Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use20Land%20Use.pdf ·...

s a r a j . s ch er r and sa ja l s thap i t

WORLDWATCH REPORT 179

Through Foodand Land Use

MitigatingClimate Change


sara j . s ch er r and sa ja l s thap i t

l i s a ma st ny, e d i t o r

Mitigating ClimateChange ThroughFood and Land Use

ecoagr i culture partner s andworldwatch in st i tute

Reprint and copyright information for one-time academic use of this material is availableby contacting Customer Service, Copyright Clearance Center, at +1 978-750-8400 (phone) or+1 978-750-4744 (fax), or by writing to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Nonacademic and commercial users should contact the Worldwatch Institute’s BusinessDevelopment Department by fax at +1 202-296-7365 or by email at [email protected].

The report is also available at www.ecoagriculture.org/publications.php.

© Worldwatch Institute, 2009Washington, D.C.

ISBN 978-1-878071-91-0

Printed on paper that is 50 percent recycled, 30 percentpost-consumer waste, process chlorine free.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff;

or of its funding organizations.

On the cover: A farmstead in Nepal framed by ripening rice.Photograph by Sajal Sthapit

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Appreciating Terrestrial Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Carbon-Rich Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Conserving and Restoring Natural Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A Real Climate Solution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Co-Benefits: Distraction or Opportunity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Realizing the Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figures and Sidebars

Figure 1. Multiple Strategies to Productively Absorb and Store Carbon inAgricultural Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 2. Managed Natural Regeneration in the Drylands of Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3. Annual Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Potentials from Farming andLand Use, by Level of Mitigation Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 4. Sustainable Development Benefits Motivating Climate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Sidebar 1. The Carbon Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Sidebar 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sidebar 3. Six Principles for Tapping the Full Potential of Land Use Mitigation . . . . . . . . 39

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

This report builds on our chapter “Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet” publishedin the Worldwatch Institute report State of the World 2009: Into a WarmingWorld. We areindebted to all who contributed to that work.We also appreciate the useful and encouragingfeedback fromWorldwatch Senior Researcher Brian Halweil and Jonathan Haskett at theWorld Agroforestry Centre, as well as the penetrating questions fromWorldwatch Vice Presi-dent Robert Engelman, which helped us address key issues in this report. Finally, many thanksto Worldwatch Senior Editor Lisa Mastny for bringing much-needed clarity to the text andfor her flexibility in working with changing deadlines.

Mitigat ing Cl imate Change Through Food and Land Use www.worldwatch.org4

About the Authors

Sara J. Scherr is an economist whose work has focused on agricultural and environmentalpolicy, particularly in tropical developing countries. She is the founder and president of Eco-agriculture Partners, a nongovernmental organization that supports organizations managingagricultural landscapes both to increase production and livelihoods and to enhance wildbiodiversity and ecosystem services. She is a member of the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme Advisory Panel on Food Security and serves on the Board of Directors of TheKatoomba Group. She recently served on the Board of the World Agroforestry Centre andthe United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger.Sara was previously Director of Ecosystem Services for Forest Trends; Adjunct Professor at

the University of Maryland; Co-Leader of the CGIAR Gender Program; Senior Research Fellowat the International Food Policy Research Institute; and Principal Researcher at the WorldAgroforestry Centre. She was a Fulbright Scholar (1976) and a Rockefeller Social Science Fel-low (1985–87). Sara received her B.A. in Economics at Wellesley College and her M.Sc. andPh.D. in International Economics and Development at Cornell University. She has published13 books and over 37 articles in refereed journals.

Sajal Sthapit is a Program Associate at Ecoagriculture Partners. Sajal has previously workedfor Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development in Nepal. He received his B.A.in Biology and Philosophy at the College of Wooster and his M.Sc. in Sustainable Develop-ment and Conservation Biology from the University of Maryland.

Ecoagriculture Partners (www.ecoagriculture.org) is an international non-profit organizationdedicated to supporting people in agricultural landscapes to produce food and enhance theirlivelihoods while protecting biological diversity and ecosystem services. Through collaborationwith ecoagriculture innovators all over the world, Ecoagriculture Partners works to betterunderstand the principles, practice, and tools for ecoagriculture; link people and organizationswho are practicing ecoagriculture; and promote markets and policy action that encourage andsustain ecoagriculture landscapes.

Summary

and makes up a quarter of Earth’s sur-face, and its soil and plants hold threetimes as much carbon as the atmos-phere. More than 30 percent of all

greenhouse gas emissions arise from the landuse sector. Thus, no strategy for mitigatingglobal climate change can be complete orsuccessful without reducing emissions fromagriculture, forestry, and other land uses.Moreover, only land-based or “terrestrial” car-bon sequestration offers the possibility today oflarge-scale removal of greenhouse gases fromthe atmosphere, through plant photosynthesis.Five major strategies for reducing and seques-

tering terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions are:• Enriching soil carbon. Soil is the third largestcarbon pool on Earth’s surface. Agriculturalsoils can be managed to reduce emissions byminimizing tillage, reducing use of nitrogenfertilizers, and preventing erosion. Soils canstore the carbon captured by plants from theatmosphere by building up soil organic mat-ter, which also has benefits for crop produc-tion. Adding biochar (biomass burned in alow-oxygen environment) can furtherenhance carbon storage in soil.

• Farming with perennials. Perennial crops,grasses, palms, and trees constantly maintainand develop their root and woody biomassand associated carbon, while providing vege-tative cover for soils. There is large potentialto substitute annual tilled crops with perenni-als, particularly for animal feed and vegetableoils, as well as to incorporate woody perenni-als into annual cropping systems in agro-forestry systems.

• Climate-friendly livestock production.Rapid growth in demand for livestock prod-

ucts has triggered a huge rise in the numberof animals, the concentration of wastes infeedlots and dairies, and the clearing of natu-ral grasslands and forests for grazing. Live-stock-related emissions of carbon andmethane now account for 14.5 percent oftotal greenhouse gas emissions—more thanthe transport sector. A reduction in livestocknumbers may be needed but productioninnovations can help, including rotationalgrazing systems, manure management,methane capture for biogas production, andimproved feeds and feed additives.

• Protecting natural habitat. The planet’s4 billion hectares of forests and 5 billionhectares of natural grasslands are a massivereservoir of carbon—both in vegetationabove ground and in root systems belowground. As forests and grasslands grow, theyremove carbon from the atmosphere. Defor-estation, land clearing, and forest and grass-land fires are major sources of greenhouse gasemissions. Incentives are needed to encouragefarmers and land users to maintain naturalvegetation through product certification, pay-ments for climate services, securing tenurerights, and community fire control. The con-servation of natural habitat will benefit biodi-versity in the face of climate change.

• Restoring degraded watersheds and range-lands. Extensive areas of the world have beendenuded of vegetation through land clearingfor crops or grazing and from overuse andpoor management. Degradation has not onlygenerated a huge amount of greenhouse gasemissions, but local people have lost a valu-able livelihood asset as well as essential water-shed functions. Restoring vegetative cover on

www.worldwatch.org Mit igat ing Cl imate Change Through Food and Land Use 5

L

6 Mitigat ing Cl imate Change Through Food and Land Use www.worldwatch.org

carbon at field scales for many diverse prac-tices and components of the landscape (soils,grasses, trees, animal wastes, etc.), and meth-ods for integrated landscape-wide carbonassessment will soon be available.While there are institutional challenges to

rapidly scaling up climate-friendly practicesin diverse rural areas of the world, expertisecan be tapped to overcome them—in ruraldevelopment agencies, farmers’ organizations,nongovernmental organizations, and privateagricultural businesses. Institutional platformsexist in many countries to promote sustainableland management on a large scale. Commu-nity land use planning and action models arewidely implemented and can be strngthenedand adapted to address climate change mitiga-tion as well as adaptation.The food industry is beginning to mobilize

investments for climate action in its agricul-tural supply chains, in response to anticipatedconsumer demand and regulation. Nationalpolicies can re-shape public investments andsubsidies to support climate-friendly agricul-ture and land use. Indeed, the benefits for foodsecurity, rural livelihoods, and watershed andbiodiversity protection that accompany wise,locally appropriate investments in land usewill expand political support and new coali-tions for climate action generally. They willbe an attraction, not a distraction.To tap the full potential of land use mitiga-

tion, six principles for action are recommended:1. Include the full range of terrestrial emissionreduction, storage, and sequestrationoptions in climate policy and investment;

2. Incorporate farming and land use invest-ments in cap-and-trade systems;

3. Link terrestrial climate mitigation withadaptation, rural development, and conser-vation strategies;

4. Encourage large, area-based programs;5. Encourage voluntary markets for green-house gas emission offsets from agricultureand land use;

6. Mobilize a worldwide, networked movementfor climate-friendly food, forest, and otherland-based production.

degraded lands can be a win-win-win strategyfor addressing climate change, rural poverty,and water scarcity.Agricultural communities can play a central

role in fighting climate change. Even at a rela-tively low price for mitigating carbon emis-sions, improved land management could offseta quarter of global emissions from fossil fueluse in a year. In contrast, solutions for reducingemissions by carbon capture in the energy sec-tor are unlikely to be widely utilized for decadesand do not remove the greenhouse gases alreadyin the atmosphere. To tackle the climate chal-lenge, we need to pursue land use solutions inaddition to efforts to improve energy efficiencyand speed the transition to renewable energy.Yet so far, the international science and pol-

icy communities have been slow to embraceterrestrial climate action. Some fear thatinvestments in land use will not produce “real”climate benefits, or that land use action woulddistract attention from investment in energyalternatives. There is also a concern that landmanagement changes cannot be implementedquickly enough and at a scale that would makea difference to the climate.But most of these concerns are misplaced

or can be addressed effectively now.Whilemany land-use activities are not strictly “per-manent,” there are numerous ways to ensurethat commitments to reduce or offset emis-sions are strictly met, such as by using large-area programs and investing in reserve areasfor insurance. Carbon sequestration throughinterventions such as agroforestry do not pres-ent any “leakage” problems, and the risks ofleakage from avoided deforestation can beaddressed through large-scale monitoringand project screening.Investments to overcome major barriers to

farmer adoption of climate-friendly land usesystems (such as lack of technical assistance,credit, or planting materials) are clearly “addi-tional,” even when the interventions are them-selves profitable to land users, and land useswith long-term profitability are far more per-manent. Great strides have been made indevising methods for monitoring land-use

Summary

* Endnotes are grouped by section and begin on page 40.

† All measurements are expressed in metric units unlessindicated otherwise.

7www.worldwatch.org Mit igat ing Cl imate Change Through Food and Land Use

west, intensive soil tillage, erosion, and fertil-ization are a major source of these releases.6

It is increasingly clear that no strategy formitigating global climate change can be com-plete or successful without addressing thewidespread emissions from agriculture andforestry, also known as the land use sector. Yetso far, land-based, or “terrestrial,” carbon hasbeen largely ignored in climate mitigation ini-tiatives, including at the highest levels. This has

grave implications not only for the success ofglobal efforts to head off dangerous climatechange, but also for the future of the planet aswe know it.Land makes up a quarter of Earth’s surface,

and its soil and plants hold three times as muchcarbon as the atmosphere does. About 1,600billion tons (5,872 billion tons of carbon diox-ide equivalent) of this terrestrial carbon is inthe soil as organic matter, and some 540–610

ew people realize that Indonesia is thethird largest emitter of greenhousegases on the planet, after the UnitedStates and China. This is because the

bulk of Indonesia’s emissions—as much as 85percent—do not come from widely publicizedsources such as polluting factories or gas-guz-zling vehicles.1* Instead, they are related toland use: the clearing of land for agricultureand infrastructure, and the burning of forestsand peatlands.Indonesia emits 3 billion tons of carbon

dioxide equivalent annually, or about half theyearly emissions of the United States.2†

Although the country covers only about one-fifth the U.S. land area, its rich tropical vegeta-tion and peatlands store enormous volumesof carbon in branches, roots, leaves, and soil.3

When this carbon is released into the atmos-phere, it heats the planet just as surely as coal-fired power plants or combustion engines do.Forest fires are the main driver of deforesta-

tion in Indonesia, followed by illegal loggingand rising worldwide demand for palm oil, aningredient used in food, cosmetics, and bio-fuel.4 Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, as well as inthe Amazon and Africa, the main driver of for-est loss is the conversion of new land on whichto grow commodity crops and graze livestock.These agricultural activities have a significantimpact on the global climate. New Zealand’smillions of sheep and cattle, for example, areresponsible for nearly a third of the country’sgreenhouse gas emissions.5 In the U.S. Mid-

AppreciatingTerrestrial Carbon

F

Monsoon rains have led to landslides and soil erosion in thesedeforested hills of Nepal.

SajalS

thapit

face and in the atmosphere pales in compari-son to the many trillions of tons stored deepunder the surface in sediments, sedimentaryrocks, and fossil fuels, terrestrial carbon is cru-cial to climate change and life due to its inher-ent mobility.8

Carbon, it appears, moves around a lot. Ter-restrial carbon moves from the atmosphere tothe land and back, and in this process it driveslife on the planet. Plants use carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere to grow and produce foodthat sustains the rest of life.When these organ-isms breathe, grow, die, and eventually decom-pose, carbon is released to the atmosphere andthe soil. Carbon from this past life provides thefuel for new life. Indeed, life depends on thisharmonized movement of carbon from one“sink” to another.9 (See Sidebar 1.)Large-scale disruption or changes on land

alter this harmonious movement of carbondrastically. Deforestation, agriculture, and live-stock grazing are the major land use changesthat increase the release of carbon into theatmosphere. Globally, land use and land usechanges account for around 31 percent of totalhuman-induced greenhouse gas emissions intothe atmosphere.10 (See Sidebar 2.) Together,land use changes and the burning of fossilfuels such as oil and coal are the two dominantsources of the increased carbon dioxide in theatmosphere that is changing the global climate.Burning fossil fuel releases carbon that has

been buried for millions of years. In contrast,deforestation, intensive tillage of soil for crops,and overgrazing release carbon from living orrecently living plants and soil organic matter.Some land use changes further affect climateby altering regional precipitation patterns (forexample, removing forest cover reduces tran-spiration from plants, affecting the hydrologi-cal cycle), as is occurring now in the AmazonBasin in South America.11

On the up side, other kinds of land uses canplay an opposite, positive role in the climatecycle. Plants that are growing, whether as natu-ral habitat or for productive uses, can removehuge amounts of heat-trapping carbon fromthe atmosphere, breaking it down into its con-stituent parts and storing the carbon in vegeta-


Appreciating Terrestrial Carbon

billion tons is in living vegetation, such aslong-living forests, grasses, and palms.7

Although the volume of carbon on Earth’s sur-

Sidebar 1. The Carbon Cycle

The carbon cycle is the movement of the element carbon (C),sometimes in altered chemical forms, through different reservoirsor carbon sinks on the planet. Over a relatively short timescale ofless than thousands of years, the carbon cycle is a biological andphysical process whereby carbon moves among the vegetation,soil, and animals on land; the atmosphere; and the organismsand water in the oceans. (See Figure.) Over a longer time span ofmillions of years, the carbon cycle is a geological process, duringwhich carbon also moves to and from the deeper parts of Earth’ssurface as sediments.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are two greenhousegases in the atmosphere that contain carbon; a third major green-house gas, nitrous oxide (N2O), does not. Green plants use theenergy of sunlight to facilitate a chemical reaction (photosynthe-sis) between atmospheric CO2 and water to produce complexsugars that are the ultimate food source for almost all life on theplanet. In the process, plants remove carbon from the atmos-phere and add it into soils, vegetation, and the bodies of animalsthat feed on that vegetation. Meanwhile, plants, animals, andorganic matter continue to release carbon dioxide and methaneinto the atmosphere through respiration and decay.

Increasing the amount of carbon in a sink or reservoir otherthan the atmosphere is called "carbon sequestration. “Carbonstorage” refers to the net carbon that stays in living biomass andin soils.

Terrestial vegetation1,982–2,239

Values are billion tons of CO2eq

Soils andorganic matter

5,872

Marine sediments,sedimentary rocks

and fossil fuel242,220,000–367,000,000

Change inland use

Fossil Fuelemissions

Atmosphere2,752

Dissolvedorganiccarbon2,569

Intermediate anddeep water

139,460–146,800

Marineorganisms

11

224220

1.85.5

330 330

20

367 338

22 15 184 147

Surface water3,743

Source: See Endnote 9 for this section.

