Mitigation Potential and Value of Addressing Agriculture as a Driver of Deforestation

Sirintornthep Towprayoon

Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment and Earth System Science Research Center. King Mongkut's University of Thonburi

Presentation in the workshop of Building REDD-plus Policy Capacity for Developing Country Negotiators and Land Managers 18-20 May 2011 Hanoi Veitnam

Outline

• Agriculture as the driver of deforestation• Are agricultural mitigation options drivers of

deforestation?• Values and costs of agricultural mitigation• Agricultural mitigation as the complement to

deforestation

Developing countries Developed countries

World

Change of agricultural land from 1961–2002

Type of area change (Mha)

Source : Data derived from FAO and AR4

FRA 2010

Annual change in forest by region, 1990–2010 Change of agricultural land from 1961–2002

IPCC AR4

Driver to deforestation

Deforestation

Crop priceTechnology

PovertyPopu

latio

n gr

owth

Forest fire

Soil

degradation

Agriculture

Are agricultural mitigation options driver to deforestation?

Culture

Mitigation technologies in the agricultural sector

• Livestock management– Improve feedings practice, dietary additive

• Manure management– Improve storage and handling, AD, efficient use of

nutrient source

• Direct mitigation : Emission Reduction • Indirect mitigation : Avoid CO2 emission

Mitigation technologies in the agricultural sector (cont)

• Cropland management – Nutrient management– Tillage/residue management– Water management– Rice management– Agroforestry

• Restoration of degraded land– Organic amendment– Nutrient amendment

Mitigation technologies in the agricultural sector (cont)

• Biofuel/bioenergy – Biochar– Energy crop :

• Sugarcane to bioethanol, • Oil palm to biodiesel

Examples of mitigation technology• Cropland: nutrient management

Nutrient management

Reduction efficiency (%)

Source

Nitrification (Nitrification inhibitor)

38% Akiyama et al., 2009

Polymer-coated fertilizers

35% Akiyama et al., 2009

Dicyandiamide ( Nitrification inhibitor)

20–30% Hadi et al., 2008

Site-specific nutrient management

20% Tassanee et al

Co-fertilizer of organic and chemical

46% Zheng et al., 2000

Source: Pongthep and Amnat 2010

Examples of mitigation technology

• Cropland: rice field – Water management 30–40% reduction– SRI (system rice intensification) approx 37%

reduction– AWDI (alternative wet /dry irrigation) approx 70%

reduction– Inhibitor 20–60% reduction

Source : Tassanee and Sirintornthep 2010

Values and cost of agricultural mitigation

IPCC AR4 WGIII SPM

Abatement cost in rice field: Case of Thailand $10–60 per tonne of CO2e

2020 Cost Curve

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

- 2 4 6 8 10

CO2 Avoided(Millions TCO2e)

Cost

($/

T CO

2e)

2050 Cost Curve

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

- 2 4 6 8 10

CO2 Avoided(Millions TCO2e)

Cost

($

/T C

O2e

)

1 water drainage2 shift fertilizer3 combination of 1 and 2

1

23 3

2

1

Wassman et al 2007

Marginal abatement cost curves for 3rd

Baseline technology: continuous flooding ,Mixed FYM/urea: straw burning

10-60 US$ /tCe

Abatement cost curve in agriculture sector of Indonesia

Value /Co-benefit

• Sustainable agriculture• Culture and way of life• Income • Environmental benefit

Agricultural mitigation as the complement to deforestation

deforestation

Crop priceLimited land expansion

Food and fuel crop competition

-Full utilization of cropland – crop rotation-Improve crop yield

Poverty alleviation

Crop rotation as the alternative systems for sustainable agriculture

Rice-crop-rice

RI plot

wet sowing 25 DAS

40 DAS 115 DAS

130 DAS 140 DAS, harvest

RS plot

22 DAT 37 DAT

60 DAT 90 DAT

115 DAT, harvest105 DAT

Yield from food and fuel rotation crop • Agricultural area of

Thailand 130.34 M Rai

• Area of rain-fed rice field (2010) 57.50 M rai  rice yield  23.25 M tonnes

• Area of irrigated rice field (2010) 15.22 M rai rice yield 8.86 M tonnes

• Sweet sorghum• Cultivation time 90-100 days• Yield 5-7 tonnes per Rai• Syrup from stem 2500-3500

litre per rai• Bioethanol 350-420 litre per

Rai

Source: Stephen A. Goff and John M. Salmeron, 2004.

Yield improvement

Direction of GMO research and biotechnology

05101520253035404550

Sugarcane Cassava Oil Palm

Yield (ton per rai)

Highest potential using genetic research

Potential of genetic study in Thailand

Current yield

Potential of genetic improvement of energy crops

Management and technology

Plant breeding/plant development

Investment cost of ethanol production (USD/L)

SOurce : Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops :2007

0.20

0.26

0.30

0.30

0.32

0.68

0.71

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

บราซิ ล (อ้อย)

ออสเตรเลีย (กากน้ำ�า ตาล)

ไ ทย (อ้อย)

อินเดีย (กากน้ำ�า ตาล)

สหรัฐอเมริกา (ข้าวโพด)

อียู -25 (ข้าวสาลี)

อียู -25 (บีท รูท )EU-25 (Beetroot)

EU-25 (Wheat)

USA (corn)

India (Molasses)

Thailand ( Sugarcane)

Australia (Molasses)

Brazil (Sugarcane)

Food Fuel and Forest

deforestation

Crop price Limited land expansion

Food and fuel crop competition

-Full utilization of cropland—crop rotation-Improve crop yield

Poverty alleviation

Policies and

incentives

Messages

• Sustainable agriculture and agricultural mitigation can be complementary to deforestation

• Full utilization of cropland with co-benefits for farmers

• Food security can not be addressed without yield improvement.

• Policies and incentives are key issue to ensure sustainable agriculture towards negative drivers of deforestation

Acknowledgement

• Thailand Research Fund and Energy and Policy Planning Office for Data from Energy Policy Project Phase II

• Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization

Thank you for your attention

www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th