Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Capital assets and institutional constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agriculture is one of the major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. It accounts for approximately 15% of the total global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. Emissions could be twice as much if indirect emissions are also taken into the consideration. However, unlike other high emitting sectors such as transport or energy, agriculture is potentially a significant carbon “sink”. It has high technical potential as a carbon sink and if tapped, can substantially enhance global sequestration efforts. The technical potential, however, may not translate into actual GHG reduction because of the capital assets and institutional constraints faced by the smallholder farmers in the developing countries. In this paper we develop a capital assets based framework of physical, financial, social, human and natural barriers to agricultural carbon mitigation initiatives and through analysis of current initiatives, we set out policy based options to reduce each of these barriers. Fundamentally, barrier removal will entail designing agricultural carbon mitigation initiatives in collaboration with farmer communities, through strengthening local institutions, understanding land tenure and natural resource cultures, ensuring legitimacy and equity in payments and fast tracking training and information. We provide a framework that simultaneously aids the dual objectives of alleviating poverty in the poor farming communities of developing countries and lowering global greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adhikari B (2009) Market-based approaches to environmental management: a review of lessons from payment for environmental services in Asia. Working Paper 134 Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), Tokyo

  • Antle J, Capalbo S, Mooney S, Elliott E, Paustian K (2003) Spatial heterogeneity, contract design, and the efficiency of carbon sequestration policies for agriculture. J Environ Econ Manage 42(2):231–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer DW, Halvorson AD (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation economics for irrigated cropping systems in Northeastern Colorado. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:446–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson J, Milton S, Blignaut J (eds) (2007) Restoring natural capital: the science, business, and practice. Island, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert KA, Herzog T, Pershing J (2005) Navigating the numbers: greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. World Resources Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop-Sambrook C, Kienzle J, Mariki W, Owenya M, Ribeiro F (2004) Conservation agriculture as a labor saving practice for vulnerable households, a joint study by IFAD and FAO. FAO Rome

  • Blignaut J, Moolman C (2006) Quantifying the potential of restored natural capital to alleviate poverty and help conserve nature: a case study from South Africa. J Nat Conserv 14(3–4):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira K, Morgan MG, Baldocchi D, Brewer PG, Chen GJ, Nabuurs CTA et al (2004) A portfolio of carbon management options. In: Field CB, Raupach MR (eds) The global carbon cycle. integrating humans, climate, and the natural world. SCOPE 62. Island, Washington, pp 103–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamay M (2010) Moving past Copenhagen: next steps for agriculture. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development. Bridges Trade BioRes Review 4(1)

  • Clewell AF, Aronson J (2006) Motivations for the restoration of ecosystems. Conserv Biol 20(2):420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly HE, Costanza R (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis KE (2009) The important role of extension systems. Agriculture and climate change: an agenda for negotiation in Copenhagen. IFRI, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias de Oliveira ME, Vaughan BE, Rykiel EJ (2005) Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint. Bioscience 55:593–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson T (1999) Community participation in natural resources management in Malawi: charting a new course for sustainability. Colo. J. of Intl. Env. Law and Policy, 1998 Yearbook, 153–177

  • Fafchamps M (1999) Rural poverty, risk and development. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper no. 144. Rome

  • FAO (2009a) Food security and agricultural mitigation in developing countries: options for capturing synergies. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2009b) Harvesting agriculture’s multiple benefits: mitigation, adaptation, development and food security. FAO policy brief. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FAOSTAT (2008) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/. Cited 28 Feb 2010

  • Fortmann L (2000) Property in non-timber forest products. European Tropical Forest Research Network 32:72–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser N (1997) Justice interruptus: critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff-Zivin J, Lipper L (2008) Poverty, risk, and the supply of soil carbon sequestration. Environ Dev Econ 13:353–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundimeda H (2004) How ‘sustainable’ is the ‘sustainable development objective’ of CDM in developing countries like India? Forest Pol Econ 6:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutman P (2003) From goodwill to payments for environmental services. World Wildlife Fund. Macroeconomics for Sustainable Development Program Office, Washington D.C

  • Henke JM, Klepper G, Schmitz N (2004) Tax exemption for biofuels in Germany: is bio-ethanol really an option for climate policy? Energy 30:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs PR (2007) Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? J Agric Sci 145:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jindal R (2006) Carbon sequestration projects in Africa: potential benefits and challenges to scaling up. Earth Trends 2006 World Resource Institute. Available at, http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/feature/cli_fea_csequest.pdf. Cited 10 March 2010

  • Johnson JMF, Franzluebbers AJ, Weyers SL, Reicosky DC (2007) Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Pollut 150:107–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsenty A (2008) The architecture of proposed REDD schemes after Bali: facing critical choices. Int For Rev 10(3):443–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Kartha S (2006) Environmental effects of bioenergy. Bioenergy and agriculture: promises and challenges policy briefs. Focus 14, Brief 4. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr J, Foley C, Chung K, Jindal R (2006) Reconciling environment and development in the clean development mechanism. J Sustain For 23(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Klooster D (2000) Institutional choice, community and struggle: a case study of forest co-management in Mexico. World Dev 28(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal M (2007) Implications of climate change on agricultural productivity and food security in South Asia: key vulnerable regions and climate change—identifying thresholds for impacts and adaptation in relation to article 2 of the UNFCCC. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal R, Bruce JP (1999) The potential of world cropland soils to sequester C and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Environ Sci Policy 2:177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landell-Mills N, Porras I (2002) Silver bullet or fools gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. In instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series. International Institute for Environment and Development, London UK