Joan

A.Wolbier



mate change agreement to the Kyoto Protocolare likely to result in some strategy to increaseinternational public funding for “avoideddeforestation” (referred to as “reduced emis-sions from deforestation and degradation,”or REDD). But this is being done reluctantly,through mechanisms that are isolated fromthose focused on energy and that receive farless (and less-secure) funding. There is consid-erable resistance to expanding the scope ofland use-related climate mitigation activitiesbeyond certain types of forest conservation.Several factors have contributed to the

widespread reluctance of climate policy actorsto use terrestrial carbon as a solution for cli-mate change. For one, most climate leaders

tion and soils. This can not only stabilize theclimate but also benefit food and fiber produc-tion and the environment. Thus, to be success-ful, it is imperative that any climate changemitigation strategy embrace solutions basedon terrestrial carbon, including emissionreduction, sequestration, and storage.So why has terrestrial carbon largely been

ignored as a climate change mitigation strategyin intergovernmental initiatives, includingthose under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change? Many policy-makers are aware of the dramatic impacts oftropical forest burning and large-scale defor-estation, and the international negotiationscurrently under way to frame a successor cli-

Sidebar 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Land Use

Carbon dioxide (77 percent), nitrous oxide (8 percent), and methane (14 percent) are the three main greenhouse gasesthat trap infrared radiation and contribute to climate change. Land use changes contribute to the release of all three ofthese greenhouse gases. (See Table.) Of the total annual human-induced GHG emissions in 2004 (49 billion tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent), roughly 31 percent—15 billion tons—was from land use. By comparison, fossil fuel burningaccounts for 27.7 billion tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually.

Deforestation and devegetation release carbon in two ways. First, the decay of the plant matter itself releases car-bon dioxide. Second, soil exposed to wind and rain is more prone to erosion. Subsequent land uses such as agricul-ture and grazing exacerbate soil erosion and exposure. The atmosphere oxidizes the soil carbon, releasing morecarbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Application of nitrogenous fertilizers leads to soils releasing nitrous oxide.Methane is released from the rumens of livestock such as cattle, goats, and sheep when they eat and from manureand water-logged rice plantations.

Naturally occurring forest and grassland fires also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. In the ElNiño year of 1997–98, fires accounted for 2.1 billion tons of carbon emissions. Due to the unpredictability of theseevents, annual emissions from this source vary from year to year.

Land Use Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emitted

(million tons CO2 equivalent)

Agriculture 6,500Soil fertilization (inorganic fertilizers and applied manure) 2,100 Nitrous oxide*Gases from food digestion in cattle (enteric fermentation in rumens) 1,800 Methane*Biomass burning 700 Methane, nitrous oxide*Paddy (flooded) rice production (anaerobic decomposition) 600 Methane*Livestock manure 400 Methane, nitrous oxide*Other (e.g., delivery of irrigation water) 900 Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide*

Deforestation (including peat) 8,500For agriculture or livestock 5,900 Carbon dioxideTotal 15,000

* The greenhouse gas impact of 1 unit of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 298 units of carbon dioxide; 1 unit of methane is equivalent to 25units of carbon dioxide.


come out of the atmospheric science or energysectors and are little aware of proven andpromising land use mitigation options.Whileso-called “Annex 1” countries (those countriesobligated to meet emission-reduction goalsunder the Kyoto Protocol) must report onemissions from a broad range of land uses,regulatory schemes in signatory countrieshave generally not included sources of landuse emissions. And while land use issues havebeen analyzed in-depth scientifically by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), particularly in its Fourth AssessmentReport released in 2007, land use action has notbeen championed in negotiations either inter-nationally or in Europe.In the United States, by contrast, agricul-

tural interests have raised the profile of soilcarbon potentials. A 2006 study for the PewCenter on Global Climate Change estimatedthat between 257 and 807 million tons of car-bon dioxide equivalent, or up to 11 percent ofU.S. 2007 emissions, can be sequestered annu-ally in the country’s agricultural soils.12 Thiscould be done through widespread adoptionof better management practices, such as theretention of crop residues for increased mois-ture and organic matter, zero tillage, and theefficient application of manures, fertilizers,and water.The diversity of land uses and emission

sources from land use, the differences in theiremission patterns across ecosystems, and thediversity and variation of practices to reduceemissions or sequester carbon in differentfarming systems and ecosystems is dauntingfor non-specialists to consider. The level ofcomplexity is actually quite comparable toenergy systems, but because energy issues aremuch more familiar to most of the specialistsinvolved in climate negotiations, tacklingenergy-based solutions may seem more man-ageable than dealing with land use issues.Another reason climate policy actors may

be reluctant to use terrestrial carbon as a cli-mate solution, even if they recognize thepotential and necessity of land use mitigation,is that they lack confidence that actions willproduce real, measurable, and permanent net

benefits. Plants sequester carbon only whenthey are growing, and the benefits can bereversed quickly through deforestation, fires,and poor soil management. As long as theeconomy sends price signals that make land-clearing lucrative, avoiding deforestation inone region may simply contribute to forestclearing elsewhere, causing “leakage” of thesequestered carbon.As a result, some climate experts consider it

unwise to trust our climate future to carbonsinks, such as tropical forests or other carbon-rich lands that could be ephemeral.13 They alsosee great challenges in measuring and moni-toring terrestrial carbon emissions in heteroge-neous and dynamic land use systems wellenough to inform a global emissions trackingor trading system.14

Moreover, many of those who do acceptthe scientific evidence of the potential climatebenefits of land use action—and who are per-suaded by recent advances that there are prac-tical solutions to the challenges of permanenceand measurement—remain skeptical that agri-cultural and land use investments can be scaledup quickly enough to make a difference to theclimate. One of the most compelling argu-ments for terrestrial carbon investment is thattechnologies are immediately available and canthus be implemented right away, without longdelays for further research and development.Renewable energies such as wind and solar arealso ready for scaling, but even these promiseonly to reduce emissions, not to capture andstore them.But the largest gains globally from land use

are in developing countries, many of whoseland use sectors have poor reputations. Agri-culture and forestry are perceived as stagnantsectors with weak institutions, and existing ter-restrial carbon projects are very small scale.Small-scale farmers, who dominate agricultureworldwide, are assumed capable of only small-scale climate action. Meanwhile, the diversityof agricultural systems implies few economiesof scale.Finally, even among those who recognize

the scale of land use impacts on the climate,and the potential scale of mitigation, there is a




addressed, and scaling up can be achieved rap-idly by building on existing institutional mod-els. The co-benefits of land use investmentsare more likely to attract allies to ambitiousclimate action, rather than distract. And thereare many positive opportunities for engagingfarmers and other land managers and formobilizing terrestrial carbon-based mitigationas a major strategy to slow and ultimately stopclimate change.


concern that action in the land use sector willdistract critical attention and resources fromefforts to transform the energy economy.Champions of terrestrial carbon-based mitiga-tion often highlight the many “co-benefits,”such as increased food security, restoration ofdegraded resources, and protection of ecosys-tem services and biodiversity. But some in theclimate sector are skeptical of this win-winproposition. They agree that these are impor-tant goals, but fear that embracing them withinclimate action strategies will undermine com-mitment to achieving rigorous climate out-comes. Or they fear that the lower cost ofemission reductions and sequestration in theland use sector—seemingly a major advan-tage—would undermine political will to takeambitious action in the energy sector or wouldlet industrial-country emitters “off the hook.”15

All of these concerns must be addressedbefore terrestrial carbon is fully incorporatedinto our climate management strategies. Ter-restrial carbon-based mitigation is a viable aswell as a necessary course to take to secure ourclimate future. Concerns about permanence,additionality, leakage, and measurement ofland use climate solutions are being rigorously

Liquid manure from a hog farm being spread on cropland in Iowa.

USDA

NRC

S/Tim

McC

abe

Figure 1. Multiple Strategies to Productively Absorb and Store Carbon inAgricultural Landscapes

convert today’s high-emissions food produc-tion systems to “carbon-rich” farming systems.They are: enriching soil carbon, incorporatingperennials in cropping systems, and promotingclimate-friendly livestock production systems.

Strategy 1: Enriching Soil Carbon

Soil has four components: minerals, water, air,and organic materials (both nonliving and liv-ing). The nonliving material comes from deadplant, animal, and microbial matter, whereasthe living organic material is from plants andother organisms in the soil, including living

oday, we face a unique opportunityto achieve “climate-friendly” land-scapes. These include, for example,large expanses of agricultural land,

interconnected with natural habitats, that aremanaged to minimize greenhouse gas emis-sions and maximize the sequestration of car-bon in soils and vegetation. Many options arealready at hand to achieve such landscapes.1

(See Figure 1.) None is a silver bullet, but incombinations that make sense locally they canhelp us move forward decisively.Three strategies are especially promising to

Carbon-Rich Farming

T


Degraded soils are revegetated, andbiochar is incorporated; fertile soilsremain productive using organicmethods and reducing tillage.

Retaining forests and grass-lands maintains carbon sinkswhile protecting watersheds.

Source: Scherr and Sajal; Phemister

Perennials, tree crops, andother agroforestry methodsretain greater biomass inthe cropping system.

Rotational grazing minimizeslivestock impacts; biogasdigesters turn waste intoenergy and organic fertilizer.

Figure 1. Multiple Strategies to Productively Absorb and Store Carbon inAgricultural Landscapes


year experiment by the Rodale Institute com-pared organic and conventional croppingsystems in the United States and found thatorganic farming increased soil carbon by15–28 percent and nitrogen content by 8–15percent.6 The researchers concluded that if the65 million hectares of corn and soybean grownin the United States were switched to organicfarming, a quarter billion tons of carbon diox-ide (or about 4 percent of annual U.S. emis-sions) could be sequestered.7

The economics and productivity of thesemethods vary widely. In some very intensive,high-yield cropping systems, replacing someor all inorganic fertilizer may require methodsthat use more labor or require costlier inputs,but there is commonly scope for much moreefficient use of fertilizer through better target-ing and timing. The field of precision agricul-ture recognizes that variations exist on-farmand tries to improve efficiency of inputs,including fertilizers, through targeted useaided by remote-sensing techniques. In less-intensive systems, the use of organic nutrientsources with small amounts of supplementalinorganic fertilizer can be quite competitiveand attractive to farmers seeking to reducecash costs.8

Improvements in organic technologies overthe past few decades have led to comparablelevels of productivity across a wide range ofcrops and farming systems. The question ofwhether organic farming can feed the world,as many argue, remains controversial.9 Andmore research is needed to understand boththe potentials and limitations of agro-ecologi-cal systems across the broad range of soil typesand climatic conditions globally. But there islittle question that farmers in many produc-tion systems can already profitably maintainyields while using much less artificial fertil-izer—with major benefits to the environmentand the climate.Soil used to grow crops is commonly tilled,

or turned over, to improve the conditions ofthe seed bed and to uproot weeds. But tillingturns the soil upside down, exposing anaerobicmicrobes to oxygen and suffocating aerobicmicrobes by working them under. This distur-

roots and microbes. Together, living and non-living organic materials account for only 1–6percent of the soil’s volume, but they con-tribute much more to its productivity.2 Theorganic materials retain air and water in thesoil and provide nutrients that the plants andthe soil fauna depend on for life. They are alsoreservoirs of carbon in the soil.In fact, soil is the third largest carbon pool

on Earth’s surface. New mapping tools, suchas the 2008 Global Carbon Gap Map producedby the United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization, can identify areas where soil car-bon storage is greatest, as well as areas with thephysical potential for billions of tons of addi-tional carbon to be stored in degraded soils.3

In the long term, agricultural practices thatbuild and conserve soil carbon from year toyear through organic matter management,rather than depleting it, will provide produc-tive soils that are rich in carbon and requirefewer chemical fertilizers.Current use of inorganic (chemical) fertiliz-

ers is estimated at a staggering 102 million tonsworldwide, with use concentrated in industrialcountries and in irrigated regions of develop-ing nations.4 Soils with nitrogen fertilizersrelease nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas thathas about 300 times the warming capacity ofcarbon dioxide. Fertilized soils release morethan 2 billion tons (in terms of carbon dioxideequivalent) of greenhouse gases every year.5 Itis possible to reduce these emissions, however,by adopting soil fertility management practicesthat increase soil organic matter and siphoncarbon from the atmosphere.Numerous technologies can be used to sub-

stitute or minimize the need for inorganicfertilizers. Examples include composting (thedecomposition of food and plant waste in thepresence of air to produce dark organic mat-ter), green manures (crops grown duringfallows to be plowed into the soil to addnutrients and organic matter), nitrogen-fixingcover crops (such as velvetbean), intercrop-ping, and the use of livestock manure. Evenimproved fertilizer application methods canreduce emissions.In one example of organic farming, a 23-

Carbon-Rich Farming


gases of reduced emissions and increased car-bon storage from reduced tillage depend sig-nificantly on associated practices, such as thelevel of vegetative soil cover and the impact oftillage on crop root development, whichdepends on the specific crop and soil type. It isprojected that the carbon storage benefits ofno-till may plateau over the next 50 years, butthis can be a cost-effective option to buy timewhile alternative energy systems develop.13

Decomposition of plant matter is anotherway of enriching soil carbon if it takes placesecurely within the soil; decomposition on thesurface, on the other hand, releases carbondioxide into the atmosphere. In the humidtropics, for example, organic matter breaksdown rapidly, limiting the carbon storage ben-efits of organic systems.Another option, recently discovered, is

biochar—the burning of biomass in a low-oxygen environment.14 This keeps carbon insoil longer and releases the nutrients slowlyover a long period of time.While the burningdoes release some carbon dioxide, the remain-ing carbon-rich dark aromatic matter is highlystable in soil. Hence, planting fast-growingtrees in previously barren or degraded areas,converting them to biochar, and adding themto soil is a quick way of taking carbon fromthe atmosphere and turning it into an organicslow-release fertilizer that benefits both theplant and the soil fauna.Interestingly, between 500 and 2,500 years

ago Amerindian populations added incom-pletely burnt biomass to the soil. Today, Ama-zonian “dark earth” soils created in this waystill retain high amounts of organic carbonand fertility in stark contrast to the low fertilityof adjacent soils.15 There is a global productionpotential of 594 million tons of carbon dioxideequivalent in biochar per year, simply by usingwaste materials such as forest and millingresidues, rice husks, groundnut shells, andurban waste.16 Far more could be generated byplanting and converting trees. Initial analysessuggest that planting vegetation for biocharon idle and degraded lands could be quiteeconomical, though not in more highly pro-ductive lands, and is thus a promising option

bance exposes nonliving organic matter to oxy-gen, leading to a chemical reaction that releasescarbon dioxide. Keeping crop residues ormulch on the surface helps soil retain moisture,prevents erosion, and returns carbon to the soilthrough decomposition. Hence, many practicesthat reduce tillage also reduce carbon emissionsin certain types of soils and ecosystems.10

A variety of conservation tillage practicesaccomplish this goal. In non-mechanized sys-

tems, farmers might use digging sticks to plantseeds and can manage weeds through mulchand hand-weeding. Special mechanized sys-tems have been developed that drill the seedthrough the vegetative layer and use herbicidesto manage weeds. Many farmers combine no-till methods with crop rotations and greenmanure crops. In Paraná, Brazil, farmers havedeveloped organic management systems com-bined with no-till. No-till plots yielded a thirdmore wheat and soybean than conventionallyploughed plots and reduced soil erosion by upto 90 percent.11 The latter has the additionalbenefit of reducing labor and fossil fuel useand enhancing soil biodiversity—all whilecycling nutrients and storing carbon.Worldwide, approximately 95 million

hectares or about 7 percent of the world’sarable land is under no-till management—afigure that is growing rapidly, particularly asrising fossil fuel prices increase the cost oftillage.12 The actual net impacts on greenhouse

In Nepal, terraces for rice cultivation help prevent erosion.

