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

lessfrustratedBiotechnology

Oct 23, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

79 views

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


Sirintornthep

Towprayoon





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

University of
Thonburi


Presentati on i n the workshop of Bui l di ng REDD
-
pl us Pol icy Capacity for Devel opi ng Country Negoti ators and Land Managers 18
-
20 M
ay 2011 Hanoi
Vei tnam

Outline


Agriculture as the driver of deforestation


Are agricultural mitigation options drivers of
deforestation?


Values and costs of agricultural mitigation


Agricultural mitigation as the complement to
deforestation


Developing countries

Developed countries

World

Change of agricultural land from 1961

2002

Type of area change (
Mha
)

Source : Data derived from FAO and AR4

FRA 2010

Annual change in forest by region, 1990

2010

Change of agricultural land from 1961

2002

IPCC AR4


Driver to deforestation

Deforestation

Population
growth

Agriculture


Are agricultural mitigation options driver to deforestation?


Mitigation technologies in the agricultural
sector


Livestock management


Improve feedings practice, dietary additive


Manure management


Improve storage and handling, AD, efficient use of
nutrient source


Direct

mitigation : E
mission Reduction


Indirect

mitigation :
Avoid CO
2

emission


Mitigation technologies in the agricultural
sector (cont)


Cropland management


Nutrient management


Tillage/residue management


Water management


Rice management


Agroforestry


Restoration of degraded land


Organic amendment


Nutrient amendment



Mitigation technologies in the agricultural
sector (cont)


Biofuel
/
bioenergy



Biochar


Energy crop :


Sugarcane to
bioethanol
,


Oil palm to biodiesel

Examples of mitigation technology


Cropland: nutrient management




Nutrient management


Reduction
efficiency
(%)

Source

Nitrification
(Nitrification inhibitor
)

38
%

Akiyama et al.,
2009

Polymer
-
coated
fertilizers

35
%

Akiyama et al.,
2009


䑩c–andiamide

(
Nitrification
inhibitor
)

20

30
%

Hadi

et al., 2008

Site
-
specific nutrient management

20%

Tassanee

et al

Co
-
fertilizer of organic and chemical

46
%

Zheng

et al., 2000

Source:
Pongthep

and
Amnat

2010

Examples of mitigation technology


Cropland: rice field


Water management


30

40% reduction


SRI (system rice intensification) approx 37%
reduction


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


Inhibitor 20

60% reduction



Source :
Tassanee

and
Sirintornthep

2010

Values and cost of agricultural mitigation

IPCC AR4 WGIII SPM

Abatement cost in rice field: Case of Thailand
$10

60 per
tonne

of CO
2
e

1 water drainage

2 shift fertilizer

3 combination of 1 and 2

1

2

3

3

2

1

Wassman

et al 2007

Marginal abatement cost curves for 3
rd

Baseline technology: continuous flooding ,

Mixed FYM/urea: straw burning

10
-
60 US$ /
tCe

Abatement cost curve in agriculture sector of Indonesia

Value /Co
-
benefit


Sustainable agriculture


Culture and way of life


Income


Environmental benefit


Agricultural mitigation as the complement to
deforestation

deforestation

Crop price

Limited land
expansion

Food and fuel crop competition

-
Full utilization of
cropland


crop
rotation

-
Improve crop yield

Poverty
alleviation

Crop rotation

as the alternative systems for sustainable agriculture


Sustainability


Environmental
benefit


Energy security


Farmer income
increase

Yield
increased

Energy
Crop
utilization

Soil carbon
stock
increased

Emission
reduced

Rice
-
crop
-
rice

RI plot

wet sowing

25 DAS

40 DAS

115 DAS

130 DAS

140 DAS, harvest

RS plot

22 DAT

37 DAT

60 DAT

90 DAT

115 DAT, harvest

105 DAT

Yield from food and fuel rotation crop


Agricultural area of Thailand
130
.
34
M
Rai


Area of rain
-
fed rice field

(
2010)

57
.
50

M
rai


rice yield


23
.
25

M
tonnes


Area of irrigated rice field (2010)
15
.
22

M
rai

rice yield

8
.
86

M
tonnes



Sweet sorghum


Cultivation time 90
-
100 days


Yield 5
-
7
tonnes

per
Rai


Syrup from stem 2500
-
3500
litre

per
rai


Bioethanol

350
-
420
litre

per
Rai

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

Yield improvement

Direction of GMO research
and biotechnology

Sugarcane

Cassava

Oil Palm

Yield
(ton per
rai
)



Highest potential using genetic research


Potential of genetic study in Thailand





Current yield

Potential of genetic improvement of energy crops

Management and technology

Plant breeding/plant development

Investment cost of ethanol production
(
USD/L)

SOurce

: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops :2007

EU
-
25 (Beetroot)

EU
-
25 (Wheat)

USA (corn)

India (Molasses)

Thailand ( Sugarcane)

Australia (Molasses)

Brazil (Sugarcane)

Food Fuel and Forest

deforestation

Crop price

Limited land
expansion

Food and fuel crop
competition

-
Full utilization of
cropland

crop
rotation

-
Improve crop yield

Poverty
alleviation

Policies
and
incentives

Messages


Sustainable agriculture and agricultural mitigation
can be complementary to deforestation


Full utilization of cropland with co
-
benefits for
farmers


Food security can not be addressed without yield
improvement.


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

Acknowledgement


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


Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management
Organization

Thank you for your attention

www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th