Transcript here - UC Center Sacramento

Climate, Water, and California
Agriculture: From Research to Policy
Louise Jackson, Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis
California Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Role of Agriculture
UC Center Sacramento
May 26, 2016
This presentation
• Climate change challenges facing California
agriculture
• Interdisciplinary case study on how climate
change will affect agriculture in Yolo County
(top-down, regional)
• Agroecological research on specific practices
and strategies for short- and long-term
resilience (bottom-up, local)
Temperature projections for this century
• 1950-present: hottest
period in last 600 years
• Modelled increase in mean
annual temperature:
– 2.5°- 5.5°F (2041-2070)
– 3.5°- 9.5°F (2070-2099)
• Uncertainty ahead!
GlobalChange.gov; Data from Scripps
Snow projections for this century
• Snow water equivalent for
‘Business-As-Usual’ (BAU
scenario=A2) decreases
• Earlier timing of spring
snowmelt and decreases in
total runoff from snowmelt
• Lower precipitation in late
21st Century, especially in
southern California
• Implication: reduced
moisture and reservoir water
storage from Sierra Nevada
snowmelt
GlobalChange.gov; Data from Scripps
Safeguarding California: California
Natural Resources Agency
• 2014 and 2015: greatest ever reduction in water availability due
to low stream flows and low reservoir levels
• In 2015, 542,000 acres estimated to have been fallowed
– Losses to all economic sectors: $2.74 billion and 20,000 total jobs
(Howitt et al., 2015)
• During times of drought, groundwater is more heavily relied upon
– Depletion of the water available to future generations
– Aquifer collapse and subsidence with permanent loss of water
storage
• “This is directly opposed to agricultural adaptation to climate
change and leaves the industry less resilient to future water
scarcity.”
http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/
Greenhouse gas emissions in California
433 MMT CO2e in 1990
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm
(CA Air Resources Board)
California agricultural production
• Highest agricultural crop value in USA for >50 consecutive years
• ≈25 million acres in some type of agricultural production
– Half of the fruits, nuts and vegetables in the USA
– $54 billion as income to farmers and ranches in 2014
• Only state producing commercial quantities of almonds,
artichokes, clingstone peaches, figs, raisins, walnuts, pistachios,
nectarines, olives, dates, and prunes
• Without climate change adaptation,
is urban conversion more likely? If so,
–
–
–
–
Much higher GHG emissions per acre
Decrease in food security
Loss of rural livelihoods
Loss of open space, biodiversity, and
environmental quality
Video ‘When a Town Runs Dry’ on Stratford, CA, released by The Atlantic this week
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/483120/when-a-town-runs-dry/
Hot issues: Climate and working lands
Agricultural responses to climate change
• Mitigation
– Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• Nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane
– AB 32: 1990 emissions in 2020
• Agriculture has small role in its cap and trade policy
• Offset potential for trade; now not in the cap
• Funds available for mitigation (+ its co-benefits)
– SB 375: connect land use planning with
implementation of AB 32
• Higher GHG emissions from urbanized than ag land
• Adaptation
– Acting to tolerate higher GHG, warming, drought
and extreme weather
– Newer emphasis in CA state agencies
– ‘Climate Smart Agriculture’
• Mitigation + adaptation + long-term resilience
Relevant recent policy
Governor Brown released his May revised budget ($115
million for agriculture of $2 billion Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (GGRF)):
• Healthy Soils Initiative: $20 million
• State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program
(SWEEP): $20 million
• Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program:
$40 million
• Dairy Methane: $35 million
• SGMA (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act)
– Groundwater basin planning, replenishment, BMPs
This presentation
• Climate change challenges facing California
agriculture
• Interdisciplinary case study on how climate
change will affect agriculture in Yolo County
(top-down, regional)
• Agroecological research on specific practices
and strategies for short- and long-term
resilience (bottom-up, local)
Case study on how climate change will
affect agriculture in Yolo County
• Crop management,
production &
agrobiodiversity
• Econometric analysis of
past and future impacts
of climate on agricultural
acreage
• Hydrologic model for
water supply and demand
for local irrigation district
• Inventory of county’s
agricultural GHG
emissions
• Survey of farmer views on
climate change impacts
and local responses
• Model of local urban
growth scenarios and
GHG emissions
Jackson et al. 2012. Adaptation Strategies for Agricultural Sustainability in Yolo Co., California. CEC-500-2012-031.