SajalS

thapit

Carbon-Rich Farming


also require a lot of fossil fuels to produce.Furthermore, excessive application of nitrogenfertilizers, which is the norm, is a major sourceof nitrous oxide emissions.24

Achieving a carbon-rich cropping system,as well as the year-round vegetative coverrequired to sustain soils, watersheds, and habi-tats, will require farmers to plant a variety ofcrops and to incorporate a far greater share ofperennial plants. In contrast to annual grains,perennial grasses retain a strong root networkbetween growing seasons. Hence, a goodamount of the living biomass remains in thesoil instead of being released as greenhousegases. Furthermore, these grasses help hold soilorganic matter and water together, reducingsoil erosion and emissions. Finally, their peren-nial nature does away with the need for annualtilling that releases greenhouse gases andcauses soil erosion, and also makes the grassesmore conservative in the use of nutrients. Inone U.S. case, harvested native hay meadowsretained 179 tons of carbon and 12.5 tons ofnitrogen in a hectare of soil, while annualwheat fields retained only 127 tons of carbonand 9.6 tons of nitrogen.25 This is despite thefact that the annual wheat fields had received70 kilograms of nitrogen fertilizer per hectareannually for years.26

Researchers have already developed peren-nial relatives of cereals (rice, sorghum, andwheat), forages (intermediate wheatgrass, rye),and oilseeds (sunflower) that provide nutri-tious and good-tasting alternatives to conven-tional annual crops. In the U.S. state ofWashington, some perennial wheat varietieshave already been bred that yield more than70 percent as much as commercial wheat.27

Domestication work is under way for a num-ber of lesser known perennial native grasses,and many more perennials offer unique andexciting opportunities.28

Shifting production systems from annualto perennial grains should be an importantresearch priority for agricultural researchersand crop breeders, but significant researchchallenges remain. Breeding perennial cropstakes longer than annuals due to longer gener-ation times. Perennials also have lower seed

for carbon emission offset payments.17

Most crops respond with improved yieldsfor biochar additions of up to 183 tons of car-bon dioxide equivalent.18 If biochar additionswere applied at this rate on just 10 percent ofthe world’s cropland (160 million hectares),this method could store 29 billion tons of car-bon dioxide equivalent, offsetting nearly all theemissions from fossil fuel burning.19

Strategy 2: Farming with Perennials

Plants harness the energy of the sun and accu-mulate carbon from the atmosphere to pro-duce biomass on which the rest of the biotadepend. The great innovation of agriculture10,000 years ago was to manage the photo-synthesis of plants and ecosystems so as todependably increase yields.With 5 billionhectares of Earth’s surface now used for agri-culture (69 percent under pasture and 28 per-cent in crops) in 2002, and with half a billionmore hectares projected by 2020, agriculturalproduction systems and landscapes have to notonly deliver food and fiber but also supportbiodiversity and important ecosystem services,including climate change mitigation.20

A major strategy for achieving this is toincrease the role of perennial crops, shrubs,trees, and palms, so that carbon is stored whilecrops are being produced. Perennials con-stantly keep root biomass, while tree crops andagroforestry maintain significantly higher bio-mass than clear-weeded, annually tilled crops.Although more than 3,000 edible plant

species have been identified, 80 percent ofworld cropland is dominated by just 10 annualcereal grains, legumes, and oilseeds.21 Cur-rently, two-thirds of all arable land is used togrow annual grains.22 Wheat, rice, and maizecover half of the world’s cropland.23 Sinceannual crops need to be replanted every yearand since the major grains are sensitive toshade, farmers in much of the world havegradually removed other vegetation from theirfields. Production of annuals depends on till-ing, preparing seed beds, and applying chemi-cal inputs. Every year, the process starts overagain from scratch. This makes productionmore dependent on chemical inputs, which

Carbon-Rich Farming


and crops have complementary growth pat-terns, so that the trees shed their leaves duringthe crops’ growing season, avoiding light com-petition all together.31

While agroforestry systems have a lowercarbon storage potential per hectare thanstanding forests do, they can potentially beadopted on hundreds of millions of hectares.And because of the diverse benefits they offer,it is often more economical for farmers toestablish and retain them. A “Billion Tree Cam-paign” to promote agroforestry was launchedat the United Nations climate conventionmeeting in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2006.Within ayear and a half, the program had shattered ini-tial expectations and mobilized the plantingof 2 billion trees in more than 150 countries.32

Half the plantings occurred in Africa, with 700million in Ethiopia alone. By taking the leadfrom farmers and communities on the choiceof species, planting location, and management,and by providing adequate technical supportto ensure high-quality planting materials andmethods, these initiatives can ensure that thetrees will thrive and grow long enough andlarge enough to actually store a significantamount of carbon.In a prescient book in 1929, Joseph Russell

Smith observed the ecological vulnerabilitiesof annual crops and called for “A PermanentAgriculture.”33 This work highlighted thediversity of tree crops in the United States thatcould substitute for annual crops in producingstarch, protein, edible and industrial oils, ani-mal feed, and other goods as well as ediblefruits and nuts—if only concerted efforts weremade to develop genetic selection, manage-ment, and processing technologies.Worldwide,hundreds of indigenous species of perennialtrees, shrubs, and palms are already producinguseful products for regional markets but havenever been subject to systematic efforts of treedomestication and improvement or to marketdevelopment. Since one-third of the world’sannual cereal production is used to feed live-stock, finding perennial substitutes for live-stock feed is especially promising.34

Exciting initiatives are under way withdozens of perennial species, mainly tapping

yields than annuals, though this could beimproved through breeding. Since annuals livefor one season only, they give priority to seedsover vegetative growth, making yield improve-ment in annuals. Perennials have to allocatemore resources to vegetative parts like roots inorder to ensure survival through the winter.But in the quest for high-carbon agriculturalsystems, plants that produce more biomass area plus. Through breeding, it may also be possi-ble to redirect increased biomass content toseed production.Another method of increasing carbon in

agriculture is agroforestry, in which productivetrees are planted in and around crop fields andpastures. The tree species may provide prod-ucts (fruits, nuts, medicines, fuel, timber, andso on), farm production benefits (such asnitrogen fixation from leguminous tree speciesfor crop fertility, wind protection for crops oranimals, and fodder for animals), and ecosys-tem services (habitat for wild pollinators ofcrops, for example, or micro-climate improve-ment). The trees or other perennials in agro-forestry systems sequester and store carbon,boosting the carbon content of the agricul-tural landscape.Agroforestry was common traditionally in

agricultural systems in forest and woodlandecosystems and is being newly introduced intopresent-day subsistence and commercial sys-tems. The highest carbon storage results arefound in multistory agroforestry systems thathave many diverse species using ecological“niches,” from the high canopy to bottom-storyshade-tolerant crops.29 Examples are shade-grown coffee and cocoa plantations, wherecash crops are grown under a canopy of treesthat sequester carbon and provide habitats forwildlife. Simple intercrops are used where tree-crop competition is minimal or where thevalue of tree crops is greater than the valueof the intercropped annuals or grazing areas,or as a means to reduce market risks. Wherecrops are adversely affected by competitionfor light or water, trees may be grown in smallplots in mosaics with crops. Research is alsounder way to develop low-light tolerant cropvarieties.30 And in the Sahel, some native trees

Carbon-Rich Farming


mal’s stomach, while manure releases methaneand nitrous oxide, both of which are morepotent greenhouses gases than carbon dioxide.Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are alsoreleased as a result of land clearing for pasturesand feed crops, during soil degradation, andthrough the consumption of fossil fuels in var-ious stages of the livestock supply chain.41

Remarkably, annual greenhouse gas emis-sions from livestock total some 7.1 billion tons(including 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide

equivalent from clearing land for the animals),accounting for about 14.5 percent of climate-altering emissions from human activities, ornearly half of all emissions from agricultureand land use change.42 Indeed, a singlecow/calf pair on a beef (or even dairy) farmin the eastern United States is responsible formore greenhouse gas emissions in a year thana person driving nearly 13,000 kilometers in amid-sized car.43

Serious action on climate change willalmost certainly require reductions in theglobal consumption of meat and dairy bytoday’s major consumers in industrial coun-tries, as well as slowing the growth of demandin developing countries. As with other sourcesof agricultural emissions, no such major shiftseems likely without putting a price on live-stock-related greenhouse gases, so that pro-ducers treat them as a business cost and thushave a direct incentive to reduce them.

intra-species diversity to identify higher-yield-ing, higher-quality products and developingrapid propagation and processing methodsto use in value-added products. For example,more than 30 species of trees, shrubs, and lianein West Africa have been identified as promis-ing for domestication and commercial devel-opment. Commercial-scale initiatives areunder way to improve productivity of theAllanblackia and muiri (Prunus africanus)trees, which can be incorporated into multi-strata agroforestry systems to “mimic” the nat-ural rainforest habitat.35 Growing trees at highdensities is not, however, recommended in dryareas that are not naturally forested, as this maycause water shortages, as has happened witheucalyptus in some dry areas of Ethiopia.36

Around the world, farmers and energy pro-ducers are converting large areas of land to bio-fuels. Shifting biofuel production from annualcrops (which often have a net negative impacton greenhouse gas emission due to cultivation,fertilization, and fossil fuel use) to perennialalternatives like switchgrass offers a major newopportunity to use degraded or low-produc-tivity areas for economically valuable cropswith positive ecosystem impacts.37 But thiswill require an approach that strategically inte-grates biofuels into landscapes in ways that useresources sustainably, enhance overall carbonintensity in the landscape, and complementother key land uses and ecosystem services.38

Strategy 3: Climate-Friendly Livestock Systems

Domestic livestock—cattle, pigs, sheep, goats,poultry, donkeys, and so on—account for mostof the total living animal biomass worldwide.A revolution in livestock product consumptionhas been under way since the 1970s. Meat con-sumption in China, for example, more thandoubled in the past 20 years and is projectedto double again by 2030.39 This trend has trig-gered the rise of huge feedlots and confineddairies—or factory farms—around manycities, and the clearing of huge areas of landfor grazing.40

Livestock generate prodigious quantities ofgreenhouse gases. Methane is produced fromthe fermentation of plant matter in the ani-

Carbon-Rich Farming

Agroforestry: mango trees interspersed in rice paddies in Nepal.

SajalS

thapit

Meanwhile, a variety of solutions are athand to reduce current livestock-related emis-sions. Innovative grazing systems, for example,offer alternatives to both extensive grazing sys-tems and confined feedlots and dairies, greatlyreducing net greenhouse gas emissions whileincreasing productivity. Conventional thinkingsays that the current number of livestock inmany grazing areas of the world far exceedsthe carrying capacity of the ecosystem. But inmany circumstances, this reflects poor grazingmanagement practices rather than having toomany animals in one place.

Research shows that grasslands can supportlarge livestock herds more sustainably throughbetter management of herd rotations, whichallows the vegetation to regenerate after graz-ing. Letting plants recover protects the soilorganic matter and carbon from erosion whilemaintaining or even increasing livestock pro-ductivity in some places. For example, a 4,800-hectare U.S. ranch that uses rotational grazingpractices was able to triple the perennialspecies in the rangelands while also nearlytripling beef production, from 66 kilograms to171 kilograms per hectare.44 Various types ofrotational grazing are being practiced success-fully in the United States, Australia, NewZealand, parts of Europe, and southern andeastern Africa.45 Large areas of degradedrangeland and pastures around the worldcould be brought under rotational grazing to

enable sustainable livestock production.Rotational grazing also offers a viable alter-

native to confined animal operations. A majorstudy by the U.S. Department of Agriculturecompared four temperate dairy productionsystems: a full-year confinement dairy, con-finement with supplemental grazing, an out-door all-year and all-perennial grassland dairy,and an outdoor cow-calf operation on peren-nial grassland.46 The study found that the netcarbon emissions were much higher for theconfinement dairy than for the grazing systems,mainly because high carbon sequestration inthe latter more than offsets somewhat higheroverall carbon emissions. The researchers con-cluded that the best ways to improve the green-house gas footprint of intensive dairy and meatoperations are to: improve carbon storage ingrass systems, feed more grain and less foragein confined operations, use higher-quality for-age overall, eliminate the storage of manure orcover the stores and flare the gas, increase pro-duction per animal, and use well-managedrotational grazing.Methane produced in the animal’s rumen—

the first stomach of cattle, sheep, goats, andother species that chew the cud—accounts forthe annual release of some 1.8 billion tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent.47 Nutrient supple-ments and innovative feed mixes, such as thosewith increased starch content, have been devel-oped to make feed easier for animals to digest,thereby reducing methane production. Otheradvanced techniques for methane reductioninclude removing specific microbial organ-isms from the rumen (a process known asdefaunation) and adding other bacteria thatactually reduce gas production in the rumen.Defaunation can reduce methane emissionsby 20 percent, although this practice is notyet commercially viable for most farmers.48

Research is also under way to develop vaccinesagainst the organisms in the stomach that pro-duce methane.49

These approaches require fairly sophisti-cated management, so they are useful mainlyin larger-scale, intensive livestock operations(which also tend to be a significant sourceof livestock-related methane emissions).50


Carbon-Rich Farming

In need of rotation: cattle on over-grazed pasture near Elgin, Texas.

Raym

ondGilfo

rd

They will not benefit the millions of pastoral-ists who depend on livestock for their dailysurvival. As a result, other solutions that relyon rotational grazing, managing herds, andrestoring grasslands must be further developedand implemented.Manure is a major source of methane,

responsible for some 400 million tons of car-bon dioxide equivalent.51 And poor manuremanagement is a leading source of water pol-lution.52 Large manure lagoons, or pits, canleak into groundwater and also contaminatesurface water when they overflow duringstorms or hurricanes.But manure is also an opportunity for

an alternative fuel that can reduce a farm’sreliance on fossil fuels. By using appropriatetechnologies such as an anaerobic biogasdigester, farmers can profit from their farmwaste while helping the climate. A biogasdigester is basically a temperature-controlledair-tight vessel. Manure (or food waste) is fedinto the vessel, where microbial action breaks itdown into methane or biogas and a low-odor,nutrient-rich sludge. The biogas can be burnedfor heat or electricity and the sludge can beused as fertilizer in locations where it makeseconomic sense. Methane has 25 times theglobal warming potential of carbon dioxide,so collecting the methane and burning it to

convert it to carbon dioxide will have a lesseroverall impact on the climate.53

By thinking creatively, previously underval-ued and dangerous wastes can be convertedinto new sources of energy, cost savings, andeven income. In 2005, the Penn England dairyfarm in Pennsylvania invested $141,370 in adigester to process manure and $135,000 in acombined heat and power unit, with a totalproject cost of $1.14 million to process themanure from 800 cows.54* Today, the farmgenerates 120 kilowatts of electricity, which insome months is more that it can use.55 In addi-tion, the generator produces sufficient heat towarm the digester, make hot water, and heatthe barns and farm buildings.Many large dairies and confined pig opera-

tions in the United States are already receivinglarge government subsidies to invest in anaero-bic digesters. In the developing world, somecommunities are using manure to producebiogas cooking fuel. Biogas digesters involve aninitial cash investment that often needs to beadvanced for low-income producers, but life-time benefits far outweigh the costs.56 Thistechnology could be extended to millions offarmers, with benefits for the climate as wellas for human well-being by providing greateraccess to energy.


Carbon-Rich Farming

* All dollar amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars unlessindicated otherwise.

Conserving and RestoringNatural Habitats

ost farming landscapes aroundthe world still retain, or have thepotential to restore, large areas offorests and natural grasslands

under private, community, or public manage-ment. These areas are often important for locallivelihoods, whether for gathering food, fuel,raw materials, or medicines, or for grazing, andthey provide critical habitat for biodiversity.Conserving and restoring these resources on alarge scale would contribute powerfully toslowing climate change. Thus, two additionalstrategies for sequestering terrestrial carbonare protecting natural habitat and restoringdegraded watersheds and rangelands.

