 Hello, everyone. Welcome. Today we will be discussing the question, will CSA help realize red? This will be a one hour and a half discussion. We will have two panels, one on the science side of the interaction between agriculture and forests, and a second panel on implementation of red and CSA. Each presenter will take around five minutes. We will have one discussion in the middle of the two panels, and then we'll move on to the second panel and have another set of questions and answers. We want you to know you're welcome to ask your questions in Spanish also. The presenters can answer them that way as well. I would like to first tell you a little bit about why we want to have this session. First of all, we know agriculture is the main driver of deforestation, so it's really important to see the two interactions that are happening here, agriculture and forestry. Then we see that there are still a series of unanswered questions about these interactions. Some of them, for example, can make agriculture more efficient and productive, really reduce pressure on forests. How innovative can CSA and red plus in landscapes actually be? How can CSA, a more adaptation focused approach, help realize mitigation goals of red, and among other questions. I would like now to introduce the panelists. The science panel, we will listen first to Martin Herald, professor at Wageningen University. He will talk to you about understanding agriculture-driven deforestation. Then we will have Rosa Roman, who from Wageningen University, and she will speak on greenhouse gas emission hotspots. Then we will have Marina Rufino, she's from SICAFS, and she will talk to us about pan-tropical emissions and mitigation hotspots and potential for climate smart agriculture. After Marina, we will listen to Sarah Carter. She is a researcher at Wageningen University, and she will talk to us about land grabbing and red plus and empirical analysis. After Sarah, we will listen to Professor Harold Engelsen from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences on Agricultural Technologies. He will talk about agricultural technologies, intensification, and deforestation. Now I will pass the floor to Martin Herald. Thank you for the introduction. Good afternoon everyone. I would like to start off the session with talking a bit about agriculture as a driver of deforestation. I think that's pretty clearly understood. It is the most important one. If you look then at South America, since we are in South America on how deforestation is linked to agriculture, we can see here that it's a map that shows on a sample-based approach the land use change on forest. This is deforestation, and we see the follow-up land use that is following that deforestation. That's based on the FAO definition of forest, so it is an actual land use change. You can see basically, oops, that's how quickly the wrong button goes. Let me just give me a second where I can fire that up again. There you go. I'm sorry for that. To see basically where, first of all, most of the deforestation is, and that's quite known. It's the arc of deforestation here in the Brazilian Amazon, and that's basically here. Then you see the size basically of the circle to show how much deforestation it is, and then you can basically see what type of follow-up land use was actually mapped there. This is based on the remote sensing survey. If you look at the statistics, you can see that's maybe an interesting number that for South America, the deforestation is about a bit over 40,000 square kilometers per year. It's a bit higher for the second period that was looked at 2000 and 2005. If you look at the statistics, about 70% of the deforestation is followed by pastoral, which is quite the predominant type of change. The actual conversion to agriculture, mostly commercial agriculture, is in the order of 11% to 14%, so it's a much smaller fraction. But if you add up livestock, the different types of agriculture end up being nearly at 90% of the deforestation in South America is due to agriculture, and that is not necessarily new in terms of the overall number, but it's also perhaps interesting to look at the pattern, and perhaps it's also interesting to look at the patterns and how they change over time, because we looked at South America in two periods in time. One is from 1990 to 2000, and the other one is from 2000 to 2005. In the maps that are shown here, then, basically, and I'd like to first press the wrong button again, sorry, like to throw your attention to the map on your right, where you see basically in red where the deforestation from agriculture has declined in these two periods, so between 1990 to 2000 and 2005, and in green where the deforestation to crop agriculture has increased. So basically, you see basically a shift of the expansion of agriculture on forests. And what you see that across country boundaries, you see this decline in agricultural expansion here and that moving of the hotspots into the forest, which shows how dynamic that driver is. The overall amount did not change so much, but the patterns actually quite largely changed. You see how dynamic that driver is moving more into the actual higher carbon forest areas over that period. You see a similar map here for pasture expansion. Here you see it's a bit more of a distinct pattern, probably much more regional pattern. You also see that it's quite in areas in red, which means pasture expansion has declined for these regions and the green spots were actually pasture expansion has taken up again more in these higher carbon dense of forest areas. So if agriculture is 90% of deforestation in South America and depending on which numbers you look at 80 to 90% for the pan tropics, is it then also it receiving 80 to 90% of the attention when it comes to country strategies and the terms of red plus? We did an empirical analysis that looked into what kind of interventions countries have been putting forward in their readiness activities and we separated the countries in two types. One type of country looked where we have seen or were able to interpret a good understanding of the drivers that were translated into interventions, red plus interventions. So a series of red plus interventions that you see here written and we had a series of countries who have put forward interventions for red plus and have not taken at least developed a clear relationship between the drivers understanding of the drivers in the intervention. And what you see is the two patterns that we see in blue, the countries who have just put forward red plus intervention without considering drivers and the red ones the other ones. So for the countries in blue which have not taken their drivers in information into account, you see a lot of let's say forest related interventions that have been put forward, sustainable forest management, protected area strategies, afforestation, reforestation, rehabilitation of degraded land, whereas the ones who have taken these drivers into account really end up with the ones which are related towards these main drivers, agriculture, livestock, mining and some of the other infrastructure related expansion types. So we do see that there's quite a disconnect and at least what has been proposed by countries in terms of taking the drivers into account. And what we're learning from that the more we will see strategies to address deforestation that are based on a better understanding of drivers, we're likely to see more of these kind of interventions that basically say if you want to address our most important drivers we have to think outside the forest sector, we have to look at other sectors mostly agriculture to solving our forest problem. And so to conclude from my side, we have seen agriculture as the key driver that is not necessarily new, but the solution to that is largely outside the forests. And I think that is one of the reasons we're talking about Red Plus and landscapes, we're talking about a more integrated framework, we're talking about that to change activities outside the forest to reduce pressure on the forest itself. That the size of that landscape can very certainly if you have to deal with a highly dynamic commercial agricultural drivers we've seen for South America or whether you have more of a locally driven expansion of agriculture. We also second point have to realize that the follow-up land use that is related to deforestation also by itself creates emissions. I made the point that's about 70% of land clearing in South America is to pasture which is associated with livestock and livestock emissions. So there is an additional cumulative emission that is happening on these lands in addition if you think about it to the ones that relate it to the loss of carbon stocks itself and the avoided zinc if you really want to become prehensives. So the mitigation options are really broader than just forests and I think that's an important message that we particularly see also for South America. So this kind of idea of Red Plus and landscapes, thinking about from an integrated point of view, we've saw in many sessions how that makes a lot of sense and of course and this is my last point then