54686 No. 125 / March 2010 Social and Institutional Barriers to Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture Agriculture is one of the major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting for approximately 14 percent of total GHG emissions. However, unlike other sectors such as transport or energy, agriculture is potentially a significant carbon "sink". Moreover, because the majority of GHG emissions from agriculture originate in developing countries, early intervention could be highly cost-effective. This note examines the potential role of agriculture in climate change mitigation. It discusses: 1) the sector's current GHG emissions, 2) its potential to serve as a sink, 3) best management practices that can be adopted to mitigate climate change, and 4) social and institutional barriers to adopting agricultural mitigation measures, and ways to overcome them. Introduction likely increase in emissions from the agriculture sector unless there is technological Agricultural land currently covers 40-50 advancement in farming and livestock rearing. percent of the Earth's land surface and Nitrous oxide emissions are expected to accounts for approximately 14 percent of increase up to 35-60% and methane emissions global GHG emissions. Nitrous oxide and could jump by as much as 60% by 2030 (FAO, methane, which account for the vast majority 2002). With a combined 95% increase in the of agricultural GHGs, come from various period 1990 to 2020, the Middle East and North sources. Nitrous oxide (N2O), the primary Africa region and Sub-Saharan Africa are regulator of stratospheric ozone, originates expected to experience the highest growth in from nitrogen-based fertilizers, while emissions. methane gas is commonly emitted by both livestock- particularly ruminants such as Figure 1. Sources of agricultural greenhouse gases, cattle, goat, and sheep, which produce it as a excluding land use change (Mt CO2-eq) by-product of digestion (enteric fermentation)- and wetland rice fields- which release methane in the course of anaerobic decomposition. Agricultural emissions also come from various other sources such as degradation of land, use of fossil fuel, and burning of agricultural residues (see figure 1). With the continuing population expansion, the demand for cereal and animal based foods is expected to rise in coming decades. Increased demand for food and livestock also means a Data Source: Bellarby et al. (2008) Agricultural emissions are also expected to Nonetheless, the technical mitigation increase in other regions. In East Asia, potential, although important may go increased rearing of livestock is expected to unrealized in the absence of robust economic push emissions higher as the region's and regulatory structures that place a burgeoning urban population drives up premium on the price of carbon. The global demand for livestock and dairy products. In economic potential for GHG agricultural South Asia, increase in use of nitrogen-based mitigation depends upon the carbon price fertilizers and manure to meet the growing (see figure 2), and is estimated to be lower demand for food is expected to continue than the technical potential, which is driving up emissions. estimated to be ~5500-6,000 MtCO2-eq/yr. Mitigation Potential of Agriculture Mitigation Measures In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Agricultural mitigation measures seek to Climate Change estimated that the current either increase the capacity of land to absorb agricultural technical mitigation potential is carbon emissions ("sink") or limit emissions expected to be around 5-6 gigatons CO2e produced in agricultural processes ("souce"). (excluding land use change). About 80 percent There are four broad categories of measures: of agriculture emissions come from developing 1) Cropland and pasture management countries and approximately 70 percent of 2) Restoration of degraded land agricultural mitigation potential could be 3) Livestock and manure management realized in developing countries (IFAD, 2008). 4) Bioenergy use Figure 2. Economic potential for GHG agricultural mitigation by 2030 Source: Smith et al. (2007) 2 Cropland and Pasture Management instance, in Colombia the Caribbean Savannah Carbon Sink Project stopped land Cropland and pasture management is degradation on the coastal plains by using considered to be one of the most promising silvopastoral and reforestation systems. As a agricultural mitigation measures. As result of these measures, the ecosystem is croplands in many parts of the world are expected to sequester approximately 0.25 intensely harvested, they offer many metric ton CO2e by 2017. opportunities to impose practices that reduce net GHG emissions. The technical potential of soil organic carbon sequestration through Livestock and Manure Management adoption of recommended management practices for world cropland soil alone is Farmed livestock is the second largest source expected to be in between 0.4 billion to 1.2 of anthropogenic methane- a gas with a billion metric tons of carbon per year. Some of global warming potential 20 times that of the crop and pasture management CO2. Enteric fermentation in cattle accounts technologies that increase soil carbon for approximately 80 million metric tons of sequestration include: (a) no-till farming with the total annual methane emissions, which is residue mulch and cover cropping, (b) crop more than methane emission arising from rotations, (c) use of soil amendments (such as landfills and biomass burning. Moreover, compost, zeolites, and biochar), (d) controlled methane emissions from farmed livestock are fire as a rejuvenation method, and (e) expected to grow very rapidly. By 2030, reduction of soil disturbance. methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture are projected to increase by 35-60 percent. There are several ways to reduce Restoration of Degraded Lands emissions from livestock. They include: (a) helping farmers in developing countries Land degradation is a global problem causing obtain and maintain higher-yielding breeds, GHG emissions. Emissions from degraded (b) imposing regulatory frameworks for lands can often be addressed in a cost- managing manure in all countries, (c) effective manner by restoring the land. It is improving the diets of ruminants, (d) estimated that approximately 600 million to 1 manipulation of the intestinal bacteria of billion metric tons of carbon can be rumens. sequestered