Strategy 4: Protecting Natural Habitat

The planet’s 4 billion hectares of forests and5 billion hectares of natural grasslands are amassive reservoir of carbon—both in vegeta-tion above ground and in root systems belowground.1 As forests and grasslands continue togrow, they remove carbon from the atmosphereand contribute to climate change mitigation.Natural and undisturbed forests are particularlyimportant. Intact natural forests in SoutheastAustralia, for example, hold 2,349 tons of car-bon dioxide equivalent per hectare, comparedwith 796 tons on average for temperate forests.2

Thus, in terms of total emissions reductionfrom land use interventions, protecting Earth’sexisting carbon in forests and grasslands couldhave the largest impact, if achieved.Massive deforestation is releasing stored car-

bon back into the atmosphere. Between 2000and 2005, the world lost forest area at a rate of7.3 million hectares per year.3 For every hectareof forest cleared, hundreds of tons of carbon

are added to the atmosphere, depending on thetype of tree removed.4 Deforestation and landclearing have many causes, from large-scale,organized clearing for crop and grazing landand infrastructure, to the small-scale move-ment of marginalized people into forests insearch of farming or employment opportuni-ties. Trees are also cleared for the commercialsale of timber, pulp, and fuelwood. In manycases, the key drivers of deforestation are out-side the productive land use sectors and areinstead the result of public policies in othersectors, such as the construction of roads andother infrastructure, human settlements, orborder control.Unlike many of the other climate-mitigating

land use strategies described in the previoussection, protecting large areas of standingnatural vegetation typically provides fewershort-term financial or livelihood benefits forlandowners and managers. It may even reducetheir incomes or livelihood security. In placeswhere there is strong enforcement capacity, thesolution may lie in regulation: in Australia, forexample, comprehensive laws restrict the clear-ing of natural vegetation.5 In many areas, how-ever, the challenge is to develop incentives forconservation for the key stakeholders.Several approaches are being used. One is to

raise the economic value of standing forests orgrasslands by improving markets for sustain-ably harvested, high-value products from thoseareas or by paying land managers directly fortheir conservation value. Current internationalnegotiations are exploring the possibility ofcompensating developing countries for leavingtheir forests intact or improving forest man-agement. At the United Nations climate con-


M

vention in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007,governments agreed to a two-year negotiationprocess that would lead to the adoption ofa mechanism for “reduced emissions fromdeforestation and degradation” (REDD) after2012.6 Implementation of any eventual REDDmechanism will pose major methodological,institutional, and governance challenges, butnumerous initiatives are already under way tobegin addressing these problems.A second incentive for conservation is prod-

uct certification, whereby agricultural and for-est products are labeled as having beenproduced without clearing natural habitats orin “mosaic” landscapes that conserve a mini-mum area of natural patches. For example, theInternational Finance Corporation’s Biodiver-sity and Agricultural Commodities Programseeks to increase the production of sustainablyproduced and verified commodities (for exam-ple, palm oil, soy, sugarcane, and cocoa), work-ing closely with commodity roundtables andtheir members, regulatory institutions, andpolicymakers.While the priority focus is onconservation of biodiversity, this initiative willhave significant climate impacts as well, due toits focus on protecting existing carbon vegeta-tive sinks from conversion, developing stan-dards for sustainable biofuels, and establishingcertification systems.7

A third approach is to secure local tenurerights for communal forests and grasslands sothat local people have an incentive to managethese resources sustainably and protect themfrom outside threats such as illegal commerciallogging or land grabs for agriculture. Manywomen in particular are not allowed to ownland, even in places where they comprise amajority of the farmers and livestock keepers.A study in 2006 of 49 community forest man-agement cases worldwide (admittedly a smallnumber) found that all the initiatives thatincluded tenure security were successful, butthat only 38 percent of those without it suc-ceeded.8 Diverse approaches and legal arrange-ments are being used to strengthen tenuresecurity and local governance capacity.The burning of biomass—forests, grass-

lands, and agricultural fields—is a significant

source of carbon emissions, especially in devel-oping countries. Controlled biomass burningin the agricultural sector, on a limited scale, canhave positive functions as a means of clearingand rotating individual plots for crop produc-tion; in some ecosystems, it is a healthy meansof weed control and soil fertility improvement.In several natural ecosystems, such as savannaand scrub forests, wild fires can help maintainbiotic functions, as in Australia.9 But in manyforest ecosystems, fires are set mostly by

humans and are environmentally harmful—killing wildlife, reducing habitat, and setting thestage for more fires by reducing moisture con-tent and increasing combustible materials. Evenwhere they can be beneficial from an agricul-tural perspective, fires can inadvertently spreadto natural ecosystems, opening them up for fur-ther agricultural colonization.Systems are already being put in place to

track fires in “real time” so that governmentsand third-party monitors can identify thepeople responsible. In the case of large-scaleranchers and commercial crop producers, bet-ter regulatory enforcement is needed, alongwith alternatives to fire for management pur-poses. For small-scale, community producers,the most successful approaches have been tolink fire control with investments in sustain-able intensification of production, in order todevelop incentives within the community toprotect investments from fire damage. These


Waterfall in the forested wilderness of New South Wales, Australia.

Tatia

naGe

rus

Conserving and Restoring Natural Habitats

“social controls” have been used effectively togenerate local rules and norms around the useof fire in Honduras and The Gambia.10

Protected conservation areas provide a widerange of benefits, including climate regulation.Just letting these areas stand not only helps thebiodiversity within, it also stores the carbon,avoiding major releases in greenhouse gasemissions. Moreover, due to some early effectsof climate change, important habitats forwildlife are shifting out of protected areas.Plants are growing in higher altitudes as theyseek cooler temperatures, while birds havestarted altering their breeding times.11 Largerand geographically well distributed areas thusneed to be put under some form of protection.This need not always be through public pro-

tected areas. At least 370 million hectares offorest and forest-agriculture landscapes out-side official protected areas are already underlocal conservation management, while halfof the world’s 102,000 protected areas arein ancestral lands of indigenous and othercommunities that do not want to see themdeveloped.12 Conservation agencies and com-munities are finding diverse incentives forprotecting these areas, from the sustainableharvesting of foods, medicines, and raw mate-rials to the protection of locally importantecosystem services and religious and culturalvalues as well as opportunities for naturetourism income. Supporting these efforts todevelop and sustain protected area networks,including public, community, and private con-servation areas, can be a highly effective way toreduce and store greenhouse gases.

Strategy 5: Restoring Degraded Watershedsand Rangelands

Extensive areas of the world have beendenuded of vegetation from large-scale landclearing for annual crops or grazing and fromoveruse and poor management in communityand public lands with weak governance. This isa tragic loss, from multiple perspectives. Peopleliving in these areas have lost a potentiallyvaluable asset for the production of animalfodder, fuel, medicines, and raw materials.Gathering such materials is an especially

important source of income and subsistencefor low-income rural people. For example,researchers found in Zimbabwe that 24 percentof the average total income of poor farmerscame from gathering woodland products.13 Atthe same time, the loss of vegetation seriouslythreatens ecosystem services, particularlywatershed functions and wildlife habitat.Efforts to restore degraded areas can thus be

“win-win-win” investments. Although theremay be fewer tons of carbon dioxide seques-tered per hectare from restoration activities,millions of hectares can be restored with lowopportunity costs and strong local incentivesfor participation and maintenance.Hydrologists have learned that “green

water”—the water stored in vegetation and fil-trating into soils—is as important as the “bluewater” in streams and lakes.14 When rain fallson bare soils, most is lost as runoff. Landscapesthat retain year-round vegetative cover instrategically selected areas and natural habitatcover in critical riparian areas can maintainmost, if not all, of various watershed functions,even if much of the watershed is under pro-ductive uses. In many of the world’s majorwatersheds, most of the land is in productiveuse. Poor vegetative cover limits the capacity toretain rainfall in the system or to filter waterflowing into streams and lakes—thereforeaccelerating soil loss. From a climate perspec-tive, lands stripped of vegetation have lost thepotential to store carbon.With rapid worldwide growth in the

demand for water and with water scarcitylooming in many countries (probably in partdue to climate change), watershed revegetationis now getting serious policy attention. BothIndia and China have launched large nationalprograms targeting millions of hectares offorests and grasslands for revegetating, andthey see these as investments to reduce ruralpoverty and protect critical watersheds.15 Inmost cases, very low-cost methods are used forrevegetation—mainly temporary protection toenable natural vegetation to reestablish itselfwithout the threat of overgrazing or fire. InMorocco, 34 pastoral cooperatives with morethan 8,000 members rehabilitated and manage



450,000 hectares of grazing reserves.16

On highly degraded soils, some cultivationor reseeding may be needed. Two keys to suc-cess in these approaches are to engage localcommunities in planning, developing, andmaintaining watershed areas, and to includerehabilitation of areas of high local impor-tance. These areas can include productive graz-ing lands, local woodfuel sources, and featuressuch as gullies that can be used for productivecropping. In Rajasthan, India, community-ledwatershed restoration programs have rein-stated more than 5,000 traditional johads(rainwater storage tanks) in over 1,000 villages,increasing water supplies for irrigation,wildlife, livestock, and domestic use andrecharging groundwater.17 As a result, naturalvegetative cover has been re-established and

crop biomass has increased, sequestering car-bon in soils.In Niger, a “regreening”movement using

farmer-managed natural regeneration andsimple soil and water conservation practicesreversed desertification, increased tree andshrub cover 10- to 20-fold, and reclaimed atleast 250,000 hectares of degraded land forcrops.18 (See Figure 2.) Over 25 years, at least aquarter of the country’s farmers were involvedin restoring about 5 million hectares of land,benefiting at least 4.5 million people throughincreased crop production, income, and foodsecurity.19 Extending the scale of such effortscould have major climate benefits, with hugeadvantages as well for water security, biodiver-sity, and rural livelihoods.Loss and fragmentation of natural habitat


Figure 2. Managing Natural Regeneration in the Drylands of Niger

1975 2003

Difference in vegetation levels between 1975 (left) and 2003 (right) in Niger. This increase can be attributed tothe farmer-managed natural regeneration of vegetation. The 15–20 times increase in on-farm tree numbers isabsent across the border in Nigeria despite similarities in landscape, soils, vegetation type, and even greateraverage rainfall.



are leading threats to biodiversity worldwide.Conservation biologists have concluded that inmany areas, conservation of biodiversity willrequire the establishment of “biological corri-dors” through production landscapes to con-nect fragments of natural habitat andprotected areas and to give species access toadequate territory and sources of food andwater. One key strategy is to reestablish forestor natural grassland cover (depending on theecosystem) to play this ecological role, takingadvantage of uncultivated areas in and around

farmers, culturally important protected areas,and lands around public and private infra-structure and settlements. Such reforestationefforts would also have major climate benefits.In Brazil’s highly threatened Atlantic Forest,

conservation organizations working in theDesengano State Park struck a deal with dairyfarmers to provide technical assistance toimprove dairy-farm productivity in exchangefor the farmers reforesting part of their landand maintaining it as a conservation easement.Milk yields tripled and farmers’ incomes dou-bled, while a strategic buffer zone was estab-lished for the park.20

In northwestern Ecuador, two-thirds ofcoastal rainforests have been lost due to log-ging and agricultural expansion, risking thesurvival of 2,000 plant and 450 bird species.The Chocó-Manabí corridor reforestationproject is attempting to improve wild species’access to refuge habitats by restoring connec-tivity between native forest patches throughreforestation efforts. This project is restoring265 hectares of degraded pastures with 15native trees species and as a result is sequester-ing 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide.21 Theopportunity for such investments is mobilizingnew partnerships among wildlife conservationorganizations, the climate action community,farmers, and ranchers.



A sample of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, on the island of Ilhabela.

TCh

u

A Real Climate Solution?

f we add up all the ways in which farmingand land use can help store carbon, it isclear that farmers and the agriculturalcommunity can play a central role in fight-

ing climate change. The IPCC estimates thatat $100 per ton of greenhouse gas mitigation,agriculture has a sequestration potential of4.0–4.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide equiva-lent a year by 2030.1 (See Figure 3.) Afforesta-tion, reduced deforestation, and better forestmanagement have the potential of sequestering13.8 billion tons a year by 2030.2 Even at pricesat or below $20 per ton of carbon dioxideequivalent, 1.5–1.6 billion tons can be seques-tered annually from better agronomic, grazing,and soil management practices, and 5.8 billiontons can be sequestered by the forestry sector.3

Even at the lower mitigation prices, theseactions would be sufficient to offset a quarterof global emissions from fossil fuel use in ayear. In contrast, many of the most promisingsolutions for reducing emissions in the energysector are still in the technology developmentand testing phase, and they are unlikely to bewidely utilized for decades. Alternative energysystems play the important role of loweringtotal greenhouse gas emissions by replacingfossil fuels. But the land use and agriculturesector have the crucial role of sequestering thecarbon already in the atmosphere. To reallytackle the climate challenge, we need to be pur-suing both energy and land use solutions.Meanwhile, the current concentration of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is above382 parts per million of carbon dioxide, upfrom 278 ppm in pre-industrial times.4 TheIPCC Fourth Assessment Report set 450 ppm asthe lowest “safe” concentration of carbon diox-

ide in the atmosphere.5 However, recent scien-tific evidence and analyses have induced manyscientists to argue that concentrations mustactually drop to at least 350 ppm if we are toavoid the risk of catastrophic consequences forfood production, ecosystem stability, andhuman health.6 This implies not simply reduc-ing emissions, but actually achieving netsequestration of greenhouse gases.Potential solutions for large-scale green-

house gas sequestration, such as geological car-bon capture and storage, are not ready to bedeployed on a large scale for at least another


I

Figure 3. Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Potentials fromFarming and Land Use, by Level of Mitigation Spending

Mill

ion

met

ric

tons

CO

2eq

Croplan

d

man

agem

ent

Grazin

g land

man

agem

ent

Resto

ring

organ

icso

ils

Resto

ring

degra

dedlan

dsRice

man

agem

ent

Lives

tock

Man

ure

man

agem

ent

Source: Smith, IPCC

$0–20 per ton CO2eq



Technical potential

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

Note: Figure illustrates how different strategies can achieve varying degrees of emissionreduction by the year 2030 for a given amount of money spent. In the case of croplandmanagement, nearly half of the technical potential can be achieved at a carbon price lowerthan $20 per ton, but spending additional money (up to $100 per ton) gives little furtherbenefit. On the other hand, spending more on grazing land management, restoring organicsoils, and restoring degraded lands can achieve significantly higher emission reduction.


to satisfy buyers of carbon offset credits andregulatory entities, as well as mechanisms thatcan be used to scale up climate-friendly land-use practices.

Producing Real Results

The single most important criterion for invest-ing in farming and land use for carbon emis-sions reduction, sequestration, and storage mustbe that net emissions actually decline as expected.Thus, the three big questions raised aboutfarming and land use carbon investments are:• Will the emissions be reduced, only to beemitted back into the atmosphere later forno net benefit—that is, will the impact bepermanent?• Will climate benefits actually be greater thanthose expected in the baseline conditions—that is, will they be additional?• Will emission reductions in one place simplybe offset by increases in emissions else-where—that is, will there be leakage?The issue of “permanence” arises because the

carbon stored in soils and vegetation can easilybe released, either intentionally through cultiva-tion and harvest or unintentionally throughaccidental burning or natural disaster. Land useis inherently dynamic in response to both eco-logical processes and economic incentives, soany system that incorporates farming and landuse action must allow for site-level changes.One approach commonly used in forestry

projects is to calculate tree growth and harvestregimes, and to recognize only the net carbonsequestration. Insurance systems are essential.Producers typically self-insure by implementingclimate-friendly management over much largerareas than are committed for sequestration, byadjusting the latter for defined risks, and bydeveloping and implementing risk managementplans. Experience has shown that forestry andagroforestry projects that are managed by orwith local communities typically have lower riskprofiles than those on large plantations.8Whereinvestments lead to a transformation of produc-tion and land use systems to incorporate fargreater perennial components in profitablepractices, these can be very long-lived.Even land use practices that sequester and

10–15 years.7 More crucially, these technolo-gies are designed primarily to capture emis-sions produced at coal-burning power stationsand not to sequester greenhouse gases alreadypresent in the atmosphere, which urgentlyneeds to happen.Only terrestrial carbon sequestration offers

that possibility today. Most of the solutionsdescribed in this report already exist and arewidely known and deployed by farmers,agribusinesses, agricultural and environmental

organizations, and public agencies. Scaling upcould begin immediately, building on existingefforts in those sectors. Many options can beimplemented at relatively modest cost and insome cases by sharing costs with groups inter-ested in the collateral benefits, such as productsupply or watershed protection.But would such actions result in a real, last-

ing, and measurable impact on greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphere? And is itreally feasible to scale up climate-friendly agri-cultural, livestock, restoration, and habitatconservation efforts by hundreds of millionsof hectares in the next few decades? Will themainstream food industry help or hamperthese efforts? And can national policy makea difference?Fortunately, land use interventions for cli-

mate change can be designed to produce realresults for the climate. Experts are developingways to measure those benefits well enough


How long sequestered? A pine plantation in the United States.

