Actions to Achieve Sustainable Agriculture while Responding to Climate Change Goals Fahmuddin Agus Indonesian Soil Research Institute Jln. Juanda 98, Bogor 16123, Indonesia REDD-plus after Cancun: Moving from Negotiation to Implementation Building REDD-plus Policy Capacity for Developing Country Negotiators and Land Managers 18-20 May 2011, Hanoi, Vietnam
28
Embed
Actions to Achieve Sustainable Agriculture while Responding to Climate Change Goals
Fahmuddin Agus Indonesian Soil Research Institute Jln . Juanda 98, Bogor 16123, Indonesia. Actions to Achieve Sustainable Agriculture while Responding to Climate Change Goals. REDD-plus after Cancun: Moving from Negotiation to Implementation Building REDD-plus Policy Capacity for - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Actions to Achieve Sustainable Agriculture
while Responding to Climate Change GoalsFahmuddin Agus
Indonesian Soil Research InstituteJln. Juanda 98, Bogor 16123, Indonesia
REDD-plus after Cancun: Moving from Negotiation to Implementation
Building REDD-plus Policy Capacity forDeveloping Country Negotiators and Land Managers
18-20 May 2011, Hanoi, Vietnam
Coverage Introduction Indonesian agricultureActions to achieve sustainable
agriculture and reduce emissions, and supporting policies needed
Source: Agus et al. 2011 (on-going study, unpublished)
Plantation/tree based agriculture
Oil palm plantation area increases very rapidly.
Generate foreign exchange earning Supports regional development ,
especially in Sumatera and Kalimantan islands
A driver of LUC OP plantation provides employment
to more than 3.5 millions households (as workers and farmers) or about 15 million people
Energy50.5%
Industry7.7%
Agriculture13.6%
Waste28.3%
Without LUCF
With LUCF
Source: MoE, 2009
Energy20% Industry
3%
Agriculture5%
Land Use Change and Forestry
47%
Peat Fire12%
Waste11%
Sector Gg CO2e
• Energy 280,938-
• Industry 42,815-
• Agriculture 75,420-
• Land Use Change and Forestry (excl. peat fire) 649,254-
• Peat Fire 172,000-
• Waste 157,328-
• Total without LUCF 535,730-• Total with LUCF(incl.peat fire) 1356,984-
Agriculture in GHG Emissions
Emission Rdxn target from the BAU of 2020
13
Sector ER target Emisi (Giga ton CO2e)
Action plan Implementers
26% 15%
Forestry and peatland
Waste management
Agriculture
Industry
Energy and transportation
0.672
0.048
0.008
0.001
0.038
0.367
0.030
0.003
0.004
0.018
Fire control, water mgmt, land and forest rehab, forest plantation, community forest, control of illegal logging, avoided defor, capacity building
Waste management, handling and recycling
Introduction of low CH4 emission varieties, water use efficiency, organic fertilizer
Energy efficiency, use of renewable energy.
Use of biofuel, more efficient engines, improvement of infrastructure, etc
MoF, MoE, PoPW, MoA
MoPW, PoE
MoA, MoE
M0I&T
MoTransportation, MoE&Minaral, MoP
0.767 0.422
Source: MoE, 2009
From REDD+ to REDD++ or REALU
Actions that potentially reduce emission: Peatland
Avoided deforestation Control of peat fire Use of ameliorant Water table control: as shallow as possible to
the level that does not detriment plant growth Prioritization of the use of drained peat
shrubs for plantation development
Actions on Mineral soil
Rehabilitation/utilization of Imperata grassland and shrubland for tree-based farming
Soil organic matter management: minimum tillage, organic matter recycling, use of biochar
0~250 t C/ha
Processes entailed in peat forest conversion
60 c
m
(2) Soil C oxidation
30-50 t C/ha
(1) Change in time average C stock
Peat subsidence (peat)
300-800 t C/m/ha in peat soil
15-200 t C/ha in surface of mineral soil
(3) Peat (soil) burning
Carbon balance related to LULUCF (t CO2/ha/year)
Land usePeat forest Shrub Oil palm
Rubber/AF Sawah Maize
Pine-apple
Vege-table
Peat forest 0 56 66 50 39 87 53 50Shrub 22 38 22 11 59 25 22Oil palm 32 x x x x xRubber/AF 16 x x x xSawah 5 x x xMaize 53 x xPineapple 19 xVegetable 16
Potential emission related to LUC on mineral soil
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Oil palm
Rubb
er
Cocon
ut
Jatrop
ha Tea
Suga
r cane Co
ffee
Cacao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
Plant
Soil
02468
101214161820
Oil palm
Rubb
er
Cocon
ut
Jatrop
ha Tea
Sugar
cane
Coffe
eCa
cao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
Plant
Soil
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Oil palm
Rubbe
r
Cocon
ut
Jatro
pha Te
a
Sugar
cane
Coffee
Cacao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
Plant
Soil-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Oil palm
Rubbe
r
Cocon
ut
Jatro
pha Te
a
Sugar
cane
Coffee
Cacao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
PlantSoil
Primary forest to plantation Secondary forest to plantation
