Francesco N. Tubiello

The Contribution of Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use activities to Global Warming, 1990-2012.

We refine the information available through the IPCC AR5 with regard to recent trends in global GHG emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU), including global emission updates to 2012. Using all three available AFOLU datasets employed for analysis in the IPCC AR5, rather than just one as done in the IPCC AR5 WGIII Summary for Policy Makers, our analyses point to a down-revision of global AFOLU shares of total anthropogenic emissions, while providing important additional information on subsectoral trends. Our findings confirm that the share of AFOLU emissions to the anthropogenic total declined over time. They indicate a decadal average of 28.7xa0±xa01.5% in the 1990s and 23.6xa0±xa02.1% in the 2000s and an annual value of 21.2xa0±xa01.5% in 2010. The IPCC AR5 had indicated a 24% share in 2010. In contrast to previous decades, when emissions from land use (land use, land use change and forestry, including deforestation) were significantly larger than those from agriculture (crop and livestock production), in 2010 agriculture was the larger component, contributing 11.2xa0±xa00.4% of total GHG emissions, compared to 10.0xa0±xa01.2% of the land use sector. Deforestation was responsible for only 8% of total anthropogenic emissions in 2010, compared to 12% in the 1990s. Since 2010, the last year assessed by the IPCC AR5, new FAO estimates indicate that land use emissions have remained stable, at about 4.8xa0Gt CO2 eqxa0yr-1 in 2012. Emissions minus removals have also remained stable, at 3.2xa0Gt CO2 eqxa0yr-1 in 2012. By contrast, agriculture emissions have continued to grow, at roughly 1% annually, and remained larger than the land use sector, reaching 5.4xa0Gt CO2 eqxa0yr-1 in 2012. These results are useful to further inform the current climate policy debate on land use, suggesting that more efforts and resources should be directed to further explore options for mitigation in agriculture, much in line with the large efforts devoted to REDD+ in the past decade.

Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2°C target

More than 100 countries pledged to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the 2015 Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Yet technical information about how much mitigation is needed in the sector vs. how much is feasible remains poor. We identify a preliminary global target for reducing emissions from agriculture of ~1xa0GtCO2 exa0yr-1 by 2030 to limit warming in 2100 to 2xa0°C above pre-industrial levels. Yet plausible agricultural development pathways with mitigation cobenefits deliver only 21-40% of needed mitigation. The target indicates that more transformative technical and policy options will be needed, such as methane inhibitors and finance for new practices. A more comprehensive target for the 2xa0°C limit should be developed to include soil carbon and agriculture-related mitigation options. Excluding agricultural emissions from mitigation targets and plans will increase the cost of mitigation in other sectors or reduce the feasibility of meeting the 2xa0°C limit.

Advancing agricultural greenhouse gas quantification

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

The impacts of increased heat stress events on wheat yield under climate change in China

China is the largest wheat-producing country in the world. Wheat is one of the two major staple cereals consumed in the country and about 60% of Chinese population eats the grain daily. To safeguard the production of this important crop, about 85% of wheat areas in the country are under irrigation or high rainfall conditions. However, wheat production in the future will be challenged by the increasing occurrence and magnitude of adverse and extreme weather events. In this paper, we present an analysis that combines outputs from a wide range of General Circulation Models (GCMs) with observational data to produce more detailed projections of local climate suitable for assessing the impact of increasing heat stress events on wheat yield. We run the assessment at 36 representative sites in China using the crop growth model CSM-CropSim Wheat of DSSAT 4.5. The simulations based on historical data show that this model is suitable for quantifying yield damages caused by heat stress. In comparison with the observations of baseline 1996–2005, our simulations for the future indicate that by 2100 the projected increases in heat stress would lead to an ensemble-mean yield reduction of −7.1% (with a probability of 80%) and −17.5% (with a probability of 96%) for winter wheat and spring wheat, respectively, under the irrigated condition. Although such losses can be fully compensated by CO2 fertilization effect as parameterized in DSSAT 4.5, a great caution is needed in interpreting this fertilization effect because existing crop dynamic models are unable to incorporate the effect of CO2 acclimation (the growth-enhancing effect decreases over time) and other offsetting forces.