Outreach approach for the Yolo case study
(2008-2015)
• Steering committee of many types of
stakeholders and agencies
• Outreach from project’s initiation
– Conversations and presentations to
county agencies, UC Coop. Ext., Farm
Bureau, CDFA, DWR, NRCS, SACOG etc.
– Conference presentations on research
questions and framework
– Work in progress as a theme
• Cooperation with NGOs
– Consultations to find out viewpoints and
recommendations
– Speakers at hearings and NGO meetings
• NGOs took the lead translating
research into actual policy, e.g.,
– CalCAN (California Climate and
Agriculture Network
– American Farmland Trust
Yolo Ag Commissioner; Farm Bureau
President and Executive Director;
County Administrator’s Climate
Change Coordinator; UC Farm
Advisor; UCD professor, staff
researcher, postdoc, grad student
http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/
This presentation
• Climate change challenges facing California
agriculture
• Interdisciplinary case study on how climate
change will affect agriculture in Yolo County
(top-down, regional)
• Agroecological research on specific practices
and strategies for short- and long-term
resilience (bottom-up, local)
Example: traits to improve fresh market
tomatoes under water deficit
• On-farm research on traits conferring water use efficiency (WUE)
– Merced Co.: Conventional mature green production
• Total marketable yield: 45,007 lbs/acre
• WUE: 1,601 lbs/inch of water
• Water applied: 28 inches
– Yolo Co.: Organic heirloom ripe pole production
• Total marketable yield: 56,192 lbs/acre
• WUE: 923 lbs/inch of water
• Water applied: 59 inches
– Santa Cruz Co.: Dry-farmed ripe production
• Total marketable yield: 80,695 lbs/acre
• WUE: 29,343 lbs/inch of water
• Water applied: 2.75 inches
• No one-size-fits-all strategy: Different varieties,
growing season length, pest control strategies
Funded by USDA/CDFA Specialty Crop Block Grant
Example: ‘farmscaping’ on an organic farm
• 108 acre farm
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Tomato, safflower, oat
Cover crops and compost
Riparian corridor and hedgerows
Runoff ditches and tailwater pond
Sediment traps
Returned water used or stored
Reservoir, groundwater and
aqueduct water
• Tradeoffs
–
–
–
–
–
–
↑ Labor and timing needs
= Yield/acre
↓ Farmed land
↑ Water quality
↓ GHG emission
↑ Biodiversity and wildlife habitat
Smukler et al. 2010; 2012
hedgerows
fields
tailwater
pond
riparian
ditch
Tomato and grain fields, riparian, hedgerow,
drainage ditch and pond habitats at Rominger
organic farm in Yolo County, CA
Tracking biota, carbon and nutrients
Example: carbon stocks across a landscape
• Vineyard / Woodland
landscape, Mendocino Co.
– Soil pits, vegetation sampling
and GIS on 6 ranches
• Woodlands: 126 Mg C/ha
• Vineyards: 87 Mg C/ha
• Most of the carbon was in soil
Williams et al. 2011
Conclusions
• Agriculture is key to ↓GHG emissions in CA
• Resilient farms and ranches will limit sprawl and VMT
• Climate Smart Agriculture = GHG mitigation + Adaptation for
Food Security + Long-term Resilience
• Scientific research now provides the basis for CA metrics to:
– Showcase agricultural practices for combining mitigation and
adaptation to climate stress
– Promote novel technologies for energy-efficiency that also benefit
production and environmental quality
– Document rates of change from typical baselines to facilitate
adoption pathways and policy support for ag
• Multi-stakeholder interactions crucial for developing
agriculture solutions and engaging the general public
Thanks to many postdocs and graduate students
for their work over the years!