climate smarts agriculture is not a field where I come from but it's clearly that there are some similar objectives that we see. So this idea of you know achieving both adaptation mitigation calls including reducing the pressure on the forest which conceptually I think is a good opportunity to try to think about how they can link together and that was a bit the purpose of that session although I have to say that my perception is so far this link is not there and I guess we'll hear more about that and hopefully have an interesting discussion on that. Thank you. Thank you Martin. Now we will listen to Rosa Roman. Good afternoon everyone. Everyone can hear me? Well yes perfect. The next presentation it's a hot spot of land use emissions in the tropics for the period 2000 and 2005 and I would like to pick it up from the last remarks from Martin on the need for having a more integrative approach between these two sides of the coin, agriculture versus the first station. This is not yet we are not yet there but they are part of the same story and then therefore it is quite interesting and it's quite timing to have them together not only from a point of view of emission reporting estimates of the emissions from the entire land use sector but also from mitigation options and this is also timing like for the first time the fifth assessment report is exposing and it's reporting the emissions from the land use in an integrated manner. It's an affluent reporting so we don't have LuluCF on one side, forests and then agriculture in the other but for the first time we are having this fifth assessment report with this integrated approach and therefore also other interesting approaches or benefits from having integrative agriculture forest assessments is the fact that they improve consistency. If you have emission reports from the land use sector that includes both of them you are forced to have harmonized definitions you're also forced to have a better understanding of the availability of the land uses in the land use sector and therefore you have minimized risks of double counting also the benefit of having this integrated approaches is that you have a better understanding of the drivers you include the drivers within the sector and also you have a better understanding of the trades off between mitigation of requirement for the land use and adaptation. We have to bear in mind that the land use sector bears to big responsibilities food security and sustaining livelihoods and therefore mitigation needs need to be certainly embedded into adaptation requirements. So the presentation I will be showing today is research that it's a top-down approach based on independent data sets so it's not a bottom-up from the countries but on the other side it's a top-down approach that tries to identify the regions that have larger land use emissions in the panthropics and this is our definition of hotspot areas with larger greenhouse gas emissions from the land use sector and not only to visualize where they are but also to identify what are the drivers behind these hotspots and several benefits come from from this research which would be one of them could be to help prioritize certain areas that are the ones that have the larger emissions and also to prioritize mitigation action based on the drivers behind these hotspots. We will follow a three-step process which basically first consisted on identifying what are the emissions associated to the land uses and for that we relied on the IPCC AFOLU 2006 good practice guidance so we identified what are for the six sectors for the six land uses within the IPCC good practice guidance of 2006. What are the main activities leading to emissions and also what are the gases associated to these emissions and what were the main pools contributing to these emissions but from the entire panorama of emissions from the land use what we did was selecting only those that were key emission sources and we used the fifth assessment report to identify which were those key emission sources which means basically those that contribute the most to the total emissions of the land use sector to run our hotspot of land use emissions so I will show you in the next slide which were these activities that were the key sources. The second step then was to collect these datasets especially explicit datasets that were published and that are peer reviewed and we ran some quality control and quality assessment analysis to identify data caveats and to assess future needs for for data and then the last one was to combine them through Monte Carlo analysis not only to look at the total aggregated emissions from the land use sector but also to look at uncertainties although I will not look I will not discuss uncertainties in this presentation oh sorry so this is a summary of the key source emissions that were identified in the fifth assessment report to contribute the most to the land use sector basically there are six major activities behind these emissions one is the forestation the other is degradation both harvesting and fire the other has to do with livestock emissions which includes enteric fermentation and mania management and the other two relate to crop management and rice body emissions and they both relate to soil management emissions so these are the six main contributing activities within the land use sector that that are reported as I said before in the fifth assessment report and that we include it and here in the dataset column you have the references of the dataset that we used we focus on three main gases CO2 methane and nitrous oxide and two main pools of carbon emissions above ground biomass and soil just for you to understand the following or the final map of the greenhouse gas hotspot inventions I wanted to show how these six activities or processes that are contributing the most to the emissions look so it's a spatial explicit it's 0.5 degrees spatial resolution and it's annual emissions based on these different datasets that we covered that are global scale although our analysis is only panthropical just briefly for you to see that it's a spatial based analysis and there are uncertainties associated to all of these datasets that I will not show you right now what I wanted to show you is this analysis this is the final Monte Carlo run 1000 Monte Carlo runs combining all the key source emissions for the land use sector and it's a gross emission and a CO2 equivalence basically means that we have CO2 and methane and nitrous oxide incorporated into this map the first thing we see is that there is different continental contributions to this land use sector in red you have those areas that have the highest combined emissions for the land use sectors so those are the hot spots of emissions and one of the utilities could be to focus and target mitigation actions on those regions so basically this is integrating both agriculture and forestry emissions and what I would wanted to show is how if we separate by gases how the emission hot spot before would would offer interesting information what I show you here it's still hot spot of emissions but on the above panel you have CO2 gross emissions and on the lower panel you have non-CO2 gross emissions basically this roughly means that on the top you have emissions coming from forests and grasslands and on the lower part you have more related agriculture and livestock emissions right so here we're starting dividing drivers behind these hot spots of emissions be aware that the scales are not the same so the contribution and the mitigation potential from non-CO2 mainly agriculture and livestock emissions is half of the potential of forest and grasslands emissions and that's quite interesting when dealing with mitigation strategies what I wanted to show you briefly not only the difference in continents but the fact that when you separate between these types of gases and associated drivers you see new patterns arising so you see for instance in the American continent like the contribution of forests on the northern and arch of the forestation of southern amazonia as a main contribution from CO2 but then if you move it into non-CO2 emissions then you see all the contribution from livestock and crop lands on the southern part of brazil but also picking up in Argentina and Uruguay and the northern part of Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico for instance. Another interesting point to remark here by subdividing the contribution of the different greenhouse gases is on a CO2 analysis and the role of forests and grasslands you would not see the large contribution that the Asian continent has in terms of emitting livestock and paddy rice soil emissions so this is quite interesting in terms of subdividing not only where are the larger emissions but what are the different gases contributing and the drivers behind this. Another interesting approach would be to separate the concept of gross emissions versus net emissions for mitigation action net is the one that we should be focusing on what is the difference the difference is that on the above panel figure you have all these red hotspot emissions that only incorporate sources