Target setting in agriculture
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•182 views
This presentation was given by Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS Low Emissions Development Flagship, at a workshop on ICF transparency and long-term strategies for LED on September 28th, 2020.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Target setting in agriculture
Similar to Target setting in agriculture (20)
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Target setting in agriculture
- 1. Target setting in agriculture ICF Transparency and Long-term Strategies for LED workshop 28 Sept, 2020 Lini Wollenberg CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
- 2. How much mitigation is needed in agriculture? A goal can help • Guide ambition • Indicate the relevance of mitigation contributions • Drive innovation
- 3. 0.76 0.31 1.71 1.77 2.00 1.37 4.31 1.20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Livestock supply chains Decrease food waste Shift dietary patterns Avoided deforestation by agriculture Soil carbon Mitigation (GtCO2e/yr)
- 4. Technical or economic potential? Aspirational or conservative? Tie to a policy target? 1.5 or 2 degrees? 2030 2050 Avg/yr to 2100? 2010-most recent data 2020-Paris Agreement 2030 baseline projections Sector: CH4 and N2O + C sequestration Sector-related Ag-driven deforestation Supply chains, including diet shifts and waste Full food security Current % insecurity Annual
- 6. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/ 2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf 2018 Special IPCC report on 1.5 degree
- 7. Calculating a global target for agriculture
- 8. Meeting the 2°C or 1.5°C goals requires mitigation of agricultural emissions Baseline emissions van Vuuren et al. 2011 Emissions under the 2°C scenario
- 9. 1.5 degrees IXMP Scenario Explorer: https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc- 1.5c-explorer/ To identify agricultural emissions targets 1. Filter for scenario 1. SSP2 –middle of the road 2. RCP 1.9 or RCP 2.6 plus baselines 2. Filter for AFOLU 3. Filter for CH4 and N2O
- 10. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 Emissionsfromagriculture(GtCO2e/yr) Agriculture will need to limit its emissions to about 6-8 Gigatonnes CO2 equivalents per year by 2030 This requires mitigation of 1 Gigatonne per year based on our current trajectory. The agriculture sector must reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions by 1 Gigatonne per year by 2030 to stay within the 2°C limit Baseline 2°C scenario Wollenberg et al. 2016
- 11. 1.5 degree target (RCP 1.9) – percent change needed 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 2020 2030 2040 2050 % mitigation needed 2020-2050 relative to baseyear AIM/CGE 2.0 GCAM 4.2 MESSAGE-GLOBIOM 1.0 REMIND-MAgPIE 1.5
- 13. What does a global target mean at the country level? Mitigation of 1 Gigatonne per year ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- 14. Approaches for allocating targets Principles of effort sharing Approach Responsibility 1. Cumulative emissions from all sectors 1890-2010 2. Cumulative agricultural emissions 1960-2010 Capability 3. Cumulative agricultural emissions and gross domestic product, weighted equally 4. Cumulative agricultural emissions and human development index, weighted equally Equality 5. Equal agricultural emissions per capita, with convergence by 2030 6. Equal agricultural emissions per capita, with convergence by 2050 Responsibility, capability and need 7. Responsibility and capability index per the Climate Equity Reference Calculator (Kemp-Benedict et al., 2017) Equal cumulative per capita emissions 8. Equal cumulative agricultural emissions per capita 1960–2030, per Pan et al. (2014) 9. Equal cumulative agricultural emissions per capita 1960–2050, per Pan et al. (2014)
- 15. Results: Equal cumulative agricultural emissions per capita 1960–2050 If the target was allocated such that all countries have equal cumulative emissions from agriculture by 2050, many developing countries could increase their emissions from agriculture and still meet their targets.
- 16. Richards, M., Wollenberg, E., & van Vuuren, D. (2018). National Contributions to climate change mitigation from agriculture: allocating a global target. Climate Policy. http://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1430018 Wollenberg, E., M. Richards, P. Smith, P. Havlík, M. Obersteiner, F.N. Tubiello, M. Herold, P. Gerber, S. Carter, A. Reisinger, D. van Vuuren, A. Dickie, H. Neufeldt, B.O. Sander, R. Wassmann, R. Sommer, J.E. Amonette, A. Falcucci, M. Herrero, C. Opio, R. Roman- Cuesta, E. Stehfest, H. Westhoek, I. Ortiz-Monasterio, T. Sapkota, M.C. Rufino, P.K. Thornton, L. Verchot, P.C. West, J.-F. Soussana, T. Baedeker, M. Sadler, S. Vermeulen, B.M. Campbell. 2016. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2°C target. Global Change Biology. doi:10.1111/gcb.13340 Lini Wollenberg CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Thank you! 3 November 2020 SBSTA 44, Bonn
- 17. Principles for allocating targets UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992): Parties to take action to mitigate climate change ‘on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ Paris Agreement (2015): Implementation to ‘reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of differing national circumstances’
- 18. Approaches used for calculating country-level mitigation targets (Table 1)
Editor's Notes
- We know agricultural mitigation is probably necessary to meet climate targets. Can we do it?
