INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

IMPACT OF CLIMATE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON KENYACHANGE ON KENYA

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTEINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Glwadys Aymone GbetibouoUniversity of Pretoria

on behalf of Barrack Okoba, Carla Roncoli, Claudia Ringler, and Mario Herrero

Copenhagen, COP 15December 11, 2009

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

1.1. Impact of climate change on KenyaImpact of climate change on Kenya

2.2. Synergies between adaptation and Synergies between adaptation and mitigation mitigation

3.3. Farmer perceptions of adaptation Farmer perceptions of adaptation and mitigation - and mitigation - Preliminary resultsPreliminary results

4.4. ConclusionsConclusions

OUTLINE

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IFPRI

WHY CLIMATE MATTERS FOR KENYA

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.019

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

95

DROUGHT INDEX

GDP GROWTH

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: Ogutu et al. (2007)

Mostly:

• in the cold season

• for min night temps

KENYA: TEMPERATURE ON THE RISE

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Source: IPCC (2007), Herrero (2009)

KENYA: CHANGE IN PRECIPITATION

Small increase expected in Dec-Jan

2000-2050

Green= increase in yields

Brown= decrease in yields

Source: Jones and Thornton (2003)

IMPACT OF CC ON MAIZE YIELDSKenya

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000 2050 no CC 2050 NCAR369

2050 CSIRO532

2050 CSIRO369

2050 Hadley369

SSA Kenya

Source: IFPRI

IMPACT OF CC ON MAIZE YIELDSKenya

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

IMPACT OF CC ON CHILD MALNUTRITION (%)

Projected to 2025

Source: IFPRI

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2000 2025 no CC 2025 CSIRO 369

2025 NCAR 369

2025 Hadley 369

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

SYNERGIES BETWEEN SYNERGIES BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND ADAPTATION AND

MITIGATIONMITIGATION

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Adaptation

SYNERGIES & TRADEOFFS

Mitigation

Profitability

MITIGATION: POTENTIAL IN AGRICULTURE

Note: Estimates calculated from data provided by Smith et al (2008) (for SRES scenario B1)

Total Agric. Land

(M ha)

Mitigation Potential by 2030

Technical (t CO2e/ha/yr)

Technical(Mt CO2e / yr)

Economic at

0-20$/ton CO2eq (Mt CO2e / yr)

East Africa 364 1.10 400 109

Central Africa

177 1.02 180 49

North Africa 113 0.80 90 25

South Africa 138 0.58 80 22

West Africa 302 0.73 220 60

Total 1093 0.89 970 265 (27%)

• Largest potential for agricultural CF projects in East Africa (41%)

Estimated total technical and economic mitigation potential (0-20$/ton) on all agricultural land, incl. all management practices and all GHG

Commodity

Smallholder Livestock-

Maize Systems

Maize Biofuels Coffee Tea Sugar

Area available in ha (million)

3 1.6Semi-arid:

0.9 0.15 0.15 0.14

GHG mitigation activities

SALM: Agronomy

Nutrient mgmt

Water mgmt

Agroforestry

Set aside land

Residue mgmt.

Jatropha

1) Fuel-switch

2) AR

1) Shade trees, multiple cropping

2) Mulching

3) Fertilizer use eff

Inter-cropping no option in Kenya

1) No/ burning of residues

2) Mulching systems

3) Fertilizer related emissions

Existing extension service

- - - + ++ +

Tech. GHG mitigation potential in t CO2e/ha/y.

2 - 5 0.5

1) 1-12

2) 2.5-5.0

High bandwidth

3 – 8 ----- 7.8 in 6 years

Economic mit. potential

++ ? ? ++ 0 +

Source: Timm Tennigkeit

MITIGATION: POTENTIAL IN AGRICULTURE

SYNERGIES BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION

Positive correlation between soil carbon and crop yield Agricultural practices that improve soil fertility and enhance carbon sequestration also improve yield

Increased fertilizer application, ideally combining inorganic with organic soil fertility types

Increased and more efficient agricultural water management (reduces CO2 from fuel/electricity, conserves land)

Agricultural R&D, advisory services, and information systems support both adaptation and mitigation

Page 14

Tradeoff between crop residues and animal feeds in parts of Kenya

Lack of application of labor-intensive soil & water fertility management practices on marginal soils (too costly/risky)

Increased fertilizer application (in conjunction with soil fertility management) reduces soil mining and supports mitigation and adaptation, over-fertilization increases GHG

TRADEOFFS BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FARMER PERCEPTIONS OF FARMER PERCEPTIONS OF ADAPTATION AND ADAPTATION AND

MITIGATIONMITIGATION

Farmers Are Aware Of The Link Between Agriculture And Climate Change

Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351

“Which Agricultural Practices Can Help Reduce Climate Change?”

Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351; multiple responses possible

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

(%)

61%

“What Have You Done In Response To Perceived Climate Change?”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

(%)

Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible

“What Would You Like To Do In Response To Perceived Climate Change?”

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible

“Why Are You Not Implementing Desired Adaptations?”

0 20 40 60

Pests and diseases

No market

No access to credit

Shortage of labor

Lack of information

No access to land

No access to inputs

No water

No access to money

(%)

Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351

“Which Developments Do You Need Most Urgently?”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60(%

)

Only responses > 20% included

Source: KARI-IFPRI survey, n=351, multiple responses possible

High Potential

Low Potential

Nyeri SyayaMber

e Njoro Garissa

Irrigation technology/water infrastructure 1 1 3 2

Farmer organizations 2

Training, capacity building 4 1 4

Education 1

Credit/capital 3 1 2 2

Seed/seedlings provision 2

Mechanization of agriculture 3

Corruption eradication 4 3

Markets, market controls 4

Natural forest restoration 4

Moving from pastoralism to farming 3

“Which Solutions are Most Effective and Desirable to Deal with CC Impacts? ?”

Source: focus groups, KARI-UGA, n=69 men1 2 3 4Ranking

“What are the causes of climate change?”

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Loss of habitat

Extracting sand from river beds

Farming in sacred sites

God's will, punishment

Planting exotic, inappropriate trees

Overgrazing

Overuse of chemical inputs

Lack of soil conservation

Cutting (indigenous) trees

Land clearning

Pollution

Deforestation

Number of mentions (N=32)

Source: focus groups, KARI-UGA, n=69

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS Mitigation to climate change may yield

substantial benefits for smallholder farmers in Kenya (US$2.2 billion in East Africa) that can be used to support adaptation and development efforts

Given the low price of carbon offsets (US$5-20/ha) mitigation activities alone do not yield sufficient benefits: the latter need to be complemented by co-benefits from adaptation and increased productivity/profitability

Therefore it is essential to focus on activities that advance all three areas: profitability, adaptation, and mitigation

Changing crop varieties/types and planting dates are among the most common adaptive strategies at the farm level

The main constraint to implementing other adaptions is lack of access to capital and credit (ex.: irrigation is widely desired but expensive to establish and operate)

Some of the priorities for development identified by farmers (irrigation, extension, capacity building, etc.) will support the synergies of mitigation and adaptation to climate change

CONCLUSIONS

Farmers are aware of the connection between agriculture and climate change and of the benefits of planting trees to mitigate climate change

There is less awareness about the mitigation potential for soil and water conservation and integrated soil fertility management and their potential synergies with adaptation

CONCLUSIONS