of emissions while in this lower panel you have also included the sinks so the carbon sequestration processes a large difference would be the african continent we can see how africa is largely contributing to emissions but if we run a net analysis short time emissions like biomass burning which is one of the drivers of african emissions disappears because this is an emission that it's a short-term emission that will be recovered by regeneration of the grasslands the following year so in net terms this disappears but then emissions from livestock and from crop soil management do not change and the same happens for forests and the final draft would be to link the spatial distribution of these hotspots of emissions with the drivers behind it so and what we see is in this y-axis we have the mitigation potential so the final estimates of the affluent combined emissions and here we have the the different drivers which are the datasets that we selected and we see continents like Africa are contributing with their hotspots of emissions mainly through fire so if we want to invest on mitigation activities fire would be our first goal and if we look at the distribution of this fire we would see that it's on miombo fire so it's dry forests well if we look at the the forestation driver we see that central america and central and south america is mainly emissions are mainly related to the forestation for instance and mainly on wet rainforests and then contribution of livestock and rice and crops are the main drivers behind asia so we have different continents with different distribution of the hotspots but also with different drivers behind that and that should give us hints on how to start mitigation initiatives and this should or perhaps would be useful for countries that don't have all that much data on their own national communications to use these global datasets that already exist as a way to start dealing with what would be their mitigation potentials and with this I conclude thank you thank you rosa now we will listen to mariana rufino we heard martin herald talking about drivers of the forestation and he's hoped that intervention in the agriculture sector could help us to save the forest and then we heard rosa explaining talking about the the global distribution of hotspots for greenhouse gas emissions so how can we use this technical information what I want to talk about is to show you how you could link these hotspots this driver information with interventions such as climate smart agriculture and red um so if we look again at the map of of rosa just show on net emissions we see this uniform or less uniform distribution of submissions but we know that to mitigate these emissions decisions and planning and so on need to happen at the different level which is not the global level everyone suffering with this so to mitigate emissions we need targets for emission reductions those targets could happen at different levels but here in the climate negotiations we are talking mainly about the national level we need planning and planning at the national level is crucial it is crucial because it requires financial support because it represents implementation challenges so what I want to show you is a method that we are testing to see how we could um assess interventions in the framework of these national level planning oops it went too fast oh let me help you to understand this diagram um so this is a tool to set priorities and the example I'm going to show you is being tested at the national level so the first step let me get you up in the figure is to calculate country level emissions and what rosa was telling you is that there are those uh national uh global available product that you can use and so the first question is um should we look at the forest sector at agricultural driven deforestation or should we look at mitigation in the agricultural sector first question is what dominates this is agricultural emissions or this agriculture driven deforestation emissions so yes no so let me take you to the right side of the graph so yes most of the emissions are coming from agricultural driven deforestation so the first step is let's estimate the potential to reduce the forestation so um what i'm going to show you in this right side of the of the figure is how can we assess the likelihood of implementing um land land sparing uh interventions like closing the yield gap or using available and i put it between parentheses degraded land because in some part of the world is degraded land in some part of the world is simply unutilized land so the question is is there is there a yield gap that we can close and you can think immediately about climate smart agriculture if we are going to close the yield gap we are going to do it climate smartly um so the question is is is there potential to close the yield gap or to use unutilized land no if there is no potential for that then that country has a low mitigation potential is something we have to address with different interventions if there is potential to close the gap the yield gap or to use unutilized land well then we need to see at the national level for example what are these enabling factors to avoid the deforestation we continue here next question is we are thinking about the implementation level is there good governance or there is high engagement in red yes if there is then we are aware that we need to check for risk factors and in these examples in this example we think about the dependency of a country on the agricultural sector to generate their income or the risk of food insecurity which is what poor countries are putting as an argument for not engaging in red well um is there a if there is dependency or food insecurity then we need to address the risk and you heard in different presentations how this risk can be addressed and the previous session was on safeguards um know that there is no problem to implement um mitigation intervention so we can think about climate smart agriculture and or expand into this available and utilized land um so this is an example for the for the an area where the missions are dominated by agriculture or different deforestation if you take the middle part of the graph we are in in deal in those cases where the missions from agriculture and from agriculture driven deforestation are important at the country level so it's not dominated by agriculture driven deforestation we still estimate the potential for reducing deforestation if there is the potential to close a yield gap or to utilize unutilized land we follow the same path um let me get you to this point that if governance is a problem this is a clear sign for support and governance before we try implementation of of any action um so if you have some of those countries where emissions are dominated by agriculture activities then we estimate the potential for agriculture mitigation we ask is there um a high emission gap in agriculture no if there is no well then there is low mitigation potential a problem we need still to sort out um if there is a high emission gap then we again check for enabling factors so that we can go to uh try implementation we ask about governance if there is no good governance you need support if there is good governance then we still need to check for risk factors and we were talking about food insecurity or income dependency on the agricultural sectors if there are risk factors we need to address those if not we can implement climate smart agriculture in existing agricultural land what i want to highlight is that uh there is a always hope if there are problems these problems are highlighted in this diagram there is low mitigation potential the problem still needs to be addressed if there are risks we need to address those risks but if not we have a way to target the intervention to reduce emissions either from the agriculture sector or from the forest station um so we uh we did this exercise with available product we uh there is a product available on um the yield gap on this on the main cereals in the world and what you can see in different colors is the mitigation potential from low medium to high so here you can see to close close in the yield gap where there is high potential is where you see orange and then the other option that we were proposing is using uh unutilized land again and you can see those countries in orange are those which have the high potential for the intervention and then what you'll see in the lower panel is these enabling factors so with these countries that have a high governance are the ones where we could probably proceed with the implementation and on the right panel you see the countries that have high engagement in red where the likelihoods where the interventions are going to be successful are higher so to conclude what we are arguing here is that um at the national level it will be useful to assess at the same time the forest and the agricultural sector together because there are opportunities to combine emission reductions um then it will be useful to assess the likelihood that these interventions are going to be effective and by saying this is that we need to look at if there is an