably increasing agricultural
productivity
25 November 2013
29

30. Example 2: Intertwine semi-natural
vegetation with cropland
Detection of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural areas at the European scale and its impact on ecosystem services
Weissteiner, A. Baraldi, M.L. Paracchini, J. Maes, G. Zulian
In preparation
C. García-Feced, C.J.

31. Wheat – best adaptation (%)
Source: JRC, PESETA II Project

32. Wheat – best adaptation (%)
Source: JRC, PESETA II Project

33. CAPRESE project impact of different irrigation strategies
Analysis of different irrigation strategies for growing maize in Europe
Irrigation water
requirement
Relative difference in
maize productivity
33

34. Source: van den Berg et al., 2011

35. Source: van den Berg et al., 2011

36. Source: van den Berg et al., 2011