through restoration of degraded soils every year. Measures that help restore Likewise, methane from manure can be degraded lands and reduce emissions reduced by cooling, use of solid covers, include: reforestation, re-vegetation (e.g. mechanical separation of solids from slurry, planting grasses), improving fertility through composting of manure, or through methane nutrient amendments, application of organic capture. For instance, the Thailand Advance substrates like manures, biosolids and Energy Plus Company (AEP) Livestock Waste composts, and retaining crop residues. Management Project aims to reduce 59,781 tCO2e of greenhouse gas emissions from Degraded land can be restored through swine manure annually through biogas carbon sequestration quite inexpensively. capture. With the cost of carbon sequestration as low as USD 1.77 per tCO2e, agroforestry offers a significant and cost-effective means of reclaiming land productivity and reducing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. For 3 Bioenergy Mitigation Barriers Bioenergy, which includes bioethanol, Even though a significant mitigation potential biodiesel, and biomass, can affect net carbon exists in the agriculture sector, realizing this emissions in two ways. First, it can displace potential is not easy and may not be possible fossil fuel energy consumption. For example, unless the existing social, economic, and biofuel could displace a significant fraction of institutional barriers are addressed. Figure 3 fossil fuel and reduce current GHG emissions illustrates some of the important barriers and by 9 to 24 percent in the United States. For ways to overcome them. Household and instance, the impact of gasohol (a community characteristics play a crucial role combination of gasoline and 10 percent in influencing resource-poor smallholder ethanol) on air quality in São Paulo, Brazil has farmers' decisions to participate in the been an estimated 25 percent reduction in proposed mitigation activities. Past payment carbon monoxide. Second, the vegetation for ecosystem services (PES) experiences planted to produce fuel also acts as a carbon clearly show that characteristics such as sink thereby offsetting global fossil fuel education, income, labor, skills and technical emissions through increased soil carbon capacity, and access to credit to a large extent sequestration. influence households' decisions to participate in such programs. Figure 3. Factors affecting household and community participation in Agricultural Mitigation programs Barriers Physical & Financial Human Capital Natural Capital Social Capital Lack of Assets & No farming experiences Land tenure insecurity Poor networks and Savings reciprocity No access to credit Lack of education Undefined land rights Lack of social rules Lack of equipment & Poor health & nutrition Lack of access to forest & Trust deficiency infrastructure water resources Seed Capital Regular extension services Land rights recognition Inclusive consultation Marketing support Regular technical assistance Equal access to forest & Support for local water resources institutions Infrastructure Investment Educational & healthcare Access to fallow & Social Mobilization service support unused land Barrier Removal Options 4 Large scale participation of the poor will Insufficient know-how largely depend upon how well the programs Many smallholder farmers in poor are designed and to what extent they address developing countries lack the requisite household and community needs and capital knowledge to participate effectively in asset differentials. This section identifies four agricultural mitigation projects. For example, of the most crucial barriers: (1) High start-up in the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal, the large and transaction costs (2) Insufficient know- majority of smallholder farmers reported not how (3) Land tenure insecurity (4) Lack of knowing the composition of certain types of social cohesion & trust. fertilizer and the nitrogen fixing capacity of plants such as groundnut, and not having High Start-up and Transaction Costs seen extension agents for over 30 years The potential benefits from agricultural (Tschakert, 2007). mitigation projects have to be weighed against the transaction costs. For resource- Poor farmers' ability to actually benefit from poor farmers facing capital constraints, high the proposed projects will greatly depend transaction cost could mean little gains. For upon the skills required to participate in example, a study conducted by The and Ngoc carbon offset schemes. Programs should, (2006) to assess constraints and opportunities thus, ensure regular extension services and for adopting PES schemes in the forestry technical assistance. sector in three selected upland communities in central Vietnam reveals that the transaction Land tenure insecurity cost of USD 20 per hectare/per annum of In many developing countries, the prospects forest enrolled in the PES scheme was about of implementing carbon sequestration twice as high as the amount they received for projects may actually turn out to be a lot more a hectare of forest under the PES scheme. difficult than anticipated because of the High start-up and transaction costs associated pervasiveness of land tenure insecurity. with small-scale agricultural projects could, Participating in these projects require a thus, make these projects unattractive to the significant upfront investment for land-use resource-poor smallholder farmers, because modifications or improvements. In the they may end up not benefiting from the absence of secure tenure, resource-poor project at all. farmers do not have enough incentives to make long-term investments. One way of lowering the transaction costs is by issuing contracts to groups rather than A review of agroforestry adoption in Africa individuals. But even when the transaction clearly illustrates that land tenure security has costs are spread out, some forms of mitigation a positive effect on the adoption of improved from smallholder agriculture may still not be management practices (Pattanayak et al., cost effective because of low returns. In such 2003). A study conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, cases, public finance may have an important Tanzania, and Uganda shows a correlation role to play if the actual mitigation potential between security of tenure and conservation from smallholder agriculture is to be realized. measures (Stahl, 1993). Often, in addition to transaction cost support, investment and infrastructure support may In the absence of secure land tenure, it is also be necessary. difficult for poor farmers to make credible commitments to supply carbon offsets. One of the ways to getting started in areas with 5 complex land tenure problems is by working the same community, households may differ on common lands and sharing project benefits in access to land, control over resources, with the entire community. In such cases, as capital assets, and the availability of both land does not belong to any specific formal and informal institutions. If these individual or household, the entire differences are not taken into consideration, community gains from these group programs may end up widening the poverty payments. gap rather than bridging it. Lack of Social Cohesion & Trust References Social capital is an important factor in the Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., Smith, P. acquisition and distribution of benefits from (2008). Cool Farming: Climate impacts agricultural mitigation projects. The extent to of agriculture and mitigation which smallholder farmers will benefit from potential, Greenpeace International, projects will depend upon their capacity to Amsterdam (NL). organize themselves and act as pressure groups for collective action and also on how well they FAO (2002). World Agriculture: Towards can bargain with carbon traders and the state 2015/2030. An FAO Perspective. FAO: structures that mediate or regulate carbon Rome. trading programs. Equitable distribution of the benefits can only be ensured when individuals FAO (2009). Harvesting agriculture's multiple or groups participating in the projects are benefits: Mitigation, Adaptation, responsible for collectively selecting Development and Food Security. technologies, developing land management FAO: Rome. plans, mobilizing farmers' participation, establishing contracts and monitoring IFAD (2008). Climate change and the future of compliance. smallholder agriculture. Available online at < Lack of social cohesion and trust is one of the http://www.ifad.org/climate/roundt major barriers towards successful able/index.htm> implementation of agricultural mitigation programs, especially in countries or regions Lal, R. and Bruce, J.P. (1999). The potential of with low social capital due to ethnic conflict world cropland soils to sequester C and conflict over the management of common and mitigate the greenhouse effect. pool resources. Mitigation programs will Environmental Science & Policy, 2, need to invest in supporting existing local 177-185. institutions or the creation of new ones. Niggli, U., Fliessbach, A., Hepperly, P. and Conclusions Scialabba, N. (2009). Low Greenhouse Gas Agriculture: Mitigation and Agricultural mitigation projects can provide Adaptation Potential of Sustainable significant benefits to the poor through Farming Systems. ROME: FAO. livelihood diversification; however, projects must be tailored to suit the local socio- Neue, H. (1993). Methane emission from rice economic and institutional context. Not all fields: Wetland rice fields may make a communities are alike in terms of resource major contribution to global warming. endowments and entitlements. Even within BioScience 43 (7): 466-73. 6 Pattanayak, S.K., Mercer, D.E., Sills, E., Yang, Soule, M.J., Tegene, A. and Wiebe, K.D. J.C. (2003). Taking stock of (2000). Land tenure and the adoption agroforestry adoption studies. of conservation practices, American Agroforestry Systems 57, 173­186. Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (4), 993­1005. Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, Tschakert, P. (2007). Environmental services F. O'Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes and O. and poverty reduction: Options for Sirotenko (2007). smallholders in the Sahel. Agricultural Systems 94, 75­86. Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working The, B. D., and Ngoc, H. B. ( 2006). Payment Group III to the Fourth Assessment for Environmental Services in Report of the Intergovernmental Panel Vietnam: Assessing an Economic on Climate Change (B. Metz, O.R. Approach to Sustainable Forest Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and Management. Research Report 2006- L.A. Meyer, eds.). Cambridge RR3. Economy and Environment University Press, Cambridge, UK, and Program for Southeast Asia, New York, NY, USA. Singapore. Stahl, M. (1993). Combatting land US-EPA (2006) Global Anthropogenic Non- degradation in eastern Africa ­ CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990- technical, institutional and social 2020. United States Environmental aspects' in Baum, E., Wolff, P., and M. Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-06-003, Zoebisch (eds.) Acceptance of soil and Washington, D.C., water conservation. Strategies and technologies. Witzenhausen, Germany: DITSL. This note was prepared by Hari Bansha Dulal and Gernot Brodnig. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, its affiliated organizations, or members of its Board of Executive Directors or the country they represent. For additional copies please contact: socialdevelopment@worldbank.org 7 ABOUT THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE: Climate change may be the defining social justice issue of our generation. It brings into sharp relief a vision of a world that is highly polarized - between heavy greenhouse gas-emitting countries and resource-poor countries that will suffer the worst consequences. The rich countries of the world are predominantly responsible for climate change, while poor people in poor countries bear the brunt of its impacts. Already putting at risk the lives, livelihoods, health and well-being of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, climate change impacts the very existence of the poorest and most vulnerable who lack the financial, technical, human and institutional resources to adapt. Such threats include increased water stress, food insecurity resulting from droughts, desertification, new health risks, and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. The Social Development Department of the World Bank is taking the lead to build a greater understanding of how climate change affects people's lives and communities around the world, especially in developing countries, and of what can be done to reduce their vulnerability and build climate resilience.