enabling environment and how to estimate the risk of implementing mitigation interventions and this also allows countries to assess the sort of support needed and we we can say that in many of these countries according to our assessment climate smart agriculture could support the realization of red ready thank you thank you marina now we will listen to sarah carter good afternoon i'm going to talk to you about um a short study that looks into land grabbing and red plus um this study was led by mark amour man coup um and it's a submitted paper um so the results may be uh going to change in the future but this is a preliminary look um so first i'm going to define what land grabbing is and this study uses the definition from the land matrix data set and we also use the data from the land matrix data set and that compiles information on um land grabbing events which happen all around the world and this data these data are freely available on the internet so the definition which they have is that land grabbing is a transfer of rights to use control or ownership of land through a lease or con concession that's been initiated since 2000 covers an area more than 200 hectares and it also and more interestingly implies the potential conversion of land from um a community use or a small holder farming use or as an ecosystem services provision an area for ecosystem services ecosystem service provision to a commercial use and actually the orange circle that you can see on the left hand panel this represents the area of land which fulfills this definition so we're talking about a large area of land um distributed around the world and crucially 80 percent of this approximately 80 percent of this land is grabbed for agricultural use the usual subs suspects are there palm oil um soybean production and and other kind of um agricultural crops yeah right um so why are we interested in looking at land grab and red plus at the same time well there are many similarities between the two um they're both of interest to sustainability science they're both um important in terms of emissions mitigation of emissions a source of emissions deforestation reduction of deforestation biodiversity and they're also potentially competing for land and they affect land tenure access rights issues of neocolonial colonialism come up um but there's also some differences between the two processes because they're both happening independently from one another um red plus tends to have some quite harsh uh frameworks around it in terms of regulations through safeguards through um implementation bodies who have rules and regulations about what can and can't be done and typically these help to ensure that country development objectives are respected and that the projects are sustainable and equitable land grabs operate under different laws country laws um some countries have um restrictions on foreign ownership of land um and other assets within the country for example so um this map shows um incidences of land grabbing and what we see is three different colors in the map one is um the yellow colored countries and this is countries who are investing in land grabs and then we have orange countries who are objects of land grabs so that's where the land grabs are taking place and we also have green countries who are both so they may be investing in land grabbing within their own country or in a different country and we can see from the panel on the right that most of land grabbing is happening within sub-saharan africa and also east asia and pacific so when we add the map of red plus it's a similar map we have yellow being the countries who are donors of red plus um orange the recipients and green who are um both donors and recipients and this is in international frameworks also in local um and national red plus projects and we see there are some similarities here we have um some countries who tend to be both donors of red plus and investors some countries who tend to have land grabbing happening within their country and also our recipients of red plus funds so from these maps we come up with two key conclusions and one is that countries who are objects of land investments and nine times more likely to be engaged in red plus and the second one is that countries who are invested in large land deals or land grabbing um are also likely to be donors of red plus so we can't really separate the two processes because they're happening within the same landscape um the analysis also looked at um variables which could explain the incidences of either a country being a donor or an investor of land i mean an investor of land grabs or a recipient of land grabs and also a donor or a recipient of red plus and we find some interesting um results i'll just highlight a couple one is that but countries who are more likely to be engaged in red and objects of land grab have a minimum regulatory requirements so it means that they they're not the poorest most corrupt countries if you're looking at um the range of governance of countries within the whole world world these tend to be countries who have some capacity to manage their assets um another interesting conclusion is that there are a number of countries who are both investing in land grabbing and our recipients of those deals so there's some um responsibility of the country itself to manage its own land management system by itself so what does this mean well the study also looks at risks um of both land grabbing and red plus taking place um and uh we look at the risks to biodiversity and risks communities and both countries who are engaged in red plus and also who have land grabbing occurring within the country um tend to have a lower human development index um and also lower access to water which are both kind of indicators of the vulnerability of local communities to change in land use and land tenure land access these kind of things and we also see that red plus tends to occur as you might expect in countries with a high biodiversity and species extinction risk so um what does this mean well um because land grabbing and red plus are both happening in the same place land grabbing is a potential driver of deforestation and must be addressed within red plus strategies and taken seriously the second one and also um there's a potential for climate smart interventions to be implemented in those areas where land is converted to agriculture for example which can help promote um land sparing which may um avoid deforestation and support the red plus project where land grabbing is occurring in an area which is not forested then the second point is that land grabbing often does occur in areas which are forested it often occurs illegally or is unsustainable in terms of its management of land and that's where we can look at integrating the safeguards that are integrated already in the red plus system into the land grabbing system and just to highlight a few of these these are from the Cancun safeguards this is that there must be participation of all stakeholders in the land use change actions must be consistent with conservation of a natural forest and biodiversity and there must be benefit sharing mechanisms which at the moment are not happening in the land grab system thank you thank you sarah and now we will listen to arald angelson before we turn into our first panel of discussions or set of discussions so i don't see the ladies i promise no maps and i will try to be the first one to get only one that's the wrong way so i failed on that go to the right but then it was moved one back i succeeded in that as you can see there and so i'm not going to present a lot of new research but but some remind you about some important findings of previous work that we have when we discuss what is a long title but could be shortened how smart is csa i you see there so what is consider and i'm trying to i'm mixing up this this abbreviation but the climate smart agriculture what what is it and what what does it mean i think ecraft is working on trying to find a unified definition of that and if we look at some a broad definition it is a set of practices that increase productivity probably i mean there are different types of productivity is probably land productivity that one has in mind that is the yield it should enhance adaptation and the resilience to climate shocks and climate change and it should also have a mitigation impact in the way that it reuses the emissions as you have seen in several presentation of course it's very difficult from a research perspective into if you ask yourself does conservation sorry climate smart agriculture if you have defined it in that way does it reduce emissions yes by definition it does so if it does not so over the last one or two days during this landscape forum i've been thinking of that maybe i at least me i should start to to look at at climate smart agriculture as the sister of red and by red which i've in earlier in the books we are produced from cfo try to define as really very hard and and i'm more and more leaning towards the the definition of red as an objective it's an objective to reduce emissions from deforestation forest degradation plus something else