USDA

/NRC

S


farmers should be paid only for activities thatare highly unprofitable—such as taking landout of production or using expensive mitiga-tion technologies—to compensate them forgiving up these profits.But this type of thinking will not facilitate

large-scale land use change. There are nowrobust methodologies for establishing conser-vative baselines for land use and associatedemissions change in many types of agroecosys-tems and landscapes. (See next section). It isalso now fairly well established that additional-ity criteria are met when investments enablefarmers and land users to overcome significantbarriers to adopting profitable climate-friendlypractices. These include, for example, lack oftechnical assistance, lack of regionally availableplanting materials, lack of investment credit, orlack of essential infrastructure. In such cases,investments to overcome those barriers areacknowledged to create “real” additional bene-fits for the climate.Inherently profitable and sustainable inter-

ventions are precisely those with the greatestpotential for large-scale adoption, impact, andpermanence, as continuous external paymentsand investments are not needed to ensure theircontinued use. Financial resources for continu-ous payments can then be used to compensatefarmers and land users to maintain strictly con-served, undisturbed areas in selected high-pri-ority wildlife nesting sites or critical watershedsthat generate few financial flows to farmers.Furthermore, failing to reward sustainable

producers creates perverse incentives wherebyhistorically good land managers are bypassedby programs that favor producers who havecontributed most to climate problems. InNicaragua, for example, farmers who werebypassed for carbon and biodiversity pay-ments, despite a history of excellent land hus-bandry, wondered if they would be eligible ifthey uprooted their trees.9 Most cap-and-tradesystems to address carbon emissions are cur-rently set up this way, but there are alternativemechanisms to ensure that good actors arerewarded. Options include premiums for cli-mate-friendly certification or preferred pro-curement, taxes on high emitters, and

store carbon for long periods and then ulti-mately release most or all of the carbon have apositive impact on climate by delaying emis-sions that increase concentrations of green-house gases in the atmosphere. Although suchsystems should not be rewarded at the samerate as more permanent stores, they play avaluable role. Moreover, by devising climateaction strategies over large geographic areas(watersheds, landscapes, and territories), large-scale changes in land use, land managementand institutions, permanence of emissionreductions, and sequestration/storage in aggre-gate can be tracked and rewarded.Freezing land use patterns is not a viable

goal. Rather, we should be seeking transitionsto new dynamic equilibriums in which overallsequestration is vastly greater than overallemissions. This will occur only with shifts inunderlying incentives for conserving carbonin soils and perennial vegetation and for low-emissions farm and land management.Whileabsolute permanence cannot be guaranteed,“long-lasting” changes are highly feasible andare worth striving for. Moreover, because ofthe cumulative impacts of carbon in theatmosphere, there are huge climate benefitsfrom sequestration in the near-term, even ifthat carbon is ultimately released in severaldecades. Land use sequestration, even if notfully permanent, is thus highly complementarywith energy strategies whose impacts are pro-jected in future decades.There is a common concern about “addi-

tionality”—the concept that land managersshould not be rewarded with financing or pay-ments for climate-protective land uses andmanagement practices that they are doingalready (or that they would be likely to do inresponse to demographic, economic, or eco-logical changes under way) without “addi-tional” resources. The concern is expressedparticularly in relation to land uses and man-agement practices that are inherently profitableto the manager. If no-till systems or rotationalgrazing save the farmers money, why shouldspecial efforts or resources be put into helpingthem or rewarding them for making thischange? One stance on additionality is that



than their high-emitting competitors. Rela-tively modest initial investments in helpingfarmers overcome adoption barriers can leadto long-lasting benefits from climate-friendly,sustainable farming systems.

Measuring Climate Impacts

For terrestrial carbon offsets to work, sellers ofthe offsets must satisfy buyers and regulatoryagencies that the offsets produce measurablereductions of greenhouse gases over time.Negotiations for a successor international cli-mate agreement to the Kyoto Protocol willlikely include “avoided deforestation” (REDD)mechanisms, facilitated by the development ofnational forest carbon accounting methods.A major constraint to the inclusion of agri-

cultural emissions and offsets in international,European, and national greenhouse gas trad-ing, market, and offset schemes is the absenceof rigorous, validated methodologies forassessing agriculture-related emissions, seques-tration, and storage. Yet scientists are rapidlydeveloping methodologies for assessing carbonbalances for specific components of agricul-tural land use—for example, soil organic mat-ter enrichment, conservation tillage, grasslandmanagement, and tree crop plantations andagroforestry systems.10

The scientific capacity to measure soilcarbon is quite developed, and significantadvances have been made in just the last fewyears. Soil sampling equipment and protocolshave been around for decades. New lab proto-cols and modern dry-combustion auto-analyz-ers can now measure the carbon content of asoil sample within the range of 1–2 percenterror. Field experiments have documented theimpact of environment and managementchanges on soil carbon content.Since carbon content in soils from an

individual field can vary widely, samplingapproaches are being developed that linkremote sensing with representative samples ofsoil. Instead of measuring directly, a lower-costalternative is to measure adoption of specificmanagement practices whose average impacthas been validated for a particular agroecosys-tem. An integrated approach that combines

incorporating the value of positive climateimpacts into land valuation and payments.The third issue of concern in making sure

that land use projects are effective is potential“leakage,” a situation where achieving climatebenefits in one place simply displaces land usepressures elsewhere, resulting in no net reduc-tion in emissions. Stopping deforestation forlogging and land-clearing in one forest, forexample, may simply induce loggers to moveto another forest and increase clearing there.This problem arises mainly for interventionsof “avoided emissions,” where the interventionthat reduces production and demand can eas-ily shift to other sources of supply of land orproducts. Thus, if low-emissions cropping sys-tems result in lower overall supply or induceprice increases for the product, then othernon-climate-friendly or lower-cost producersmay step into the market.For the subset of farming and land-use

interventions where this is an issue, severalsolutions have been devised. The first is imple-mentation at a large scale, spatially. Here, mon-itoring and financial support take into accountthe net change in emissions across the entirearea or market. This is the motivation behindthe requirement that countries developnational baselines to become eligible for largepayments for REDD activities. Another solu-tion is to limit the market only to producersthat can be certified as “climate-friendly” byregulators or third-party certification systems.But leakage is simply not a problem for

most types of climate-friendly farming andland use that involve carbon sequestration,or where emission reduction practices do notsignificantly increase farmers’ costs of produc-tion. Investing in agroforestry practices in set-tled farming systems is far more likely to takeland-clearing and harvest pressure off of anynearby natural forests. Enhancing soil carbonin agricultural fields will typically increase cropyields and farm income, enabling farmers touse less land for the same production and toavoid land-clearing. Reducing methane emis-sions from dairy operations through biogasdigesters that supply farm energy needs willsometimes make those farms more profitable


the best elements of each is probably the mostpractical way forward.Diverse measurement and monitoring

approaches have been developed for farmforestry and agroforestry, and for restoringdegraded lands. These include remote sensingof above-ground (and in some cases below-ground) biomass, oblique ground-based pho-tography, field sampling, and participatorymonitoring by farmers.This piecemeal approach, however, gener-

ates skepticism that climate investment bene-fits in one component of the landscape will beundermined by increased emissions elsewherein the landscape. Absent is an integratedapproach to landscape-level carbon accountingthat would reflect diverse land uses and prac-tices and thus enable rigorous but more cost-effective monitoring of large-area carbonsequestration or offset investment programsin heterogeneous, dynamic landscapes.Several groups, such as the Terrestrial Car-

bon Group, the World Agroforestry Centre,and the Cornell University EcoagricultureWorking Group, have begun to mobilizeresearch on affordable methodologies for land-scape-scale assessment. It is quite feasible nowto develop a step-by-step timeline for develop-ing rigorous measurement methods, whileenabling investments in specific componentsto move ahead with their own measurementsystems. A checklist-based process can certifythat investments are not associated withincreased emissions from other land use com-ponents in the landscape.

Scaling Up Investment

Most of the climate-friendly farming and landuse approaches described in this report havebeen successful in pilot or individual landscapecases. But these initiatives must be mobilizedat a large-enough scale to make a difference tothe world’s climate. Prevailing perceptions heldby the climate change science and policy com-munities are that agriculture, forestry, andconservation are lagging sectors with weakinstitutions, unlikely to provide solutions atscale, while the energy sector is considered cut-ting-edge and thus more promising.

This skepticism has a variety of sources. Thediversity of site-specific practices makes it hardto envision that significant economies of scalewill develop in terrestrial carbon-based miti-gation.Working with small-scale farmers isassumed to imply working only at a limitedscale, even if millions of participants areinvolved. Drylands and other areas where plantgrowth is slow and biomass per hectare is loware assumed to have low potential for sequestra-tion, despite the fact that huge areas could beinvolved. Pilot projects are being done at a smallscale, allowing for rigorous work and an objec-tive assessment of progress against a good base-line. But sustaining funding for such rigorouswork on a larger scale is presently a big hurdle.High-quality climate projects with farmers

and rural communities require community-scale planning—both technical and organiza-tional—and this is seen as too slow a processto satisfy carbon investors or to scale up ade-quately. In developing strategies for carbonpayments and trading, there is a concern thatpoorly developed and integrated market insti-tutions (not just sellers’ and buyers’ groupsbut also regulators, verifiers, certifiers, brokers,bankers, and registers) and poor negotiatingpower on the part of rural communities meansthat most of the value of carbon credits willbe taken by intermediaries, with little left overto provide meaningful financial incentives toland managers.But these are the “barriers” that justify the

“additionality” of climate finance investment.And there are institutional models and experi-ences already available to overcome most ofthese hurdles; they just require institutionalinvestment, capacity-building, and financefor scaling up. This expertise is held largely inrural development agencies, farmers’ organiza-tions, nongovernmental organizations, andprivate agricultural input and service providers.In fact, sustainable land management and ruraldevelopment are pretty much bread-and-but-ter issues for many of these groups. But thatexpertise has not been fully tapped by the cli-mate expert and advocacy communities, whichwill be crucial if the hard-won lessons of thelast 50 years are not to be expensively reinvented.



For example, small local projects can becoordinated, and critical services provided, inthe context of overall regional developmentefforts that can provide sustained funding anda common vision. A larger platform can pro-vide a forum for drawing general patternsfrom pilot experiences that reduces the needfor re-inventing the wheel by spreading knowl-edge from past efforts. National platforms forcoordinating actions on sustainable land man-agement offer a forum for partnerships thatfoster common vision and goals and consoli-dation of resources.One example is TerrAfrica, a multi-stake-

holder platform to upscale and align invest-ments related to sustainable land managementin sub-Saharan Africa.11 The platform sup-ports implementation of countries’ NationalAction Programs for the U.N. Convention toCombat Desertification and the New Partner-ship for Africa’s Development’s (NEPAD’s)Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Develop-ment Program to improve food security andproductivity. It provides knowledge-sharing,coalition-building, and coordination of coun-try-based investments across sectors, which isalready being tapped for climate adaptationand mitigation activities.Territorial management initiatives, includ-

ing programs implemented by indigenouspeoples’ authorities, are also under way in theAndes and Mesoamerica. Very large-scale gov-ernment programs for restoring degradedlands and forests are being implemented inIndia and China and can be enhanced as aplatform for climate-focused action. India’sIntegratedWasteland Development Project, forexample, has set a long-term goal of restoringover 30 million hectares of non-forest waste-lands. And China’s Sloping Lands Programhas set a soft target of converting 14.7 millionhectares of wasteland into forests, although thetop-down planning approach with little com-munity input has come under criticism.12

Community-led initiatives for managednatural regeneration in Africa, with modestexternal support, have restored 250,000hectares of degraded lands in Niger and350,000 hectares in Tanzania.13 Conservation

International now has at least 33 agreementswith indigenous families, fishers, farmers,and communities in six countries to sequesterand store carbon, enhance biodiversity, andimprove rural livelihoods on more than600,000 hectares of land.14 And the Interna-tional Fund for Agricultural Development haslong experience with rural land restorationprojects for very low-income farmers and pas-toralists.15 South Asian and East African dairyfarmer cooperatives, which are numerous andwell-organized, with tens or hundreds of thou-sands of smallholders, could be a platform forclimate-friendly production systems.Meanwhile, community planning and stake-

holder participation for climate action—timespent in meetings and negotiations—shouldnot be seen as time wasted. Instead, it is timeinvested to reduce future risks. As stakeholdersdevelop trust and relationships by workingtogether, and as more groups are involved,there is less risk that an action will fail or beabandoned. Project designs are more effectiveand sustainable, and the benefits are enjoyedmore widely.Action can be initiated with organized and

tenure-secure communities, and then expandedto build the capacity of farmer and local organ-izations working on the landscape scale. Aslocal groups take leadership roles, the climatesector can focus on developing small-grantfacilities for local analysis, planning, facilita-tion, and mapping. Communities shouldalso be represented at the negotiation table.Through the Community Knowledge Service,for example, the Equator Initiative and Ecoagri-culture Partners have helped farmer and com-munity representatives participate in previousinternational negotiations. There should be astrong presence at the Copenhagen meetings inDecember 2009, as well as at future meetingsboth internationally and nationally where the“rules of the game” are established.New and improved institutional models

are needed to implement terrestrial emissionreduction and sequestration initiatives at scaleand in a way that will enable financial incen-tives to be delivered efficiently to land users.This will require facilitating collaboration



among large numbers of land managers in sell-ing climate benefits, developing investmentvehicles for buyers, and organizing efficientintermediation to achieve economies of scale.

Innovation in the Food Industry

A core opportunity for mobilizing climateaction is shifting policy and investment priori-ties and supporting institutions to createincentives for farmers, pastoralists, forest own-ers, agribusiness, and all other stakeholderswithin the agriculture and forestry supplychains to scale up best practices and innovatenew ones. This will require concerted action byconsumers, farmers’ organizations, the foodindustry, civil society, and governments, whichis already beginning to happen.The central players in any response to cli-

mate change are the producers—those whoactually manage land—and the food industry,which shapes the incentives for the choice ofcrops, quality standards, and profitability.Some innovators are already showing the way.For example, the Sustainable Food Lab, a col-laborative of 70 businesses and social organiza-tions from around the world, has assembled ateam of member companies, universityresearchers, and technical experts to developand test ways to measure and provide incen-tives for low-carbon agricultural practicesthrough the food supply chain, mainly byincreasing soil organic matter, improving fer-tilizer application, and enhancing the capacityof crops and soil to store carbon.16

A key driver is consumer and buyer aware-ness. Consumers will take the needed stepsonce they realize that their choice of grain,meat, and dairy products, and their support fornatural forests and grassland protection, canhave a greater impact on the climate than howfar they drive their cars. One immediate actionis for consumers, processors, and distributors tosupport labeling of the climate impacts of foodand fiber products. This can be based on green-house gas “footprint analysis” that evaluates theproducts’ full lifecycle impacts—including theresources used in production, transport, refrig-eration, and packaging—to identify strategicintervention points.

Greenhouse gas impact is a key metric thatcan be used for evaluating new food and forestproduction technologies and for allocatingresources and investments. Policymakers canthen include incentives for reducing carbonemissions in cost structures throughout thefood and land use systems, using variousmarket and policy mechanisms. In 2007, forinstance, the Dole Corporation committed toestablishing by 2021 a carbon-neutral productsupply chain for its bananas and pineapples inCosta Rica.17 The first step in this process wasto purchase forest carbon offsets from the CostaRican government equal to the emissions of thecompany’s inland transport of these fruits.

Product markets are also beginning to rec-ognize climate values. The last two decadeshave seen the rise of a variety of “green” certi-fied products beyond organic, such as “bird-friendly” and “shade-grown,” that have clearbiodiversity benefits. Various certificationoptions already exist for cocoa and coffee(through the Rainforest Alliance and Star-bucks, for example).18 The Forest StewardshipCouncil’s certification principles “prohibitconversion of forests or any other natural habi-tat” and maintain that “plantations must con-tribute to reduce the pressures on and promote



Cover crops between rows of a California orchard.