- Substantial mitigation possible based on estimates of what is feasible to adopt, but we also need 2 degree targets for these sectors Low and high estimates just represent different sources Agroforestry could also be on here- .39 Gt economic potential
- http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/kp_data_unfccc/base_year_data/items/4354.php
- Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
- Evne with carbon at $20-50/t Co2
- Agriculture currently contributes 10-12% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. While that’s a relevant figure, and gives a sense of the scale of agriculture’s contribution to climate change, what’s really important in talking about setting targets for the future is that scenarios for a 2-degree world show agricultural and agriculture-related emissions will constitute the largest sector of surplus emissions in the future (Gernaat et al., 2015) Excluding agricultural emissions from mitigation will increase the cost of mitigation in other sectors, or reduce the feasibility of limiting warming to 2°C (Reisinger et al. 2013) Scenarios indicate that agricultural and agriculture-related emissions, including non-CO2 emissions, will constitute the largest sector of surplus emissions in the future, as other sectors are projected to reduce their emissions to the maximal extent by 2030, so agriculture is critical to meeting global climate targets (Bajzelj et al., 2014; Gernaat et al., 2015). If we want to attempt 1.5 degrees, we have to tackle agriculture. Excluding agricultural emissions from mitigation targets will increase the cost of mitigation in other sectors (Reisinger et al., 2013) or reduce the feasibility of meeting the 2¡C limit.
- To calculate the target emissions, we used the scenario prepared for the IPCC that represents the 2 degree world – Representative concentration pathway 2.6, so named for its radiative forcing, and identified the agricultural emissions associated with this scenario in 2030. We then compared the agricultural emissions in this 2-degree scenario to the agricultural emissions in the baseline, business-as-usual scenario. We examined the difference between the baseline and 2-degree scenario as implemented in 3 different integrated assessment models. What we found was that to meet the target of limiting warming to 2-degrees in 2100, we will need to limit agricultural emissions to around 6-8 Gigatonnes per year, in 2030, which means mitigating about 1 Gigatonne of CO2-equivalent emissions per year by 2030, compared to what would happen if we took no action at all. This is JUST for methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture That’s about equivalent to removing 210 billion cars from the road. That is . . . an 11-18% reduction relative to the 2030 business-as-usual baseline. ~4-5% of the 26 GtCO2e/yr in mitigation needed across all sectors in 2030 to achieve the 2°C limit.
- Evne with carbon at $20-50/t Co2
- So we have a global target. But the Paris agreement is not based on a global climate regime, it’s based on contributions by individual countries. So what does that 1 gigatonne target mean for individual countries? How to allocate a global target across nations?
- IPCC AR5 (Fleurbaey et al., 2014), using a review of existing approaches by Höhne, den Elzen, and Escalante (2014) grouped the approaches into six categories using particular definitions of equity principles (Pan et al., 2017): responsibility, capability, equality, responsibility-capability-need, equal cumulative per capita emissions and staged approaches. We tested nine approaches to calculate a range of country-level mitigation goals, covering all categories of effort sharing approaches. [I wouldn’t go into the details of how these were all calculated, it would take much too long, but the details are all in section 2.2 of the article]
- In this approach, all countries’ per capita emissions converge to the same value in 2050, and every country’s cumulative per capita emissions from the historical start year (1960) up to year 2050 must also be equal (see schematic under “extra slides”) Most developed countries, having already exceeded their per-capita allocation, were assigned mitigation targets close to or more than 100% of their baseline agricultural emissions. For example, Australia had, as of 2015, already surpassed its cumulative per-person emission allocation for the period 1960–2030. Therefore, Australia would be assigned negative agricultural emissions during the years 2016 to 2029. Conversely, Ghana still had a large part of its cumulative allocation remaining in 2015, and would be allowed to increase its agricultural emissions substantially during the same period.
- In the text of the UNFCCC, Parties agreed to take action to mitigate climate change ‘on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (CBDR-RC). The Paris Agreement affirmed the principle of CBDR-RC – qualifying it with the clause ‘in light of different national circumstances’ (Article 2.2) and eliminated the distinction between Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing) countries of the original Convention Although there is not currently consensus under the UNFCCC on how to define a fair and ambitious mitigation contribution for each country (Pan et al., 2017; Winkler et al., 2017), numerous allocation schemes have been proposed to operationalize the principles of equity and CBDR-RC.