that we are not yet sure what it is and the same climate smart agriculture is agriculture that is both provide benefits increase in productivity has an adaptation aspect and has a mitigation aspect now there may be trade-offs and because there's three objectives already but that i kind of increasingly prefer to watch it as a broad term and then it's better under this there is a number of things that that we can discuss with what exactly it is and we are looking at the relationship between climate smart agriculture and and i also write miss this so you have to reorder the the letters here and emission removals and if you think of climate smart agriculture one of the things is the minimum tillage approach so that we'll also hear more on in a few minutes there are basically two effects one have discussed more is that you you store more soil and more carbon in the soil so you have a positive effect on that more stored and you also it gives higher yield and because of that you will also have lower pressure on the forest and contributing to reduce the emissions now i think there are two links in this very very basic thinking of why climate smart agriculture should be beneficial now the first is related to this soil pot and and we already know that there's like three times more carbon in the organic soil than in the atmosphere so so it's really a huge potential to for both removals and and of course also for emissions if that if some that's of that carbon is going to the atmosphere the unit permission gap report which i think is going to be very nice reports predict that the the potential is in the order of 1.1 to 4.3 gigatons which is 4.3 is big if you compare to the total global emissions of like 50 or in that order and there was an article recently in nature climate change that criticizes it and say this is a wildly overstated measure and says that in a in a new assessment that they make which is just a fraction of this estimate and they have a lot of explanation why it may differ in in the two approaches and the report for example that very often you have that the top soil is improved by minimum tillage you have more carbon there but it reduces the carbon deep down because you don't have the turnaround of of of the soil and some of the carbon sinking further down into the soil which may be related to the IPCC guidelines that that only says that you should do the first or the top 30 centimeters you look at maps mass are not the concentration and that may also be a different in the two systems and it may not be permanent this i think as a small comment if there are some the authors of that unit gap report that i think it's also some unfair critique and sometimes researchers you know exaggerate a little bit to get things published and because i think the unit permission report focus on the total agricultural for example a huge potential in rice paddies by by reducing the watering of that and the the other part is less deforestation does higher yield lead to less deforestation and that's a topic that i started working on while let's see for 15 years ago exactly and and there are basically two arguments in this the yes question is yes you need less agricultural land to to meet the food needs to kind of to cover it it can either be what what i have termed the full belly model that you need to fill your belly here with a given amount of food so higher yield less agricultural land or you can look at it at the global scale with the burloc hypothesis and a global food equation now as an economist we will kind of take often another approach you see okay how profitable is agriculture compared to other activities and there and if you make if you increase the yield agriculture becomes more profitable and demand is not fixed for example there's a lot of agricultural commodities that are not food and and which is much more price elastic than than for example food is but still it's not completely in elastic in the way that we are fixed amount so may you get an expansion into the forest well that's an empirical question and whoops it's really scope for improvement of this technology i have to conclude to make it more pushing smart or whatever and what we said we said the conclusion it's always it depends but if you just say it depends and stop there it's a it's really a very useless thing to say because you are not giving any guidance you just say the world is complicated and we not don't know exactly so in some of these cases we said when are you likely to get a positive impact and when you like to get a negative impact on forest from yield increase and you can look here for example it depends on the scale what what is the open market are we talking about the local market that may quickly become saturated the yield increases more likely to produce a win-win outcome in the way that that reducing pressure on forest what are the farmers characteristics what are the characteristics of the technology are you saving labor are you are you increasing the labor demand if you're saving labor you're more likely to get a negative outcome for the forest more deforestation and and a few other factors that i will not have time to go into the take-home messages are three first don't assume a positive outcome there's a good amount of research saying that if you have yield increases it may quite often lead to more pressure on the forest the second is that different contexts and technologies give different forest outcomes it depends answer but i think the key thing is then that when you are looking and considering a particular set of climate spot technologies you should think of okay given what you know in the previous table and other studies what is the likely likely impact on forests you can either say that okay we want to push it but if you know that this is likely to increase the pressure you do something or you can selectively design the the interventions and choose among different technologies that have characteristics that is also favorable so the key thing don't assume it study and expect a certain outcome and you can also design the type of intervention such that it's less negative impacts on forests thank you can you pass me the clicker please i'm out of there okay thank you so before we move on to the question and answers q&a session i would like to know if our colleagues from kenya will be able to join are they here i don't see them no okay so then our professor arald would you like to present the following um presentation questions first okay so um before we move on to questions and answers i would like to quickly summarize uh the the the outcomes of each presentation the main idea so we have this in mind during our questions uh so first of all we see that agriculture is a key driver of the forest station and therefore is also a key solution second uh then mitigation potential varies across regions approaches need to be tailored to their specific local and regional circumstances then we also see that csa is a technologically focused approach that needs broadening to address impacts on forest change um sarah concluded that red and land grabbing happens simultaneously integration and safeguards are needed for both red plus and land grabbing and finally uh csa has similarities to uh earlier policies and assuming that higher yield reduces pressure on forest is dangerous so with these each one of the conclusions in mind uh i would like to open the floor for questions uh first uh we will take three and please say uh who you would like to address your question so uh please thank you good afternoon michael buckee uh european commission thanks to all the presenters i would have one comment and two questions for rosamaria um so first the the comment wow great i thought we were years from having such maps it's very impressive to to see that um now questions how does it does it scale down to to country level uh that are we how long are we from having reliable information at country level based on on the same type of metallurgies and second questions when or have you already done the another part the northern hemisphere and how does it compare thank you uh the second question who would like to add a question to that uh this is really for whoever would like to answer i think several of you could um the ipcc in the affluent chapter identified demand side approaches uh reducing food waste uh changing diet trends as having a great deal of potential perhaps even more than supply side approaches did you include those as is that part of climate smart agriculture uh anybody have or should we move on to answer questions yeah uh thanks michael um michael it's good to have a good positive feedback i was in a in a meeting in the tsu unit with ipcc and um they were constructively critical and about how scared countries would be to see a graph like this because there is a process of endorsement and uh so it has to be done carefully thing um the great potential of this map is that it offers opportunities to countries that have limited data sets and it offers the window of saying there are all these data sets available let's use them um scaling down to countries it should be very easy because it's a 0.5 degree