Transcript Agroforestry_COLOMB

Erasmus Mundus conference on
Climate change
Rethinking agriculture through
Agroforestry to fight against climate
change
Vincent COLOMB
MSc European Forestry
[email protected]
Plan
•Introduction
Agriculture contribution to climate change
Agroforestry : one word many meanings
•Stocking Carbon
•A traditional system adapted for modern needs
•Main challenges for further development
•Main farmer’s reluctances
•Legislation
•Education
•Short term economic system / Externalities
•Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture contribution to climate change
GHG from agriculture (2005)
NH2
70%
10%
Agriculture
Total GHS
CH4
70%
85%
+ 17% 1990
CO2
5%
Ref : IPCC 2007
Agroforestry : one word many meanings
Combining annual production (crop or
animals) and perennial one (tree) on the same
unit of land
Sylvopastoralisme
tropical
Alley cropping
Multi-storey system
Agroforesterie
Sylvopastoralisme
temperate
Alley cropping
Cattle + eucalyptus
Brazil
Photo : NIKOSHELI
NEPOMUCENO 2007
2. Coffee +Eucalyptus
Costa Rica
1. Cacao + Karité
Uganda
Photo : 1.SAFE 2005, 2.-3.Laval University
3. Wheat+ Paulownias
China
Cattle + Ash tree
West of France
Photo SAFE 2005
Wheat + Walnut
South of France
Photo SAFE 2005
STOCKING CARBON
•Mechanisms
Direct : Deep fine root degradation;
tree growing
Indirect: Better efficiency
of resources, less
deforestation
European scale : potential
: 65 M ha 20% of
farmers; 20% of farm =>
2.6 M ha =>2.6 M m3
25% tropical timber
annual import in 90s
100% tropical logs
(SAFE 2005)
Source
System
Tonnes C
FAO 2002
AF, non specified
2 to 9 t C/yr/ha
SAFE 2005
Grass land converted to
agroforestry (100
Populus/ha)
0,46 t C/yr/ha
European AF
25% timber import, 100
high quality logs
Nair 2004
Small holder tropical AF
1ha AF=> Save 5 ha
deforestation
1.5 to 3.5 t C /ha/yr
Schoeneberger 2008
No till Nebraska(USA) using
windbreak and riperian AF
50 yr rotation, net
sequestration =0,55 t/ha/yr
IPCC 2000
Land use change
3,11 t/ha/yr
Albrecht and Kandji 2003
Tropical AF systems
0,24-4,56 t/ha/yr; median
value of 1,9t/ha/yr
Min
t/ha/yr
0,58
0,78
Max
t/ha/yr
1,06
2,04
0,78
0,24
3,9
4,56
1,36
0,56
2,66
1,62
1,02
3,08
2,08
1,8
3,96
3,5
0,3
0,36
TEMPERATE AGROFORESTRY :
ASSETS AND CHALLENGES
•A traditional system adapted to modern’s need
Productivity and Profitability
Land equivalent ratio (LER) : Surface needed to produce same quantity
in separate systems
Ex Poplar+ wheat :1 ha AF = 0,53 ha crop+ 0,8 ha timber=> LER= 1,33
Productivity of the rotation (discount rate 4%, crop =1)
Net Actual Value : 0,85 (low quality timber) to 2,25 (high quality timber)
Adapted to modern agriculture : mechanisation, fertilization…
Biodiversity and landscape
•Legislation
 Europe : Common Agricultural Policy
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1698/2005 (EAFRD)
2.2 Improving the environment and the countryside
Art.36 and 44 : Support should be granted for agroforestry systems on
agricultural land, especially for planting costs
France: full CAP subsidies for less than 50 tree/ha, regional subsidies for
plantations
Spain : Catalonia : « slow growing species »,180 tree/ha, subs.: 1400€/ha
subtraction of crop area
FAO 2002, 300 M ha suitable for AF, « the best way to bury
carbon productively is agroforestry”
Kyoto Protocol, IPCC, CDM
•Main farmer’s reluctances
Long term benefit
Past decades : reorganisation of land ownership, defragmentation
and mechanisation , trees no more desired in field
Farmers not familiars with wood production (pruning…)
Common Agricultural Policy
•Education (Europe) and research
Agronomy and Agricultural university « vs. » Forestry
universities
Agronomists :
« 50 years before harvesting trees??? »
Foresters :
« It’s not a forest », « tree won’t grow straight »
But…
Erasmus Mundus programs
Project CASDAR : CRPF, Agronomy institutes (C.A)
Special competences
•Short term economic system / Externalities
Environmental costs not integrated in economic system… « Privatising
benefits and sharing costs »
BUT …
Carbon emission trade market (cost AF $1–69/t C, median $13/t C)
Agricultural policy
Consumers’ demand
•Development
More than 3000 ha in France
90 M ha Potential for EU
World 400Mha; potential 1 200 Mha
1,2 Billion people depending on AF
(IPCC)
CONCLUSION
•Conclusion
Adapting a traditional efficient agronomic system for today’s need
Improving environment without sacrificing (improving) medium time
profitability
Getting to collaborate « Agronomy world » and « Forestry world »
Developing Temperate AF system, from research institute to field…
1st phase : « pioneer famers »,
2nd phase : challenge for transfer to « average farmers »
Importance of agricultural and climate change policy regulations in the
future
•References:
Albrecht A. and Kandji S.T. 2003 Carbon sequestration in tropical
agroforestry systems, Review
FAO 2002 La sequestration du carbon dans le sol pour une meilleure
gestion des terres
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2779F/y2779f06.htm
IPCC 2007 Smith, P., Martino D., Cai Z. , Gwary D., Janzen H., Kumar P.,
McCarl B., Ogle S., O’Mara F., Rice C. , Scholes B. , Sirotenko O.
Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/293.htm
IPCC 2005 Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/293.htm
Nair P.K 2004 Agroforestry
Nikosheli Nepomuceno A. 2007 caracterizacao e avaluacao de sistemas
silvipastoris da regiao noroeste do estado do parana.
SAFE 2005 Dupraz C., Burgess P., Gavaland A., Graves A., Herzog F., Incoll L.D.,
Jackson N.,Keesman K., Lawson G., Lecomte I., Liagre F., Mantzanas K., Mayus
M., Moreno G.,Palma J., Papanastasis V., Paris P., Pilbeam D.J., Reisner Y., Van
Noordwijk M.,Vincent G., Werf Van der W. Agri Sylviculture for European
Farms
Schoeneberger 2008 Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on
agricultural lands
Ruark G.A. , Schoeneberger M.M. , Nair P.K.R. 2003
Roles for Agroforestry in Helping to Achieve Sustainable Forest Management
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
MERCI
K
i
t
o
u
s
O
b
l
i
g
a
d
o
G
r
a
c
i
a
s
Asante sana
Vincent COLOMB
‫شكرا لك‬
MSc European Forestry
с
п
а
с
и
б
о
Danke
[email protected]
•End notes
90 million hectares potentially suitable;65 million hectares benefit SAFE
(key environmental problems : soil erosion, nitrate leaching, biodiversity).
If 20% farmers, on 20% of their farm, 2.6 million hectares . With 1
m3 high-quality timber / ha/yr =>2.6 million cubic metres : 25% of the mean
annual import of all tropical timber (logs, sawn wood, plywood, and veneer)
into the EU between 1990 and 1999, and 100% of the mean annual import
of tropical timber logs into the EU over the same period.
 1 kg C02 = 0,273 kg C; 1 kg C= 3.67 kg C02
Tropical tree sp : Erythrina spp., Inga spp. , Cordia spp.
 French SAU = 25 M ha
Annex I :industrialized countries that were members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development) in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT
Parties), including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern
European States.
Annex II Parties consist of the OECD members of Annex I, but not the EIT Parties. They are
required to provide financial resources to enable developing countries to undertake emissions
reduction activities under the Convention and to help them adapt to adverse effects of climate
change. In addition, they have to "take all practicable steps" to promote the development and
transfer of environmentally friendly technologies to EIT Parties and developing countries.
Funding provided by Annex II Parties is channelled mostly through the Convention’s financial
mechanism.
Non-Annex I Parties are mostly developing countries. Certain groups of developing countries
are recognized by the Convention as being especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of
climate change, including countries with low-lying coastal areas and those prone to
desertification and drought. Others (such as countries that rely heavily on income from fossil
fuel production and commerce) feel more vulnerable to the potential economic impacts of
climate change response measures. The Convention emphasizes activities that promise to
answer the special needs and concerns of these vulnerable countries, such as investment,
insurance and technology transfer.
The 49 Parties classified as least developed countries (LDCs) by the United Nations are given
special consideration under the Convention on account of their limited capacity to respond to
climate change and adapt to its adverse effects. Parties are urged to take full account of the
special situation of LDCs when considering funding and technology-transfer activities.