USDA

NRC

S/Ga

ryKram

er

the restoration and conservation of naturalforests,” supporting the use of forests as carbonsinks.19 New certification standards are startingto include impacts on climate, which will forthe first time send clear signals to both pro-ducers and consumers.The rise of carbon emission offset trading

could potentially provide a major new source offunding for the transition to climate-friendlyagriculture and land use. A great deal can bedone in the short term through the voluntarycarbon market, but in the long run it will beessential for the international framework foraction on climate change to fully incorporateagriculture and land use.

National Policy

Governments can take specific steps immedi-ately to support the needed transition by inte-grating agriculture, land use, and climateaction programs at the national and local land-scape levels. Costa Rica is a leader in theseefforts. The country increased its forest coverfrom 21 percent in 1986 to 51 percent in 2006,and the government has committed to achiev-ing “climate neutrality” by 2021, with an ambi-tious agenda including greenhouse gasmitigation through land use change.20 Thecountry is also taking advantage of ecotourismand markets that make payments for ecosys-tem services to support these efforts. CostaRica is a participant in the Coalition for Rain-forest Nations, a group that is encouragingavoided-deforestation programs.21

Currently, governments spend billions ofdollars each year on agricultural subsidy pay-ments to farmers for production and inputs.The greatest expenditures occur in the UnitedStates ($2 trillion, or 16 percent of the value ofagricultural production) and Europe ($77 bil-lion, or 40 percent of the value of agriculturalproduction), but high subsidies also exist inJapan, India, China, and elsewhere.22 Most ofthese payments exacerbate chemical use, theexpansion of cropland to sensitive areas, andoverexploitation of water and other resources,while distorting trade and reinforcing unsus-tainable agricultural practices. Some countriesare beginning to redirect subsidy payments to

agri-environmental payments for all kinds ofecosystem services, and these can explicitlyinclude carbon storage or emissions reduction.The growth in commercial demand for agri-

cultural and forest products from increasedpopulations and incomes in developing coun-tries, and rising demand for biofuels in indus-trial nations, is stimulating investments by boththe private and public sectors. In 2003, Africangovernments committed to increasing publicinvestment in agriculture to at least 10 percenta year, although only Rwanda and Zambia havedone this so far.23 TheWorld Bank and the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation have committedto large increases in funding in the developingworld. There is a major window of opportunityright now to put climate change mitigation(and adaptation) at the core of these strategies.This is beginning to happen in small steps.

Brazil is crafting a diverse set of investmentprograms to support rural land users to investin land use change for climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation.24 The United NationsEnvironment Programme is initiating dia-logues on “greening” the internationalresponse to the food crisis, linking goals ofinternational environmental conventionswith the Millennium Development Goals.25

But much more comprehensive action isneeded to ensure that ecologically sustainable,climate-friendly practices are the focus ofincreased agricultural investments. If not, thisotherwise positive trend could seriously under-mine climate action programs. A new vision isneeded to respond to this food crisis that notonly provides a short-term Band-Aid to refillnext year’s grain bins, but also puts the planet ona trajectory toward sustainable, climate-friendlyfood systems. New pricing schemes are neededthat incorporate greenhouse gas emissions intothe cost of producing and processing food.National policy, however, is not enough

to scale climate action. It is essential to investin building capacity at local levels to manageecoagricultural landscapes—to enable multi-stakeholder platforms to plan, implement, andtrack progress in achieving climate-friendlyland use systems that benefit local people,agricultural production, and ecosystems.




most vulnerable people. Rather than being adistraction, linking sustainable land manage-ment with climate action will attract a broadgroup of actors with a stake to become politicalallies in promoting overall stricter climate reg-ulation and greater investment in mitigation.

Farming and Land Use Mitigation Can Helpthe Poor More

To get to the heart of the matter, we shouldask: Why is humanity concerned about climatechange? After all, climate change and itsimpacts are not new phenomena. In the lasthalf million years, four ice ages and four warmperiods have passed. Glaciers have coveredcontinents and then retreated, and sea levelshave risen and fallen. The asteroid impact inthe Yucatan peninsula put the final nail in thedinosaurs’ coffin, cloaked the planet in dark-ness, and led to the rise of mammals to fill inthe vacated ecological niches.Our principal concerns in addressing cli-

mate change are to avoid human suffering andecosystem damage. Impending human lossesare unacceptable for the 6.7 billion peopleinhabiting the planet and particularly for themore than 1 billion who are already desper-ately poor and vulnerable. Fires will be morefrequent and rampant, as will hurricanes. Sea-level rise will displace coastal populations, andcrops will fail. These impacts do not distin-guish between rich and poor, but we knowfrom global experience with disasters that thepoor suffer disproportionately due to greatervulnerability, fewer services, lack of insurance,and other factors.2 For them, climate changewill cause an unprecedented number of dis-placements, diseases, crop failures, property

and use-based climate solutions cancreate co-benefits that meet severalof the important United Nations’Millennium Development Goals in

developing countries. These goals includeeradicating extreme poverty and hunger (Goal1), promoting gender equality and empower-ing women (Goal 3), and ensuring environ-mental sustainability, including access to safedrinking water and conservation of biodiver-sity (Goal 7). Indeed, a key pillar for achievingthe hunger eradication goal is to restore andprotect natural resources, including soils andvegetative cover, upon which poor people relyfor food production and gathering.1

Globally, land-based climate solutions canhelp the transformation of agricultural andforestry production systems and ecosystemservices to a sustainable and climate-friendlytrajectory. They can also help finance landmanagement that produces ecosystem services.Potential co-benefits are extensive and diverse.(See Figure 4, next page.)Although climate leaders are sensitive to

these ideals, they are not yet convinced that itis their place to promote development andconservation activities. Rather, these activitiesare seen as a potential distraction of attentionand resources from the immediate need foremission reduction in the energy sector.This concern is misplaced. The core ration-

ale for aggressive and comprehensive climateaction on farming and land use is, of course,that these sectors account for nearly a third ofall global emissions and are on a trajectory ofemissions increase. Moreover, there is a moralimperative for action to mitigate the impactsof climate change on the world’s poorest and

Co-Benefits: Distractionor Opportunity?

L


management practices—all these are closelylinked to temperature and rainfall.With cli-mate changing, production conditions willchange—and quite radically in some places—which will lead to major shifts in farming sys-tems. An increasingly open trade system maybe needed to get food to those who need it.But the failure of the Doha Round of interna-tional trade negotiations raises doubts aboutour ability to use trade flows to improve theworld’s food security.3

Models of climate impact in the 1990s andearly 2000s predicted that rising agriculturalyields in high-latitude regions would offset the

damages, and deaths. Most of the severe andunacceptable human impacts will first affectthe rural poor, and many are feeling theimpacts already—from lost homes due to Hur-ricane Katrina in New Orleans, to flooding inBangladesh, to crop losses in Africa.In particular, climate change is going to

undermine the stability of our food supplyand heighten the risk of food insecurity forbillions. Agricultural systems have developedduring a time of relatively predictable localweather patterns. The choice of crops andvarieties, the timing of input applications, vul-nerability to pests and diseases, the timing of

Figure 4. Sustainable Development Benefits Motivating Climate Action

Climate action in and around farms and grazing lands tends to create platforms for improved biodiversity andprovision of ecosystem services that improve farming livelihoods. Access to wild plants, game, and sources ofmicro-nutrients improves nutrition, while also providing “safety nets” during lean seasons. Access to medicinalplants, fuel, and construction materials provides options for additional income, while fodder, fertilizer trees, pol-lination services, improved soil health, nutrient cycling, and improved water quality and supply make farmingmore sustainable and productive.

Co-Benefits: Distraction or Opportunity?

Above: Windbreaks and other planted trees create habitatand corridors for biodiversity of neighboring forest andprotect the soil and crops from erosion. Kijabe, Kenya.

Above right: Intercropping citrus trees with vegetablecrops such as cabbage increases the carbon sequesteredon the farm and diversifies food production. Diversifiedproduction is crucial for resilience necessary to adapt toclimate change. Bali, Indonesia.

Right: Agroforestry can be used to grow valuable foddertrees among crops to create complex habitat for biodiver-sity on the farm and to provide a reliable, nutritious, andcheap source of feed for livestock—all while sequesteringcarbon. Pokhara, Nepal.

Seth

Sham

es

Meike

Andersson

SajalS

thapit


production comes from climate-friendly,carbon-rich production systems rather thanfrom systems that clear large areas of naturalforest and grasslands, mine organic matterfrom the soil, strip vegetative cover fromriparian areas, or leave soils bare for manymonths of the year. Moreover, making exist-

ing and anticipated investments in agricultureand land management climate-friendly fur-ther augment and leverages investment flowsfor mitigating climate change.

New Champions for Climate Action

Many of the actions most needed in land usesystems to adapt to climate change and miti-gate greenhouse gas emissions will bring posi-tive benefits for water quality, air pollution,smoke-related health risks, soil health, energyefficiency, and wildlife habitat. These tangiblebenefits can generate much broader politicalsupport for climate action than simply a fearof future problems.The prospect of such benefits can generate

many new groups of people with a self-interestin promoting ambitious climate action goals.Farmers and conservationists who are in aposition to sell soil-carbon offsets will becomevocal advocates of tighter emission caps andpublic investment in alternative energy. Politi-

yield losses elsewhere.4 These models assumedthat the increase in atmospheric carbon diox-ide will also improve crop growth, but recentfield studies do not justify this assumption.5

The impact of higher temperatures and fre-quency of extreme events are likely to easilyoverturn the theoretical benefits of carbondioxide fertilization.6

In addition, the massive shifts in weatherpatterns will threaten critical ecosystems,endangering the ecosystem services on whichhuman well-being depends—such as waterflow and quality, pollination, soil formation,and waste decomposition. Due to the already-extensive human-induced habitat loss and frag-mentation across the globe, Earth’s remainingbiodiversity is also threatened by climate changewhere territorial movement is blocked or newpest and disease complexes arise. Climate sce-narios predict, for example, that more winterrains in the Sahel can create favorable breedingconditions for the desert locust (Schistocercagregaria), a migratory plant pest that wasresponsible for consuming 100 percent of cropsin some areas of Niger in 2004.7

Although obviously critical to slowing cli-mate change, investments aimed at reducingenergy-based emissions will not help the ruralpoor, who already use pitifully little of theworld’s energy. In Africa, for example, only 19percent of the rural population has access toelectricity, and the per capita fossil fuel emis-sion is about a quarter of the global averageof 4.4 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent peryear.8 But investment in terrestrial carbonbased solutions can provide short and long-term relief to the most vulnerable and inno-cent victims of climate change (provided thatpro-poor approaches and safeguards areused) and can help protect ecosystem servicesand biodiversity.The global strategy for reducing green-

house gas concentrations must recognize theneed for major increases in food and fiberproduction in developing countries to ade-quately feed the 850 million people currentlyat risk of hunger, as well as continually grow-ing populations with higher incomes.9 Invest-ments must be channeled so that increased


A researcher notes excellent corn growth on manured soil treatedwith alum residue, which cuts ammonia emissions to the air andphosphorus losses in runoff water.

USDA

ARS/Sc

ottB

auer


food supply will be more inclined to join polit-ical coalitions for climate action. Agribusi-nesses and food industries can gainreputational benefits with their clients andconsumers as “climate-friendly” companies, asconsumers shift their buying habitats to reduceclimate impacts.We therefore encourage climate leaders to

turn their thinking around. Investing in cli-mate-friendly farming and land use, with theirmyriad related benefits, is not a distractionfrom developing alternative energy systems;rather, it is part of a comprehensive solution.Why should we not take every opportunity tofind synergies between action to reduce climatechange and action to advance other socialgoals? So long as the carbon benefits are real,we should seek to prioritize those efforts thatmaximize co-benefits.

cians with rural constituencies likely to benefitfrom restored watersheds and a more resilient


A farmer plows his field to plant rice, Pokhara, Nepal.

SajalS

thapit


the food and land use sectors, and these effortshave established a rich foundation of practical,implementable models. But the scale of actionso far is dishearteningly small.With the excep-tion of the recent REDD initiatives to savestanding forests through intergovernmentalaction, which are still at an early stage, thereare no major international initiatives toaddress the interlinked challenge of climate,agriculture, and land use.As we move toward international climate

negotiations in Copenhagen in December2009, and the years after that when interna-tional and national climate action rules andguidelines are crystallized, we recommendthe following six principles for tapping thefull potential of land use based mitigation:1. Include the full range of terrestrial emis-sion reduction, storage, and sequestrationoptions in climate policy and investment.The most important action is to ensure thatthe full range of terrestrial emission reduc-tion, storage, and sequestration options isincluded in international framework agree-ments, national legislation, and investmentprograms to address climate change. Thisapproach will not only ensure that terrestrialemissions receive the critical attention theyneed and that terrestrial sequestrationopportunities are fully realized, but it willalso broaden the potential set of citizens,businesses, and other interested parties witha stake in effective climate protection.

2. Incorporate farming and land use invest-ments in cap-and-trade systems.We willneed maximum effort from all sectors tomeet the 450 parts per million goal set bythe IPCC in 2007, much less the 350 ppm

uman well-being is wrapped upwith how food is produced. Overthe past century, ingenious systemswere developed to supply food,

with remarkable reliability, to most of theworld’s 6.7 billion people. But these systemsneed a fundamental restructuring in the com-ing decades to establish sustainable food sys-tems that do not contribute to climate changeand that are also more resilient to it. Private-sector action will determine the response, butpublic policy and civil society will play a cru-cial role in providing the incentives and frame-work for markets to respond effectively.Food production and other land uses are

currently among the highest greenhouse gasemitters on the planet—but that can bereversed. Although recent food price riots havediscouraged actions that could raise costs, ifaction is not taken costs will rise anyway aslocal food systems are disrupted and as higherenergy costs ripple through a system that hasnot been prepared with alternatives.As described in this report, many technolo-

gies and management practices are alreadyavailable that could lighten the climate foot-print of agriculture and other land uses andprotect the existing carbon sinks in naturalvegetation. Many more could become opera-tional fairly quickly with proper policy supportor adaptive research and with a more system-atic effort to analyze the costs and benefits ofdifferent strategies in different land use sys-tems. Additional innovative ideas will emergeif leading scientists and entrepreneurs can beinspired to tackle this challenge.It is heartening that there are already so

many initiatives to address climate change in

Realizing the Potential

H


anticipated co-benefits for sustainable ruraldevelopment, poverty reduction, and eco-system conservation. Climate action plansshould help shift economies to a low-car-bon/low greenhouse gas trajectory.Hence, climate funding should help to

accelerate the transformation of agriculturalsystems to long-term profitable alternatives,helping to overcome early transition costsand barriers to adoption and to invest inimproved technologies. This means refiningthe definition of “additionality” to ensurethat climate investments result in produc-tion and land use approaches that are bothprofitable and sustainable over the longterm.Wherever possible, mitigation effortsshould be linked to adaptation goals andplanned and implemented jointly. Agricul-ture, rural development, and conservationstrategies should incorporate mitigation andadaptation centrally in their plans.

4. Encourage large, area-based programs.The synergies arising from such coordinatedand integrated approaches are likely to begreatest in large, area-based programs.Using landscape, watershed, or territorialframeworks for planning can maximize linksto development, agricultural, ecosystemmanagement, and energy strategies. Land-scape-wide monitoring of emissions andsequestration can be done at lower cost, andsetting caps or targets at this scale enablesmaximum flexibility for land use and man-agement to reflect a dynamic economy.Large reserves within the landscape can bemaintained as self-insurance, and leakagewill be minimized. Carbon payments,whether made by governments or markets,can be used to pay for coordinated, large-scale investments.

