Aspects besides mitigation

A new paradigm for climate friendly agriculture must account for other sustainability aspects than mitigating climate change. Agriculture has multiple functions in so- ciety and mitigation is not the most important goal. This means, that mitigation measures in agriculture must not only be evaluated according to their mitigation potential, but also according to their effects on other sustainability indicators such as food security, adaptive capacity, rural livelihoods, various ecosystem services, nutrient and water management and impacts on soil, water and air quality.

A focus on soil fertility, i.e. on soil carbon sequestration performs well regarding such aspects, as it improves soil structure and thus water holding and retention capacity, thus making agriculture more resilient against extreme weather events such as heavy rains and droughts and it avoids water logging. Improved soil fertility also im- proves plant health and correspondingly increases the capacity to deal with pest and diseases, which is crucial in the context of adaptation to climate change, where increased pest and disease pressure is expected. This advantageous performance of an agricultural system focusing on soil fertility is further improved by choos- ing optimal crop rotations and locally adapted varieties. Similarly, optimal nutrient management and recycling plays a role, as increasing soil organic matter contents depends on organic fertilizer inputs. Composting, leg- umes and avoiding biomass waste burning are crucial for these aspects. Furthermore, a smallholder focus is often seen as crucial for food security in developing countries (Lal 2009).

These options are largely in line with organic agriculture and are also in accordance with the approaches de- scribed in the FAO report on “Food Security and Agri- cultural Mitigation in Developing Countries” (FAO 2009) and of other governmental and NGO documents with a similar focus (e.g. Soil Association 2009 or FAO 2010). FAO (2009), for example, finds that many climate-friend- ly farming practices at the same time promise economic gains for developing country farmers and they conclude that

„[t]he potential for synergies is particularly high for changing food production practices such as adopting improved crop varieties; avoiding bare fallow and changing crop rota- tions to incorporate food-producing cover crops and legumes; increasing fertilizer use in regions with low N content (as in much of sub-Saharan Africa), and adopting preci- sion fertilizer management in other regions; seeding fodder and improving forage quality and quantity on pastures; expansion of low energy-intensive irrigation; and, expansion of agroforestry and soil and water conserva- tion techniques that do not take significant amounts of land out of food production.“ (FAO 2009, p.24)

Using organic fertilizers is absent in this list, but it is mentioned as advantageous at various other places in this report (e.g. footnote no. 7, p20). In the context of food security, Badgley et al. (2007) showed with a review of 293 studies on productivity that organic agriculture can meet the food security challenge on a global basis (see also El-Hage Scialabba 2007).

The main points of debate between organic agriculture and these similar other suggestions as mentioned in the previous paragraph refer to the use of synthetic fertiliz- ers, to pest and disease control, and the use of GMOs. Using organic fertilizers has many advantages, but there is no need to exclusively use those. Some synthetic fer- tilizer application can make much sense, in particular in nutrient-deficient regions, and where biomass and residues for composting and other organic fertiliser is scarce. Similarly, avoiding pesticides and herbicides would be optimal, but in some cases moderate use of some substances is very effective without overly bur- dening the environment. This mainly depends on the types of chemicals used and their toxicity.

GMOs, finally, are most controversial. GMO technology may help to considerably hasten plant breeding, but it is connected with potentially huge ecological as well as socioeconomic risks that need to be managed based on the precautionary principle. Another important ques-

tion is whether locally adapted traditional breeding techniques may not perform similarly or better. More detailed discussion of GMOs is however beyond the scope of this report.

A second broad area besides soil fertility where an in depth discussion of aspects besides mitigation is need- ed is the animal sector. Animal welfare and health are the crucial topics. There are many proposals to mitigate methane emissions from ruminants, either by feeding practices, by feeding additives to inhibit methanogen- esis or by breeding programmes. Many of these affect animal health adversely, though, as they go counter physiological characteristics of the ruminants. Concen- trate feed reduces methane emissions considerable with regard to roughage (reduction by one third) (Shi- bata and Terada 2010).

Various feed additives are tested with the goal to (fur- ther) reduce methane emissions from enteric fermenta- tion. Some feed additives such as fatty acids or tannins seem promising (4-5 percent of lipids added to the feed reduce emissions by 15-20 percent) (Martin et al. 2010) but more research is still needed (Sejian et al. 2010). Feed additives with characteristics of antibiotics and other drugs are highly problematic. A short overview on some feed additives is given in Smith et al. (2008). Although clearly reducing emissions per unit output, in- creasing the productivity of animals towards higher milk yields and faster growth (for meat), also increases their health problems (e.g. mastitis) and reduces their lifetime performance.

A third area where a critical discussion is crucial is bioen- ergy and biofuel production in particular. One problem is the fact that agricultural land dedicated to bioenergy production is lost for food production. In addition, in- creasing bioenergy production may lead to indirect land use change, as it shifts agricultural production into for- est areas with corresponding deforestation. There are strong indications that the recent food price rises were at least partly driven by the expansion of energy crops (e.g. Mitchell 2008). Besides this competition for land, there is also a competition for water and for biomass (see e.g. Muller 2009). This latter point is particularly

important for the context of climate friendly agricul- ture and the important role of organic fertilizer for it. Particular attention has to be paid to the local situation of subsistence farmers, as bioenergy strategies may exclude certain groups from their traditional land use with correspondingly adverse consequences for local food security of these groups, in particular in contexts of informal property and use rights. A clear statement on whether and to which extent bioenergy can be pro- duced in a climate friendly agriculture and compatible with food security is currently not possible, but when reforming agriculture – and the energy system – these aspects and trade-offs clearly need to be kept in mind. For this, the emissions and energy balance of bioener- gy and biofuels in particular need to be assessed on an encompassing life-cycle basis. Depending on the pro- duction system and its management, the net emissions gains from biofuels can be nil or even negative (e.g. De- lucchi 2010).

In summary, there are strong synergies between many mitigation and other ecological sustainability objectives and food security, while there are concerns regarding some mitigation approaches and animal welfare, and also regarding mitigation based on bioenergy.