FAOSTAT estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat fires

The Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED3) and the FAOSTAT Emissions database, containing estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biomass burning and peat fires, are compared. The two datasets formed the basis for several analyses in the fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5), and thus represent a critical source of information for emissions inventories at national, regional and global level. The two databases differ in their level of computational complexity in estimating emissions. While both use the same burned area information from remote sensing, estimates of available biomass are computed in GFED3 at tier 3 using a complex dynamic vegetation model, while they are computed in FAOSTAT using default, tier 1 parameters from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Over the analysis period 1997–2011, the two methods were found to produce very similar global GHG emissions estimates for each of the five GFED aggregated biomass fire classes: i) Savanna; ii) Woodland; iii) Forest; iv) Deforestation; v) Peatlands; with total emissions ranging 6–8 Gt CO2eq yr-1. The main differences between the two datasets were found with respect to peat fires, with FAOSTAT showing a lower 1997–1998 peak in emissions compared with GFED3, within an otherwise good agreement for the rest of the study period, when limited to the three tropical countries covered by GFED. Conversely, FAOSTAT global emissions from peat fires, including both boreal and tropical regions, were several times larger than those currently estimated by GFED3.xa0Results show that FAOSTAT activity data and emission estimates for biomass fires offer a robust alternative to the more sophisticated GFED data, representing a valuable resource for national GHG inventory experts, especially in countries where technical and institutional constraints may limit access, generation and maintenance of more complex methodologies and data.

Erratum to: Normative scenario approach: a vehicle to connect adaptation planning and development needs in developing countries

Climate change adaptation is one of the many development challenges impacting livelihoods in developing countries. Scenario approaches are useful in adaptation planning by putting together projected climate change and socioeconomic trends with broader development needs when identifying associated priorities—and using them to develop appropriate strategies, plans and initiatives. To date, explorative scenario approaches have been largely adopted in adaptation planning. In this paper, we determine the benefits of using normative scenario approaches. They include a process known as “backcasting,” which is particularly useful for areas where adaptation planning and actions are strongly intertwined with development planning, and considerable efforts are needed to improve the well-being of the people living in those areas. We show the relevance of backcasting by presenting three case study applications in the following developing countries: Ghana, Honduras and Tajikistan. The results of these case studies indicate that backcasting has specific relevance for adaptation planning, including capacity building and awareness raising to contextualize information on climate impacts with stakeholders’ development needs. Our results also indicate that the developed scenarios provided benefits in promoting horizontal and vertical integration, thus bringing together diverse sectorial and sub-national priorities—adaptation options can thereby be aligned with these needs. Finally, use of the scenarios advances countries’ participation in national and multi-country adaptation projects by targeting actions that provide multiple benefits.

Climate actions in a changing world

Our Anthropocene era is characterized by an increasingly complex and inter-connected world, where problems such as climate change, food security, conflicts, terrorism and migrations are strongly linked and must be faced with common strategies. In this framework, climate actions represent a critical component of effective integrated responses.

Erratum to: FAOSTAT estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat fires

The Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED3) and the FAOSTAT Emissions database, containing estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biomass burning and peat fires, are compared. The two datasets formed the basis for several analyses in the fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5), and thus represent a critical source of information for emissions inventories at national, regional and global level. The two databases differ in their level of computational complexity in estimating emissions. While both use the same burned area information from remote sensing, estimates of available biomass are computed in GFED3 at tier 3 using a complex dynamic vegetation model, while they are computed in FAOSTAT using default, tier 1 parameters from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Over the analysis period 1997–2011, the twomethods were found to produce very similar global GHG emissions estimates for each of the five GFED aggregated biomass fire classes: i) Savanna; ii) Woodland; iii) Forest; iv) Deforestation; v) Peatlands; with total emissions ranging 6–8 Gt CO2eq yr. The main differences between the two datasets were found with respect to peat fires, with FAOSTATshowing a lower 1997–1998 peak in emissions compared with GFED3, within an otherwise good agreement for the rest of the study period, when limited to the three tropical countries covered by GFED. Conversely, FAOSTAT global emissions from peat fires, including both boreal and tropical regions, were several times larger than those currently estimated by GFED3. Results Climatic Change (2016) 135:699–711 DOI 10.1007/s10584-015-1584-y * Francesco N. Tubiello francesco.tubiello@fao.org 1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy 2 Present address: Institute for Environment and Sustainability, The European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, VA, Italy 3 School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road, Bristol, UK 4 Department of Forest, Rangeland and Fire Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA show that FAOSTAT activity data and emission estimates for biomass fires offer a robust alternative to the more sophisticated GFED data, representing a valuable resource for national GHG inventory experts, especially in countries where technical and institutional constraints may limit access, generation and maintenance of more complex methodologies and data.