5. Encourage voluntary markets for green-house gas emission offsets from agricultureand land use. It is likely to take some timefor fully inclusive cap-and-trade systems tobe in place. Meanwhile, policymakers, busi-nesses, nongovernmental organizations, andfarmer organizations should make extensiveuse of emerging voluntary carbon markets.Climate action advocates should raise aware-

goal now considered by many scientists tobe necessary to prevent risk of catastrophicimpacts.1 Emphasis should be on limitingoverall greenhouse gas emissions with aschedule of gradually lowered caps that willmeet the goal. Caps should be extended tothe land use sectors and eventually the fullvalue chain of food, fiber, and biofuel indus-tries. Within those caps, we should seek thelowest-cost options to achieve both emissionreduction and sequestration.Cap-and-trade systems will generate dra-

matically greater resources for shifting to alow-carbon economy than can be done withgovernment tax revenues. It may take a fewyears to sort out implementation and meas-urement issues, but there should be a cleartimeline and roadmap for doing so. The wayto handle risks and uncertainties is throughvarious insurance mechanisms and throughstrict, context-adapted monitoring protocols.

3. Link terrestrial climate mitigation withadaptation, rural development, and conser-vation strategies. Greenhouse gases that aresequestered and stored anywhere on theplanet have the same beneficial impact inslowing climate change. Thus, decisions onhow, where, and with whom to invest in ter-restrial emission reduction and sequestra-tion can and should be made to maximize

Formerly tropical dry forest, in 2000 this area of Bolivia became anagricultural settlement for farmers relocated from the Altiplano.

http://earth

observatory.n

asa.gov/,

courtesy

Compton

Tucker,N

ASAGS

FC



ambitious climate response. Such action willalso stimulate higher standards of planning,management, and implementation in ruralproduction and conservation sectors, and cancontribute to sustainable rural economicdevelopment. Indeed, the status of farmers andland managers in societies will be enhanced astheir responsibility as stewards for a stable cli-mate is recognized and rewarded. And societywill reconnect in a new way with its ancientroots in the cultivation of land for food.

ness and social pressure to engage in suchmarkets on the part of emitters not yetrequired to act by regulation. This sector canbe used intentionally and creatively to testdiverse types of institutional rules andarrangements, monitoring methods, andfarmer engagement processes, for laterincorporation into regulated markets.

6.Mobilize a worldwide, networkedmove-ment for climate-friendly food, forest, andother land-based production. It is time toforge unusual political coalitions that linkconsumers, producers, industry, investors,environmentalists, and communicators tomobilize action to slow climate change. Foodis something that the public understands. Byfocusing on food systems, climate action willbecome more real to people.No climate change mitigation strategy can

be complete or successful without addressinggreenhouse gas emissions and sequestration inagriculture, forestry, and conservation landuses. Engaging rural land users in mitigationas well as adaptation, and linking them effec-tively with urban consumers and industrialemitters, will broaden societal understandingof the issues and deepen commitment to an

Sidebar 3. Six Principles for Tapping the Full Potential ofLand Use Mitigation

1. Include the full range of terrestrial emission reduction, storage,and sequestration options in climate policy and investment.

2. Incorporate farming and land use investments in cap-and-trade systems.

3. Link terrestrial climate mitigation with adaptation, rural devel-opment, and conservation strategies.

4. Encourage large, area-based programs.

5. Encourage voluntary markets for greenhouse gas emissionoffsets from agriculture and land use.

6. Mobilize a worldwide, networked movement for climate-friendly food, forest, and other land-based production.


2009); Keith Paustian et al., Agriculture’s Role in Green-house Gas Mitigation (Washington, DC: Pew Center onGlobal Climate Change, September 2006).

13. G. Cornelis van Kooten, “A Perspective on CarbonSequestration as a Strategy for Mitigating ClimateChange,” Choices, vol. 23, no. 1 (2008).

14. Ibid.

15. Larry Lohmann, “Carbon Trading, Climate Justiceand the Production of Ignorance: Ten Examples,”Devel-opment, vol. 51 (2008), pp. 359–65.

Carbon-Rich Farming

1. Figure 1 adapted from Sara J. Scherr and SajalSthapit, “Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet,” inWorldwatch Institute, State of the World 2009: Into aWarming World (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,2009), p. 34. Design by Molly Phemister.

2. Norman Uphoff et al., “Understanding theFunctioning and Management of Soil Systems,” inNorman Uphoff et al., eds., Biological Approaches toSustainable Soil Systems (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,2006), pp. 3–13.

3. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), “New Global Soil Database,” press release (Rome:21 July 2008).

4. FAO, FAOSTAT electronic database, at faostat.fao.org,viewed September 2009.

5. P. Smith et al., “Agriculture,” in IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007:Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-bridge University Press, 2007).

6. Tim J. LaSalle and Paul Hepperly, RegenerativeOrganic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming (Kutz-town, PA: Rodale Institute, 2008).

7. Ibid.

8. Norman Uphoff et al., “Issues for More SustainableSoil System Management,” in Uphoff et al., BiologicalApproaches, op. cit. note 2, pp. 715–27.

9. Brian Halweil, “Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?”World Watch, May/June 2006.

10. Tom Goddard et al., eds., No-Till Farming Systems,Special Publication No. 3 (Bangkok: World Association


1. PEACE, Indonesia and Climate Change: Current Statusand Policies (Jakarta: 2007).

2. Ibid.

3. Indonesia’s land area is 1,826,400 square kilometers,compared to a U.S. land area of 9,161,923 square kilome-ters, per U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The WorldFactbook, available at www.cia.gov. Vegetation and peat-lands carbon stock from PEACE, op. cit. note 1 and fromA. Hooijer et al., Peat-CO2, Assessment of CO2 Emissionsfrom Drained Peatlands in SE Asia (Delft, The Nether-lands: WL Delft Hydraulics in cooperation with WetlandsInternational and Alterra Wageningen Ur, 2006).

4. Robert Bailey, Another Inconvenient Truth: HowBiofuel Policies Are Deepening Poverty and AcceleratingClimate Change, Oxfam Briefing Paper 114 (London:June 2008).

5. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, NewZealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2006 (Welling-ton: 15 April 2008).

6. John Larsen, Thomas Damassa, and Ryan Levinson,Charting the Midwest: An Inventory and Analysis ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions in America’s Heartland(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2007).

7. Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long Shadow:Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: United NationsFood and Agriculture Organization, 2006).

8. Ibid.

9. Sidebar 1 from Ibid., p. 84

10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (Geneva: 2007).Sidebar 2 is from the following sources: Steinfeld et al.,op. cit. note 7; IPCC, op. cit. this note, Figure 2.1; P.Smith et al., “Agriculture,” in IPCC, Climate Change 2007:Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-bridge University Press, 2007); M. Santilli et al., “TropicalDeforestation and the Kyoto Protocol,” Climate Change,August 2005, pp. 267–76.

11. WWF, “Climate Change in the Amazon,” www.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/problems/climate_change_amazon, viewed 27 April 2009.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009 U.S.Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (Washington, DC:


Endnotes

of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008); Peter Hobbs, RajGupta, and Craig Meisner, “Conservation Agriculture andIts Applications in South Asia,” in Uphoff et al., BiologicalApproaches, op. cit. note 2, pp. 357–71.

11. A. Calegari, “No-tillage System in Paraná State, SouthBrazil,” in Edwin Michael Bridges et al., eds., Responseto Land Degradation (Enfield, NH: Science Publishers,2001), pp. 344–45.

12. Rolf Derpsch, “No Tillage and Conservation Agricul-ture: A Progress Report,” in Goddard et al., op. cit. note10, pp. 7–42.

13. D.C. Reicosky, “Carbon Sequestration and Environ-mental Benefits from No-Till Systems,” in Goddard et al.,op. cit. note 10, pp. 43–58.

14. Johannes Lehmann, John Gaunt, and Marco Rondon,“Bio-Char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems—AReview,”Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange, March 2006, pp. 395–419.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Smith et al., op. cit. note 5.

21. Jerry D. Glover, Cindy M. Cox, and John P. Reganold,“Future Farming: A Return to Roots?” Scientific American,August 2007.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Smith et al., op. cit. note 5.

25. Thomas S. Cox et al., “Prospects for Developing Per-ennial Grain Crops,” BioScience, August 2006, pp. 649–59.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Cheryl A. Palm et al., Carbon Sequestration and TraceGas Emissions in Slash-and-Burn and Alternative LandUses in the Humid Tropics, ASB Climate Change WorkingGroup Final Report, Phase II (Nairobi: Alternatives toSlash-and-Burn Programme Coordination Office, WorldAgroforestry Centre, 1999).

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. United Nations Environment Programme, “A BillionTree Campaign,” at www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign.

33. Joseph Russell Smith, Tree Crops: A PermanentAgriculture (New York: Harcourt, 1929).

34. Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long Shadow:Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: FAO, 2006).

35. Roger R.B. Leakey, “Domesticating and MarketingNovel Crops,” in Sara J. Scherr and Jeffrey A. McNeely, eds.,

Farming with Nature: The Science and Practice of Ecoagri-culture (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2007), pp. 83–102.

36. Ibid.

37. Matt A. Sanderson and Paul R. Adler, “PerennialForages as Second Generation Bioenergy Crops,” Interna-tional Journal of Molecular Sciences, May 2008, pp. 768–88.

38. Jeffrey C. Milder et al., “Biofuels and Ecoagriculture:Can Bioenergy Production Enhance Landscape-scaleEcosystem Conservation and Rural Livelihoods?” Interna-tional Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 6, no. 2(2008), pp. 105–21.

39. FAO, op. cit. note 4.

40. Steinfeld et al., op. cit. note 34.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.; 7.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalentis 14.5 percent of annual emissions of 49 billion tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent from 2004, per IPCC, ClimateChange 2007: Synthesis Report (Geneva: 2007).

43. Al Rotz et al., Pasture Systems and Watershed Man-agement Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service, University Park, PA,“Grazing and the Environment,” PowerPoint presenta-tion, available at www.umaine.edu/grazingguide/Main%20Pages/presentations%202008/rotz.pdf; Al Rotz,personal communications with the authors.

44. Constance L. Neely and Richard Hatfield, “LivestockSystems,” in Scherr and McNeely, op. cit. note 35, pp.121–42.

45. Ibid.

46. Rotz et al., op. cit. note 43.


48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. P. Forster and V. Ramaswamy, “Changes in Atmos-pheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing,” in IPCC,Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis ofClimate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2007), p. 212.

54. Penn State University, Department of Agriculturaland Biological Engineering, “Penn England Farm CaseStudy” (University Park, PA: January 2008).

55. Ibid.



1. World Resources Institute (WRI), Earth Trends Infor-mation Portal, at earthtrends.wri.org, viewed September2008.


Endnotes

Endnotes

2. B.G. Mackey et al., Green Carbon: The Role of NaturalForests in Carbon Storage (Canberra, Australia: ANU EPress, 2008); 796 tons from Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: Mitigationof Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 2007).

3. G.J. Nabuurs et al., “Forestry,” in IPCC, op. cit. note 2.

4. Ibid.

5. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “Land ClearingMoratorium ‘Shocks’ Farmers,” 8 April 2009.

6. United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation inDeveloping Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action,”Decision 2 in “Report of the Conference of the Parties onits Thirteenth Session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 Decem-ber 2007. Addendum Part Two: Action Taken by theConference of the Parties at Its Thirteenth session (Bonn:14 March 2008).

7. International Finance Corporation, “The Biodiversityand Agricultural Commodities Program,” at www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/Biodiversity_BACP.

8. Adcharaporn Pagdee, Yeon-Su Kim, and P.J. Daugh-erty, “What Makes Community Forest ManagementSuccessful: A Meta-Study from Community ForestsThroughout the World,” Society and Natural Resources,January 2006, pp. 33–52.

9. R.J.S. Beeton et al., Australia State of the Environment2006, independent report to the Australian GovernmentMinister for the Environment and Heritage (Canberra:2006)

10. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Community-based Fire Management: Case Studies from China, TheGambia, Honduras, India, the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic and Turkey, RAP Publication 2003/08 (Bangkok:Forest Resources Development Service, 2003).

11. “Warming World Sends Plants Uphill,” BBC News, 27June 2008; Richard Black, “Climate ‘Altering UK BirdHabits’,” BBC News, 15 August 2008.

12. Augusta Molnar, Sara J. Scherr, and Arvind Khare,Who Conserves the World’s Forests? Community-DrivenStrategies That Protect Forests and Respect Rights (Wash-ington, DC: Forest Trends and Ecoagriculture Partners,2004).

13. William Cavendish, “Empirical Regularities in thePoverty-Environment Relationship in Rural Households:Evidence from Zimbabwe,”World Development, Novem-ber 2000, pp. 1979–2003.

14. Malin Falkenmark and Johan Rockström, BalancingWater for Humans and Nature: The New Approach inEcohydrology (London: Earthscan, 2004).

15. Integrated Wasteland Development Project,india.gov.in/citizen/agriculture/viewscheme.php?schemeid=798, viewed 27 April 2009; Michael T. Bennett,“China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program: InstitutionalInnovation or Business as Usual?” Ecological Economics,1 May 2008, pp. 699–711.

16. A.E. Sidahmed, “Rangeland Development for theRural Poor in Developing Countries: The Experience ofIFAD,” in E.M. Bridges et al., eds., Response to LandDegradation (Enfield, NH: Science Publishers, 2001), pp.455–65.

17. P. Narain, M.A. Khan, and G. Singh, Potential forWater Conservation and Harvesting Against Drought inRajasthan, India, Working Paper 104 (Colombo, SriLanka: International Water Management Institute, 2005).

18. Figure 2 from Tony Rinaudo, “Farmer-led Experi-ences in Agroforestry,” presentation at Climate Action forPoverty Reduction roundtable conference, Washington,DC, 13 March 2009, available at www.slideshare.net/agroforestry/09-landuse-rinaudo-revised.

19. WRI et al.,World Resources 2008 (Washington, DC:2008), pp. 142–57.

20. Jeffrey A. McNeely and Sara J. Scherr, Ecoagriculture:Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003), p. 145.

21. Conservation International, “Chocó-Manabí Corri-dor Project, Ecuador,” at www.conservation.org/learn/forests/Pages/project_choco_manabi.aspx.

A Real Solution?

1. Figure 3 from P. Smith et al., “Agriculture,” in Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ClimateChange 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

2. G.J. Nabuurs et al., “Forestry,” in IPCC, op. cit. note 1.

3. Ibid.

4. W.L. Hare, “A Safe Landing for the Climate,” inWorldwatch Institute, State of the World 2009: Into aWarming World (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,2009).

5. IPCC, op. cit. note 1.

6. James Hansen et al., “Target Atmospheric CO2:Where Should Humanity Aim?” unpublished paper forthe U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,June 2008.

7. Peter Viebahn, Manfred Fischedick, and DanielVallentin, “Carbon Capture and Storage,” in WorldwatchInstitute, op. cit. note 4, pp. 99–102.

8. Joyotee Smith and Sara J. Scherr, “Forest Carbon andLocal Livelihoods: Assessment of Opportunities and Pol-icy Recommendations,” Occasional Paper No. 37 (Bogor,Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research,2002).

9. Stefano Pagiola et al., “Paying for the EnvironmentalServices of Silvopastoral Practices in Nicaragua,” Ecolog-ical Economics, vol. 64, no. 2 (2007), pp. 374–85.

10. See, for example, Johannes Lehmann, “A Handful ofCarbon,”Nature, 10 May 2007, pp. 143–44; P.R. Hobbs,R. Gupta, and C. Meisner, “Conservation Agriculture inSouth Asia,” in Norman Uphoff et al., eds., BiologicalApproaches to Sustainable Soil Systems (Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 2006), pp. 358–71; Stoécio M.F. Maia et al.,


Endnotes

“Effect of Grassland Management on Soil Carbon Seques-tration in Rondônia and Mato Grosso States, Brazil,”Geoderma, vol. 149 (2009), pp. 84–91; O.C. Ajayi et al.,“Adoption, Profitability, Impacts and Scaling-Up ofAgroforestry Technologies in Southern African Countries.Lilongwe, Malawi,” in D.R. Batish et al., eds., EcologicalBasis of Agroforestry (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008),pp. 344–57.

11. TerrAfrica Web site, at www.terrafrica.org.

12. Department of Land Resources, Government ofIndia, Integrated Wasteland Development Project,http://dolr.nic.in/fschemes.htm, viewed 22 May 2009;Michael T. Bennett, “China’s Sloping Land ConversionProgram: Institutional Innovation or Business as Usual?”Ecological Economics, 1 May 2008, pp. 699–711.