special explicit map and therefore we only have to aggregate it to country level um it's more a bit of an issue of how then you aggregate the uncertainties and there are certain assumptions about um a special correlation and covariations between the different data sets that have to be assumed there is an entire story to tell about the reliability of this data based both on the availability of a special explicit uncertainties of the original data sets which some of them had some of them had regional uncertainties so we have to take some assumptions when we run the Monte Carlo analysis and how we were going to how we were um assuming the spatial covariance between different data sets so answering your question it's straightforward to have country estimates for the aggregated affluent missions and I think our next step it's also to contrast it to existing data sets there are other ongoing initiatives one would be of course FAO wonderful um data gateway of emissions um which is it's a bottom-up approach and it would be super interesting to see how the top-down approach matches the bottom-up approaches of FAO and then the Edgar initiative from the joint research center which is a 0.5 0.1 degree special explicit data set um the only thing with Edgar is that it's an atmospheric data set or it was originally created with atmospheric purposes so I think it's also going to be very interesting not so much land oriented so even though it has information about land uses um in where it will be interested to see how these two data sets match so country data straightforward and then of course you're right um we've been running some analysis out of the tropics and and definitely our next step it's to incorporate also the emissions from the entire planet so the only reasons we did it this way is because one of the data sets had the only data from the pan tropics which was that the forestation data set so we don't have um we have mud hansings data set from the entire planet but this is only activity data it's only areas of the forestation but then we have to assume emission factors so it's going to be a take us a bit longer but yes it's it's we're going to incorporate it for sure yes sure yeah and martin will you answer the other question just on that point and I mean of course one always has to be a bit careful to go to country level these are data sets that are pan tropical at least they were presented there I think we are benefiting from the fact that a lot of researchers invested a lot of time to put the data together for the individual land use fluxes and we basically work with them to put them together so that's there's a process there that led to that and one of the key values at this point is that you can contrast a bit regional pattern I think that's one of the key uses I can see but at this point and we should be a bit careful with going to country level like I said the uncertainties still are are significant I mean we can one can specify them and if countries have their own data of course they should use them primarily but if they're countries who really think that that could be useful for them then of course that's one source of data that that can be available for that purpose the second point is that Mariana was making that point quite clearly that of course one of the next step in that analysis actually go from emission emission sources emission hotspots to mitigation potentials that is basically it's the first step to go in that direction and some frameworks were shown a bit on how that can be done which leads me to to answer questions from Doug on the on the on the demand side mitigation and we have not looked into this and I think it at least not at this point it's very let's say developing country focused and I think that that is also one of the things that should be done whether that is part of climate smart agriculture that's actually a very interesting question and and I personally for me if I see climates on agriculture and we'll hear a case study from our I think in a bit is a very local thing right it's doing something different that's where I see it a bit and and if you think about the kind of the notion of you know just trying to think about you know forests and agriculture and all of that that's an important dimension that's also missing I think in that all debate and if you think about the you know the one big site case Brazil reducing you know deforestation last couple years it is actually coming largely from that demand side to include with national policies all of that but it's coming also from that side so that is definitely an important part of that that's not included here yet okay would anyone want to add a little bit to those questions should we get I would go for another round of questions anyone wants to do follow-up questions please nothing from Norwegian University for life sciences I study agroecology and I have met some restrictions or I see it as a big problem for for climate smart agriculture which by the way is the same acronym as community supported agriculture and one problem I see is that in America for example there's very few farmers farming huge vast areas so how do you use climate smart agriculture on such vast areas and yeah of course there is the employment issue how can we make people go back to the to the soil and work in the climate smart agriculture because it will demand more employment wouldn't it maybe for Arald who would like to answer that question and maybe a follow-up question would be could climate smart agriculture be a part of red is that what you're saying is it funded by red could it be that I see that as a very valuable point I'm sorry if that was too vague questions Arald let's listen to your ideas yeah thanks we can talk because you're probably studying the floor below me where I have my office you know and the end I think of the first point it's a key one on labor requirements because in general economics you think that we want to economize on the most scarce factor we have and in a lot of cases it's labor that we have this idea of surplus labor and in rural areas I think is often quite wrong so so if you have very labor intensive technologies which may be good for the forest because then you kind of don't have time to chop down the trees if you if you do agriculture to speak they may also be some reluctance to do that and not just in in say in America to go or in industrialized countries to go back and kind of take better care of the soil but also in in this and I think it's a problem for the adoption that some of this may be quite labor intensive of these technologies so there must be a clear gain that that you get it I also just one point I may say in the next I think that it's also therefore a little bit dangerous to just look at the yield and assume that if there is a yield increase then its farmers are happy they may or they will compare to the input that they put into this and I think it's obviously that that for the second comment that that climate smart agriculture and red needs to be integrated I mean the story saw that 70 percent or in that order is of the deforestation is caused by by this expansion of of agriculture so therefore that the solutions to red are in the agriculture sector that's said long time ago and it has to that and and therefore I think I when I go to presentations here and read stuff on climate smart agriculture I am a little bit concerned of the lack of the impact there because if the soil component is small it means that it's huge if it's 70 percent it's 10 11 maybe 13 14 if you take heatlands also of the global emission is 70 percent of that it means that the main climate impact of agriculture well it's not from lives well it is a very big part of that but almost an equal part is from this effect it has on the forests that when we propose solutions for the agriculture sector this is critical that we also include that an assessment of what will be the impacts on forests thank you so before we move on to more questions I would like to ask you to come up to talk to us about your next presentation professor will be on let me remember I'm the same yeah yeah here you go I should have been humbulu unguma from Zambia for the next 10 minutes or so because it's his presentation I'm just a co-presenter he's a PhD student who has done just completed some service in Zambia and I'm going to present some preliminary results of that and yes no we just talked a little bit of definition what what is the focus in Zambia and neighboring countries is on on conservation agriculture which is probably a subset of of what the climate smart agriculture is and it's simply three three aspects of that one is the minimum tillage that you should have and I show some pictures that that illustrates what it is and then it's also to to to have the crop residue retention so at least 30 percent is permanent cover of the soil so you avoid the exposure of of the soil and and get releases of of greenhouse gases through that and the third is that you have some crop rotation with legumes to fix nitrogen so both kind of fertilize the soil and increase the yield from that and also other environmental benefits to build