Shrubland to plantation Imperata grassland to plantation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Oil palm
Rubb
er
Cocon
ut
Jatrop
ha Tea
Suga
r cane Co
ffee
Cacao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
Plant
Soil
02468
101214161820
Oil palm
Rubb
er
Cocon
ut
Jatrop
ha Tea
Sugar
cane
Coffe
eCa
cao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
Plant
Soil
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Oil palm
Rubbe
r
Cocon
ut
Jatro
pha Te
a
Sugar
cane
Coffee
Cacao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
Plant
Soil-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Oil palm
Rubbe
r
Cocon
ut
Jatro
pha Te
a
Sugar
cane
Coffee
Cacao
Plantation system
CO2
Emis
sion
s (t/
ha/y
r)
PlantSoil
Primary forest to plantation Secondary forest to plantation
Shrubland to plantation Imperata grassland to plantation
Source: Agus et al. (2009)
NAMA-LAMA and expected emission reduction in “Agriculture”
Avoid deep drainage (reduce drainage depth by about 10 cm) in peatland agriculture
Area (ha) At least 1.3 MhaAssumptions 1. Emission decrease 5,4 t CO2 ha-1 yr-1 with 10
cm reduction in drainage depth,2. This technology can be implemented on at
least 25% of plantation on peatland by 2020 .Estimated emission reduction (t CO2-e yr-1)
1,770,353
Supporting policy needed
• Extension on sustainable peatland management
Rehabilitation of shrubland with tree-based farming
Area1) (ha) 17,297,294 (MoE , 2009)Assumptions 2% of the shrubland with <30 t C/ha can be
converted to plantation with about 40 t C/ha (time average) annually
Estimated emission reduction (t CO2-e yr-1)
12,696,214
Supporting policy needed
• Evaluation of land suitability • Clearance of land status into “APL” if
it’s in conversion forest and production forest
• Clearance of multiple claims/tenures, if any
• Evaluation of labour availability • Provision of funds , quality planting
materials (for smallholders) for the establishment and maintenance until the system produces
Rehabilitation of bare/Imperata grassland with tree based farming
Area1) (ha) 6,194,949 (MoE , 2009)Assumptions 2% of the bareland (2 t C/ha) can be
converted to tree based systems (40 t C/ha)
Estimated emission reduction (t CO2-e yr-1)
17,278,952
Supporting policy needed
• Evaluation of land suitability • Clearance of land status into “APL”
if it’s in conversion forest and production forest
• Clearance of multiple claims/tenures, if any
• Evaluation of labor availability • Provision of funds for the
establishment and maintenance until the system produces
Soil organic matter management on (annual) upland agriculture
Area1) (ha) 10,536,523 (MoE , 2009)Assumptions This option is implemented on 2% of the
total area to increase SOC from the average of 80 t ha-1 to 88 t ha-1 (time average)
Estimated emission reduction (t CO2-e yr-1)
3,093,523
Supporting policy needed
Technical guidance of the use and benefits of locally available organic matter
Land swap for agric. extensification from high C stock (including peat) land bank to low C stock
areas within same district Area1) (ha) ?Assumptions Area for swapping is available within same
district, seems too complicated across districts Estimated emission reduction (t CO2-e yr-1)
-
Supporting policy needed
• Clearance of the status of the substitute land into “APL”
• Change in land status of the high C land bank to conservation area
• Clearance of multiple claims/tenures, if any
• Evaluation of labour availability
Summing the ER from Agric.(under very conservative assumptions)
NAMA-LAMAEstimated ER by 2020 (t CO2-e yr-1)
Avoid deep drainage on peatland 1,770,353
Water management, variety on paddy field 8,000,000Rehabilitation of shrubland 12,696,214
Rehabilitation of Imperata grassland 17,278,952 Organic matter management on annual upland
3,093,523
TOTAL 42,839,042
Basic Requirement for NAMA-LAMA Development
Emission factorsVerified and agreed land cover and
land status map for developing LUC matrices
Example of LUC matrixCentral Kalimantan Mineral Land Cover 2005 UDF DIF USF UDM DSF DIM RPL OPL TPL MTC SCH SSH DCL SET GRS SGR RCF CFP MIN WAB BRL NCLTotal_ha
CONCLUSIONS Indonesian agriculture intensifies and the area extends
(esp. for OP) in response to domestic and international demands
Rehabilitation of low C-stock land to tree-based agriculture can reduce GHG emission and at the same time improve the economy and livelihoods. Clearance of land status and tenure is a prerequisite.
Technical and financial supports are required for developing smallholder tree-based farming.
Swapping the land bank to low C-stock areas promises a significant ER, but requires legal reform on land status.
Verified and agreed land cover and land status maps and emission factors are the key to moving forward