13. World Resources Institute et al.,World Resources2005: The Wealth of the Poor—Managing Ecosystems toFight Poverty (Washington, DC: 2005), pp. 131–38.

14. Tony Rinaudo, “Farmer-led Experiences in Agro-forestry,” presentation at Climate Action for PovertyReduction roundtable conference, Washington, DC, 13March 2009, available at www.slideshare.net/agroforestry/09-landuse-rinaudo-revised; Conservation International,“Conservation Agreements: Making ConservationPeople’s Choice,” presentation at Climate Action forPoverty Reduction roundtable conference, Washington,DC, 13 March 2009.

15. International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentWeb site, at www.ifad.org.

16. Sustainable Food Laboratory, Web site at www.sustainablefoodlab.org.

17. “Dole to Make Banana and Pineapple Supply ChainCarbon Neutral,” ClimateBiz News, 10 August 2007.

18. Edward Millard, “Restructuring the Supply Chain,”in Sara J. Scherr and Jeffrey A. McNeely, eds., Farmingwith Nature: The Science and Practice of Ecoagriculture(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2007), pp. 358–77.

19. Forest Stewardship Council Web site, at www.fsc.org.

20. Roberto Dobles Mora, “Costa Rica’s Commitmenton the Path to Becoming Carbon-Neutral,”UN ChronicleOnline Edition, no. 2 (2007); Climate Neutral Network,“Costa Rica,” at www.climateneutral.unep.org.

21. Coalition of Rainforest Nations Web site, at www.rainforestcoalition.org.

22. Yale University and Columbia University, Environ-mental Performance Index Web site, at epi.yale.edu;

European Union from “Who Gets What from theCommon Agricultural Policy,” at www.farmsubsidy.org.

23. Stephanie Hanson, “African Agriculture,” Council onForeign Relations Backgrounder, 28 May 2008.

24. Giulio Volpi, “Climate Change Mitigation, Defores-tation and Human Development in Brazil,” OccasionalPaper No. 39, prepared for United Nations DevelopmentProgramme,Human Development Report 2007/2008(New York: 2007).

25. Achim Steiner, Executive Director, United NationsEnvironment Programme, speeches at internationalmeetings, 2008, available at www.unep.org.


1. Pedro Sanchez et al., United Nations MillenniumProject Task Force on Hunger,Halving Hunger: It Can BeDone (London: Earthscan, 2005).

2. Ibid.

3. Gerald C. Nelson, “Agriculture and Climate Change:An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen,” presented atInternational Food Policy Research Institute 2020 PanelDiscussion “Securing a Place for Agriculture at theInternational Climate Change Negotiations,”Washington,DC, 27 March 2009, available at www.ifpri.org/events/seminars/2009/20090327climate.asp.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Christian Nellemann et al., eds., The EnvironmentalFood Crisis: The Environment’s Role in Averting FutureFood Crisis (Arendal, Norway: United Nations Environ-ment Programme/GRID-Arendal, 2009)

8. International Energy Agency,World Energy Outlook2006 (Paris: 2006), p. 567; J.G. Canadell, M.R. Raupach,and R.A. Houghton, “Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions inAfrica,” Biogeociences, vol. 6 (2009), pp. 463–68.

9. J. Skoet and K. Stamoulis, The State of Food Insecurityin the World 2006 (Rome: United Nations Food and Agri-culture Organization, 2006).


1. 350 Web site, at 350.org; James Hansen et al., “TargetAtmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”unpublished paper for the U.S. National Aeronautics andSpace Administration, June 2008.



BBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 32biochar, 5, 14Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program,

21biofuel production, 17biogas production, 12, 19blue water, 22Bolivia, 38Brazil, 14, 24, 32

CCalifornia, 31cap-and-trade systems, 6, 27, 37–39carbon capture and storage, 25–27carbon cycle, 8carbon dioxidebiochar equivalent, 14in carbon cycle, 8carbon-rich farming and, 13greenhouse gases and, 9, 13, 17land use changes and, 9methane equivalent, 18statistics, 25

carbon offset credits, 26, 32carbon sequestration, 8, 10, 28carbon sinks, 10, 12carbon storage, 8certification, green, 31–32Chinaagricultural subsidies, 32greenhouse gases from, 7meat consumption in, 17restoring natural habitats, 22scaling up investment, 30Sloping Lands Program, 30

Chocó-Manabí corridor, 24climate change solutionsfarming and land use mitigation, 33–35food industry innovations, 31–32greenhouse gases and, 9, 25–26land use solutions and, 6measuring climate impact, 28–29

Aadditionality, 27Africaagroforestry systems, 16national policy, 32rotational grazing, 18scaling-up investment, 30sustainable development benefits, 35TerrAfrica platform, 31

agricultureburning of biomass, 21carbon cycle and, 8enriching soil carbon, 12–15food industry innovations, 31greenhouse gases from, 7, 9land use mitigation and, 33–35leakage solutions, 28measuring climate impact, 28national subsidies, 32organic farming, 13–14producing real climate solutions, 26–28protecting natural habitats, 21sequestration potential, 25terrestrial carbon strategies and, 10–11

agroforestrycarbon-rich farming and, 12, 16–17defined, 16farming with perennials, 15measuring climate impact, 29sustainable development benefits, 34

Allanblackia tree, 17Amazon (South America), 7–8, 14anaerobic decomposition, 9, 13–14anaerobic digesters, 19Andes Mountains, 30Annex 1 countries, 10annual crops, see perennial cropsAtlantic Forest (Brazil), 24Australia, 18, 20–21

Index

national policy and, 26, 32new champions for climate action, 35–36producing real results, 26–28scaling up investment, 29–31of terrestrial carbon strategies, 11

Coalition for Rainforest Nations, 32Community Knowledge Service, 30composting, 13Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Program, 30Conservation International, 30Cornell University Ecoagriculture Working Group, 29Costa Rica, 31–32cropping systems, 13, 15, 34

Ddairy operationsgreenhouse gases and, 17–18producing real climate solutions, 28restoring natural habitats and, 24scaling-up investment, 30

decomposition, 9, 13–14defaunation, 18deforestationcarbon cycle and, 8food industry innovations and, 32greenhouse gases from, 9in Indonesia, 7leakage solutions, 28livestock grazing and, 7mitigation strategies, 9restoring natural habitats, 24soil erosion and, 7statistics, 20

Denmark, 30, 37Desengano State Park, 24desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria), 35devegetation, 9, 18, 22–24Dole Corporation, 31

EEcoagriculture Partners, 30ecosystemsagroforestry and, 16livestock grazing and, 18natural habitats and, 21–22, 24sustainable development benefits, 34–35

Ecuador, 24El Niño, 9electricity generation, 19energy generation, 19, 25enteric fermentation in rumens, 9Equator Initiative, 30erosion, see soil erosionEthiopia, 16

Ffarming, see agriculturefertilization, 7, 9, 12–14food industry, see also livestock systemsgreenhouse gases and, 17–18, 37innovations in, 31–32principles for land use mitigation, 37–39sequestration potential, 6, 26

forest fires, 7, 9, 21Forest Stewardship Council, 31forestrycarbon-rich farming, 17food industry innovations, 32greenhouse gases from, 7measuring climate impact, 29producing real climate solutions, 26protecting natural habitats, 20–21sequestration potential, 25terrestrial carbon strategies and, 10–11

fossil fuels, 8–9, 17, 25Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC), 10, 25

GGambia, 22Global Carbon Gas Map, 13government policies, 26, 32grasslandscarbon-rich farming and, 19greenhouse gases from fires, 9livestock grazing and, 18natural habitats and, 20–21, 24

grazing livestock, see livestock grazinggreen water, 22greenhouse gas emissionsclimate change and, 9farming with perennials and, 15food industry and, 31, 37leakage solutions, 28natural habitats and, 8–9no-tillage and, 14producing real climate solutions, 26–28sequestration potentials, 6, 25–26sources of, 5–9statistics, 25

HHonduras, 22Hurricane Katrina, 34

IIlhabela (island), 24India, 22–23, 30, 32Indonesia, 7, 20–21, 34Integrated Wasteland Development Project

(India), 30


Index

Index

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),10, 25, 37–38

International Finance Corporation, 21International Fund for Agricultural Development, 30

JJapan, 32

KKenya, 16, 34Kyoto Protocol, 9–10, 28

Lland management, see soil managementland use changesclearing land, 7, 17, 20, 28climate-friendly livestock systems, 17–19greenhouse gases and, 8–9precipitation patterns and, 8

land use mitigation, see also soil managementco-benefits for, 33–35enriching soil carbon, 12–15farming with perennials, 15–17measuring climate impact, 29natural habitat, 8–9principles for action, 6, 37–39producing real climate solutions, 26–28sequestration potential, 25strategies for, 6, 9–11terrestrial carbon and, 9–11

land-based carbon, see terrestrial carbonlegal rights of women, 21livestock grazingcarbon cycle and, 8carbon-rich farming and, 12, 18deforestation and, 7rotational practices, 18sequestration potential, 25sustainable development benefits, 34

livestock systems, 5, 17–19, 34logging industry, 7, 21, 28

Mmango trees, 17manurecarbon-rich farming and, 13greenhouse gases from, 9, 19sustainable development benefits, 35terrestrial carbon strategies and, 11water pollution and, 19

meat operations, 17–18Mesoamerica, 30methanein carbon cycle, 8carbon dioxide equivalent, 18

greenhouse gases and, 5, 17land use changes and, 9from manure, 19producing real climate solutions, 28

Morocco, 22–23

Nnatural habitatsgreenhouse gases and, 5, 8–9protecting, 5, 20–22restoring, 22–24, 29shifting populations in, 22sustainable development benefits, 34

Nepalcarbon-rich farming in, 14, 17deforestation in, 7sustainable development benefits, 34, 36

New Orleans, 34New Partnership for Africa’s Development

(NEPAD), 30New Zealand, 7, 18Nicaragua, 27Niger regreening movement, 23, 30, 35nitrous oxide, 9, 13, 17no-till management, 14

Oorganic farming, 13–14

Ppalm oil, 7Penn England diary (Pennsylvania), 19perennial crops, 5, 12, 15–17Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 10policy, national, 26, 32precipitation patterns, 8product certification, 21Prunus africanus (muiri tree), 17

RRainforest Alliance, 31rainforests, 24rangelands, 5–6, 22–24REDD, 9, 21, 28, 37reforestation, see deforestationrevegetation, see devegetationrice production, 9, 14, 36Rodale Institute, 13Rwanda, 32

SSchistocerca gregaria (desert locust), 35Sloping Lands Program (China), 30Smith, Joseph Russell, 16soil carbon, see terrestrial carbon


Index

soil erosioncarbon-rich farming and, 14deforestation and, 7farming with perennials, 15greenhouse gases from, 7land use changes and, 9livestock grazing and, 18

soil management, see also land use mitigationadditionality concept, 27incentives for, 27measuring climate impact, 28–29no-till management, 14producing real climate solutions, 26–28scaling up investment, 29–30sequestration potential, 25sustainable development benefits, 34

soil tillage, 7–8, 12–14solar energy, 10Starbucks, 31Sustainable Food Lab, 31

TTanzania, 30TerrAfrica, 30terrestrial carbondecomposition and, 14enriching, 5, 12–15land clearing and, 7mitigation strategies involving, 9–11principles for land use mitigation, 37producing real climate solutions, 27–28sequestration potential, 26statistics, 7–8, 13

Terrestrial Carbon Group, 29Texas, 18

UUnited Nationsclimate conventions, 16, 20–21Convention to Combat Desertification, 30Environmental Programme, 32Food and Agriculture Organization, 13Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9Millennium Development Goals, 32–33

United Statesagricultural subsidies, 32greenhouse gases from, 7land use mitigation strategies, 10rotational grazing, 18

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 18

Wwater demands/scarcity, 22–23water quality, 19, 35watershedscarbon-rich farming and, 12producing real climate solutions, 27restoring degraded, 5–6, 22–24

wind energy, 10women, legal rights of, 21World Agroforestry Centre, 29World Bank, 32

ZZambia, 32Zimbabwe, 22


Worldwatch Reports provide in-depth, quantitative, and qualitative analysis of the major issuesaffecting prospects for a sustainable society. The Reports are written by members of theWorldwatch Institute research staff or outside specialists and are reviewed by experts unaffiliatedwith Worldwatch. They are used as concise and authoritative references by governments, non-governmental organizations, and educational institutions worldwide.

On Climate Change, Energy, and Materials178: Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap, 2008175: Powering China’s Development: the Role of Renewable Energy, 2007169: Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century, 2004160: Reading the Weathervane: Climate Policy From Rio to Johannesburg, 2002157: Hydrogen Futures: Toward a Sustainable Energy System, 2001151: Micropower: The Next Electrical Era, 2000149: Paper Cuts: Recovering the Paper Landscape, 1999144: Mind Over Matter: Recasting the Role of Materials in Our Lives, 1998138: Rising Sun, Gathering Winds: Policies To Stabilize the Climate and Strengthen Economies, 1997

On Ecological and Human Health174: Oceans in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity, 2007165: Winged Messengers: The Decline of Birds, 2003153: Why Poison Ourselves: A Precautionary Approach to Synthetic Chemicals, 2000148: Nature’s Cornucopia: Our Stakes in Plant Diversity, 1999145: Safeguarding the Health of Oceans, 1999142: Rocking the Boat: Conserving Fisheries and Protecting Jobs, 1998141: Losing Strands in the Web of Life: Vertebrate Declines and the Conservation of Biological Diversity, 1998140: Taking a Stand: Cultivating a New Relationship With the World’s Forests, 1998

On Economics, Institutions, and Security177: Green Jobs: Working for People and the Environment, 2008173: Beyond Disasters: Creating Opportunities for Peace, 2007168: Venture Capitalism for a Tropical Forest: Cocoa in the Mata Atlântica, 2003167: Sustainable Development for the Second World: Ukraine and the Nations in Transition, 2003166: Purchasing Power: Harnessing Institutional Procurement for People and the Planet, 2003164: Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, 2002162: The Anatomy of Resource Wars, 2002159: Traveling Light: New Paths for International Tourism, 2001158: Unnatural Disasters, 2001

On Food, Water, Population, and Urbanization176: Farming Fish for the Future, 2008172: Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for Healthier Oceans, 2007171: Happer Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry, 2005170: Liquid Assets: The Critical Need to Safeguard Freshwater Ecosytems, 2005163: Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market, 2002161: Correcting Gender Myopia: Gender Equity, Women’s Welfare, and the Environment, 2002156: City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl, 2001154: Deep Trouble: The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution, 2000150: Underfed and Overfed: The Global Epidemic of Malnutrition, 2000147: Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet, 1999

To see our complete list of Reports, visit www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/40

Other Worldwatch Reports

Mit igat ing Cl imate Change Through Food and Land Use www.worldwatch.org48

Mitigating Climate ChangeThrough Food and Land Use


www.worldwatch.orgwww.ecoagriculture.org

Agriculture, forestry, and other changes in land use are responsible for more

than 30 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Despite advances

in the energy sector, the only method currently available for removing large

amounts of carbon from the atmosphere is plant photosynthesis. Thus, no

strategy for mitigating global climate change can be complete or successful

without engaging the land use sector.

Changing how we grow crops, raise livestock, and use land can reduce green-

house gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration and storage. Key

strategies to cut land-based or “terrestrial” emissions are: enriching soil car-

bon, farming with trees and other perennials, using climate-friendly livestock

practices, protecting natural habitat, and re-vegetating degraded watersheds

and rangelands.

Yet so far, terrestrial carbon has been largely ignored in climate change mitiga-

tion efforts. Some scientists and policymakers worry that investments in land

use will not produce “real” climate benefits, that land use action will distract

attention from investment in energy alternatives, and that land management

changes cannot be scaled up enough to make a difference.

But in fact, knowledge, tools, and institutions are already available to enable

scaling up of effective agriculture and land use mitigation strategies. Wise and

locally appropriate investments in land use can bring diverse benefits for food

security, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem protection—expanding political

support and generating new coalitions for broad climate action.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangthien
View:	214 times
Download:	2 times

Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use20Land%20Use.pdf ·...

Documents