up the the soil stock now CSI we have talked about and red well I say no more so here are some examples of this this we use sand draft animals to do the ripping of the of the of the areas you are going to have it done in a mechanical way the ripping we just take the small not go very deep you can have whole basins have we seen here and and also this animal draft power zero tilling that you don't do today so all these are minimum tillage practices that that looked at this delayed responses are very dangerous okay I assume this was the next slide yes it was so there are three aspects that I think are interesting there's a number of aspects and we I was in a session previously that looked at food security that looked at at the at the adaptation part so now adopt adaptation or not the adaptation here I think the first discussion has been on the adaptation I mean how many starts using these practices and and what they are I show you some figures next slide that shows that the figures vary enormously based on what methodology use some of the impacts are based on experimental plots and it may be hard to to generalize and I think that they will be be a really can be replicated and give the same results when sexually applied among farmers another problem with the sum of studies that they relied on you simple compare farmers with practicing for example MT and those who don't practice it and we know the standard problem of this it's called this this this selection problem that you select yourself so perhaps climb those who do climate smart agriculture maybe they are smart in general so they have higher yield and we think that when we compare the climate smart farmers well it's not the climate smartness but it's the smartness in other areas that gives the difference so you have to kind of control who is enrolling into the program or not it's not kind of a randomized controlled trial among farmers we are using normally it's up to them to if they decide to adopt it and then the third on the forest impact that is often assumed positive but hard to get some good empirical studies we try to do that now in this study as will come if I push a sufficient number of times so here's some of the examples of the huge differences in in in the yield estimates no sorry in the in the adoption of of of this conservation agriculture and you see that's kind of different practice some is just on on the minimum tillage approach if they adopted that and others are more broadly but is this the middle for them yes it is small one if you see here that the varies from five up to 41 percent I think Hanbulo did a good study where he looked at a nationwide with 63 000 from the agriculture and survey that was representative we came up with a figure of four percent it became quite controversial in in Zambia when he said this because it was someone claiming no it's a lot more and kind of demonstrated and it is a success story of the projects and here comes you know this very cold-hearted young economist and say no sorry guys it's only four percent but it has to do with the non-representativity of the area maybe it's not meant by those who produce this to be that but it's used in debate to say that okay 41 percent of the farmers in Zambia have adopted this whereas the figure is just a tent of that the second one was on the yield and I showed like to show that because it has some nice yes and so that's one of the more positive messages that that we get that the study seemed to to conclude that that and that this minimum tillage and conservation agriculture in general gives kind of significantly higher yields which is the good news again it may not be I think from an economic analysis you should look at what is called total factor productivity which is to also take into account the inputs that are there and from the farmers may not as I just said not be interested in yield if it's very costly to produce those higher yields it may not be beneficial to them so here's my map so I show that we can also produce maps the it was a survey that was done in I think August from ended in in November so it's or October it ended and it plotted the data and getting some some results three areas of Zambia cannot claim full representativity but but it's I think it's it's a fairly reasonable sampling it was selected to give to represent different readers where you have some adaptation of that it's the first analysis and for example the selection problem is not addressed here so here are some one of the question and a focus on the forest part whether what it does so about a fifth or so of the farmers did expand the land during this this season so here's the difference between those that that have adopted minimum tillage practices and those who have not and you see here it's slightly above 20 percent for both not really statistical difference most of them do not plan to do that but this is not a big difference in actual land expansion we need to do more analysis to to test when we control for this self-selection problem you see this is type of land they do it we also ask what the plans were will you expand your land over the next five years what is your plans and well the minimum tillage are in green apparently more green farmers and the others in yellow and definitely yes you see it's even higher for those who practice but if you put these together it's it's not much of different main conclusion doesn't seem to have a big impact on on the expansion of land by farmers whether they do minimum tillage or not that was so one less yeah I know I push where's the where should I point it here so just some concluding remarks on this that the at the conservation agriculture remains low and probably much lower than than we think that's kind of the bad news and the good news is that it has the good potential to to raise crop yields and therefore provide additional income to the farmers but again with this that it may not be the key thing that they are looking for and the third question on whether it can save the forest or not we also include a question to ask the farmers if they they do and then a lot of them do not know and then there's slightly more say that it reduces the need but so a good proportion saying that it does not have any factor increase it so the key conclusion also of this is that farmers are not sure and the researchers are not either and the policymakers and those who are promoting conservation agriculture should not be either thank you thank you yeah so we have about 10 more minutes for questions so we will open the floor again for people who would like to ask further questions no okay so I have a question for Sarah I am interested to know about the data where the land grabbing came from the land grabbing data that you used to compare to red plus data and if you found any differences in the definition of land grabbing across countries and if that was a challenge for your research yeah that's a interesting question we used one definition of land grabbing which came from the land matrix database and so we just used the the data which also fulfilled this definition but there were a few types of data within the database and they also include deals which aren't concluded and aren't and somehow are failing to be realized and we didn't include those incidences in the study so it was only deals which were really becoming finalized that we included and the data are quite rich because they show the country who's investing or the countries in number of cases it's a number of countries investing in that particular deal the size of the deal also what they're investing for so we could extract a lot of information from each case which was useful for the study yeah I see thank you and this is a question oh there's another question yes please the microphone please or can we give the microphone Jean Thompson from World Vision Australia I just had a follow-up question for you Sarah when you talk about countries investing in land grabbing are you talking about governments or corporations that reside in those countries or both just wanted a clarification yeah it's corporations which are based in the particular country yeah maybe governments are also doing it I'm not sure but definitely in the database it's countries that come companies that come from that particular country thanks yeah I just wanted clarification yeah thank you so any more questions yes please I know Leif Janfoster EU red facility could I just have a closely linked follow-up I think were there any attempt to overlay the land grabbing data with tenure patterns for particular countries or across the globe I mean across the data set yeah no that would be an interesting question it's not something we did for this study and actually to the data can be seen as a bit unreliable because it's kind of reports of land grabbing which maybe there's some emphasis of collecting this kind of data in some countries and less emphasis in another so we took the approach of saying well to try and remove that kind of bias we just say whether a country has one or more land grab incidences within that country and then we cast them all the same okay this is where it's happening so I mean it would