Sean Smukler
Felipe
Barrios
Masias
Steve Culman
Annie
Young-Mathews
Martin
Potthoff
Dan Ruzicka
Ryan
Haden
Amanda Hodson
Sara Sanchez
Moreno
Tim Bowles
Tim
Cavagnaro
Eli Carlisle
Climate Smart Agriculture: UC Davis
World Food Center
• Global Science CSA Conference in Davis in 2013
– 300 participants from 35 countries
• Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture (one of a few
academic institutions)
• Global research agenda for CSA interwoven into our
California agenda and policy
• Policy Forum (Feb 11 in Davis):
Leveraging Research to Inform
Climate Scoping Plan Update
– Main outcome: Much new data
now exists for mitigation and
adaptation strategies for California
agriculture
Survey of Yolo Co. farmers: Are they concerned about
climate change, extreme events and how to adapt?
Jackson et al. 2012. CEC-500-2012-031; Haden et al. 2012. PLoS One.
Greenhouse gas mitigation through farmland
preservation
Land-Use
Category
Rangeland
Cropland
Urban
•
•
•
•
Yolo Co. Land Area
1990
2008
----- acres ----131,945
135,717
344,335
324,654
22,471
29,881
Average GHG Emissions Rate
1990
2008
--- MT CO2e acre-1 yr-1 --0.28
0.32
0.87
0.80
61.50
--
*Countywide urban emissions for 2008 were not available
GHG emissions 70 times higher per acre on urban land than cropland
Calculations and constants for each crop made publically available
40-60 times higher elsewhere (2015 study by American Farmland Trust)
Policy relevance: preserve agricultural land from development to stabilize and
reduce GHG emissions…….. How would this information be implemented?
Yolo Co. Climate Action Plan 2011; Jackson et al. 2012. CEC-500-2012-031; Haden et al. 2012. Env. Planning & Mgmt.
Sources of new urban GHG emissions in 2050
•
–
–
–
–
•
High
emissions
(IPCC A2)
Storylines for A2 (high GHG emissions) and B1
(low GHG emissions) scenarios designed during
the project with stakeholders, e.g.,
Transportation in high vs. low density locations
Household energy use
Electricity sources
Improvements in energy efficiency
These published calculations are now being used
by jurisdictions, e.g. for proposals to SALCP for
farmland preservation
A2 High GHG Emissions
Scenario
Transportation
Residential
B1 Low GHG Emissions
Total
Transportation
Residential
Total
---------- MT of CO2e yr-1 increase compared to 2008---------Level of
urbanization plus
level of energy use
671,047
310,361
981,408
254,243
144,932
Cropland in 2008: 259,723 MT CO2e yr-1
Urban land in 2008: approx. 1,837,681 MT CO2e yr-1
Jackson et al. 2012. CEC-500-2012-031; Wheeler et al. 2013. J. of Urbanism
399,175
Climate responses of a watershed
Water Evaluation and Planning Model from Stockholm Environment Institute
Cache and Putah Creek Watersheds
Calibrated with historical climate, crop, reservoir and stream data
Model run using two future climate projections (2010-2100)
600
WEAP projection of irrigation demand
A2=blue; B1=green; historical= dark blue
500
400
300
2091
2081
2071
2061
2051
Year
2041
2031
2021
2011
2001
1991
1981
200
1971
Irrigation
Demand (TAF)
•
•
•
•
Warming increases demand 30% by 2100
using current crops and practices (A2)
Indian Valley
Reservoir
Clear Lake
Lake
Berryessa
Cache
Creek
Irrigation District
Putah
Creek
Mehta et al., 2013
Impact of modeled adaptation scenarios
Low global GHG emissions (less warm)
High global GHG emissions (warmer)
Water-saving technology
with
diversified mix of crops
• New technology for efficient water use + diversified crops
with low water demand would decrease future irrigation
demand to average historic levels (1971-2008)
Mehta et al., 2013
Carbon and GHG emissions on this farm
• Riparian: 10% of the farm’s C
• Fields: ≈0.3% soil C increase in 10 yrs
• Mean N2O emissions <5 g N ha-1 day-1
(0.004 lb N acre-1 day-1)
– Very low compared to synthetic fertilizer studies
– 0.5 kg N ha-1 season-1
Smukler et al.
2010; 2012
Figure from Shcherbak et al. 2014