have been interesting to say yes this is where more land grabbing is happening and maybe why it's happening in a particular area but it's not something that we did it would be interesting as a follow-up study for sure maybe overlaying protected areas I think there's a lot you could do with that yeah here please the microphone thank you my name is Steven Boyer from Uganda I'm just interested in the last presenter I think the data and the information provided indicating that there's really not high adoption of the conservation agriculture practices it's it would be interesting to know what are the factors underlying that especially what is the overall food saturation has it increased has it are we finding that there is any change are there some factors could be market related or what that are not encouraging further adoption of this I think it would be useful to to know whether the reason is that the technology is not working for them or the conditions the neveling conditions are not encouraging further adoption I just would like to know a little bit more thank you yeah and then I give you the email address of humbulu and but I think from from and and I'm really not an expert on this sorry you should address it but from from I've read and also discussed extensively with him it's that it's partly that it's quite concentrated on areas where it has been promoted so the low so there are programs that promote it and in these areas you have quite high rates of of adoption so so I think and and then you often when you have this technology adoption you may reset reach a kind of takeoff when some farms and I see and suddenly it goes from very from low to quite high so it hasn't reached that stage yet but a major I mean a very simple explanation is that the programs to promote it has not been widespread enough and that is I think this this perception of the labor constraint is is important I think also but we have some more questions seen in the questionnaire that you want to analyze is that that it's seen they're not fully convinced about that this is it's kind of traditional to do the proper plowing that is what you really work the soil and that's when you get the good yields is is a perception that that is it's also common and that you try to to change with extension services if you allow me I will I will also answer that question there is some evidence that especially in in sub-Saharan Africa one of the main problem is competition for biomass so that the resource is too precious to be kept in the soil that is preferentially used to feed animals and it's not only your own animals but also the animals of of the community that's one and the other one is that there is some evidence also experimental that when you use conservation agriculture you must invest on fertilizers so when the projects are promoted and it comes with a package the fertilizers come with a promotion is adopted but as soon as the project is removed and farmers have to invest themselves on fertilizers then there is no incentive anymore to have the same yields with probably a little bit more work thank you so I was just told that we have almost to finish but we'll take your question and then we'll keep concluding remarks thanks thanks um we're racing ahead to climate smart agriculture now but it seems like we actually haven't got conservation agriculture right at this point in time I realized CSA is is an expansion in some ways of conservation agriculture but if we can't get conservation agriculture right what makes I guess the panel if you guys are the experts here today what makes you think we can make CSA work better than conservation agriculture thanks I could probably try to answer that oh um and there is a very long list of things that people think are going to be climate smart it's like changing life-to-feet changing the way you use water with fertilizers so irrigation with fertilizers agroforestry agroforestry to increase soil carbon so that crops are going to grow better so it's a very very long list of practices that could qualify as climate smart agriculture and what Ariel was trying to say is that there is no way to assume that every climate smart agriculture practice is going to have an effect on reducing the forestation and therefore each of them have to be evaluated technically whether they indeed bring benefit to the farmers and economically they don't cost more and the last one is is it indeed having an effect to reduce the forestation okay and Ariel you would like to follow up yeah I mean if if if you say that that that climate smart agriculture is an objective then it's it's kind of we will we succeed well it's will we succeed with all the different components under that to achieve that objective of course it's not sure and some of I mean there's a strong push for it but so far we we cannot kind of demonstrate that it's been a great success in reducing it at least well some of the approaches may but but not really I think compared to red and I've been trying to compare the two two of red I think the approach of red was very different it was initialized and envisioned to pay the farmers for for the reduced deforestation well whether that will succeed or not and we will manage to get this another question but it was really to compensate for that because if you're conserving a forest you are kind of abstaining from uses it on converting it to agricultural land so it has a cost that I think it's in much more challenging to find ways that make forest conservation directly beneficial to that although there are ecological services there are forest products that you can benefit I think for climate smart agriculture it's it's less likely than this idea of paying them for doing certain practices like a payment for environmental services think I see it's it's much more problematic to implement it's much harder to measure the emissions in agriculture than for forest we just have to measure biomass and we are getting quite good at that I think for climate smart agriculture to succeed and it's slightly different approach than for red is really to make it beneficial to the to the farm so they see that they it helps them they get more food more stable the long-term prospects are good maybe they can save also on labor and they may be able to to withstand shocks of climate change so so the key of of csa is really make it beneficial to the farmers and rather than the incentivize and compensate approach of red so it differs I think in the approaches but okay and to finish Rosa would you like to add something and then Martin would you like to say some final comments before we finish the conversation okay so thank you very much and as you see the conclusions are yeah sorry another question if we have time one more question and then we're done yes oh my name is Talenda Simtounzi I'm from Farnapan South Africa Pretoria on the issue of adoption of CA I've worked with with farmers at local level what I've noticed that CA also depends on on rain fate agriculture and it needs a particular amount of rain for it to be actually successful and you realize that farmers you need to to plant earlier before the rain start you're expecting rains to start probably in September that is in the context of southern Africa uh in Zimbabwe material and where I come from and the rain doesn't come at that particular time and probably the amount of rain that falls at that particular time is not good enough to sustain the the the germinating crops for the next two three months then that becomes a challenge in terms of of getting the benefits of conservation agriculture coupled with the fact that it's labor intensive so if a farmer fails this season and fails the next season because the rains are unpredictable you don't know when when they are going to come and the certain amount of rain that is going to fall for that particular season then the farmers in the next season they won't adopt CA so what we need to do is to move to to to to to irrigation that will assist on conservation agriculture because it needs a particular amount of of water for it to be successful that's the other thing that I just observed when I was working with farmers thank you just a comment thank you okay well thank you very much for joining the discussion and we thank you very much good afternoon ladies and gentlemen I would like to just have a I have a little opinion or maybe the question if we are talking about the conservation excuse me I'm from Cusco Peru if we are talking about the the conservation of the agriculture are we talking about also about the organic food and what do you think about about the transgenic food please thank you um Mariana yeah oh conservation agriculture is a name that is given to the practice of conserving um organic material on the soil so it could be organic or not but the practice is this conservation of of mulch on on the top of the soil and whether you are using uh genetically modified organisms or not is not what it makes the practice to be called conservation agriculture okay uh the the the name of the practice it only refers to the management of the crop residues left on top of the soil thank you thank you very much thank you