  • Leimona B, Lee E (2008) Pro-poor payment for environmental services: some considerations. RUPES/ Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipper L, Dutilly-Diane C, McCarthy N (2010) Supplying carbon sequestration from West African rangelands: opportunities and barriers. Rangeland Ecol Manag 63:155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milton SJ, Aronson J, Blignaut J (2005) Unite to save earth’s capital. Quest: South African Academy of Science 2(1):39–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray BC (2004) Overview of agricultural and forestry GHG offsets on the US landscape. Choices 19:13–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Nhemachena C, Hassan RM (2008) How can African agriculture adapt to climate change? Insights from Ethopia and South Africa: micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to climate change in Southern Africa. IFPRI, Research Brief

  • Oldeman LR (1994) The global extent of soil degradation. In: Greenland DJ, Szabolcs I (eds) Soil resilience and sustainable land use. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J (2005) Interdependence, pluralism and globalisation. In: Paavola J, Lowe I (eds) Environmental values in a globalizing world. Routledge, London, pp 143–158

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33(2):237–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang JC (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforest Syst 57:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paustian K, Antle JM, Sheehan J, Paul EA (2006) Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas mitigation. A Report Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available online at www.pewclimate.org/reports/All. Accessed 15 January 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Pautsch GR, Kurkalova LA, Babcock BA, Kling CL (2001) The efficiency of sequestering carbon in agricultural soils. Contemp Econ Pol 19:123–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povellato A, Bosello F, Giupponi C (2007) Cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gases mitigation measures in the European agro-forestry sector: a literature survey. Environ Sci Pol 10:474–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Hammond A (2003) Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review on corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Hart SL (1999) Strategies for the bottom of the pyramid: creating sustainable development. Draft Paper. Accessible through the website of the WRI/Management Institute for Environment and Business www.wri.org/meb

  • Pretty J (2001) Farmer-based agroecological technology. 2020 Focus No. 07—Brief 02. IFPRI, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty JN, Morison JIL, Hine RE (2003) Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios AR, Pagiola S (2009) Poor household participation in payments for environmental services in Nicaragua and Colombia. In: Tacconi L, Mahanty S, Suich H (eds) The Livelihood Impacts of Incentive Payments for Reduced Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)

  • Rocheleau D, Edmunds D (1997) Women, men and trees: gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Dev 25(8):1351–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoulet E, de Janvry A (1995) Quantitative development policy analysis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherr SJ, Milder JC, Bracer C (2007) How important will different types of compensation and reward mechanisms be in shaping poverty & ecosystem services across Africa, Asia & Latin America over the next two decades? CES Scoping Study Issue Paper 5, ICRAF Working Paper no. 40. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Schneider UA, McCarl BA (2003) Economic potential of biomass based fuels for greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 24:291–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2004) Ecosystem services in southern Africa: a regional assessment. CSIR, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan J, Aden A, Paustian K, Killian K, Brenner J, Walsh M, Nelson R (2004) Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol 7:117–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shephard G, Shanks E, Hobley M (1991) National experiences in managing tropical and sub-tropical dry forests. In: Howlett D, Sargent C (eds) Proceedings of technical workshop to explore options for global forestry management. IIED, London, pp 70–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Sherr SJ (2003) Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods. World Dev 31(12):2143–2160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen HH, Kumar P et al (2007) Agriculture. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen HH, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O'Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, Smith J (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil Trans R Soc B (363):789–813

  • Ståhl M (1993) Combatting land degradation in eastern Africa—technical, institutional and social aspects. In: Baum E, Wolff P, Zoebisch M (eds) Acceptance of soil and water conservation. Strategies and technologies. DITSL, Witzenhausen

    Google Scholar 

  • The BD, Ngoc HB (2006) Payment for environmental services in Vietnam: assessing an economic approach to sustainable forest management. Economy and Environment Program Research Report 2006- RR3, Singapore (South Asia)

  • Torres AB, Marchant R, Lovett JC, Smart JCR, Tipper R (2010) Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to evaluate their potential for implementation of climate change mitigation. Ecol Econ 69:469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper K, Bertzky M, Dickson B, van der Heijden G, Jenkins M, Manning P (2009) The natural fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme UNEPWCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschakert P (2004) The costs of soil carbon sequestration: an economic analysis for small-scale farming systems in Senegal. Agric Syst 81:227–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschakert P (2007) Environmental services and poverty reduction: options for smallholders in the Sahel. Agric Syst 94:75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Paavola J, Coopera P, Farber S, Jessamya V, Georgiou S (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46(3):493–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udry C (1994) Risk and insurance in a rural credit market: an empirical investigation in Northern Nigeria. Rev Econ Stud 61(3):495–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) (2006) Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 19902020. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 430-R-06-003, Washington DC (United States). Available at, <http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/downloads/GlobalAnthroEmissionsReport.pdf> Cited 15 March 2010

  • Unruh JD (2008) Carbon sequestration in Africa: the land tenure problem. Glob Environ Change 18:700–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2001) Environmental resources, property regimes, and efficiency. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 19:665–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verchot LV (2007) Opportunities for climate change mitigation in agriculture and investment requirements o take advantage of these opportunities. A report to the UNFCCC Secretariat Financial and Technical Support Programme. World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Verge XPC, De Kimpe C, Desjardins RL (2007) Agricultural production, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential. Agric For Meteorol 142:255–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West TO, Post WM (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates for crops with reduced tillage and enhanced rotation. Working Paper Environmental Sciences Division, Oakridge National Laboratory, Oakridge, TN

  • World Bank (2008) Carbon finance for sustainable development. The World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu K, Patrick WH (2004) Redox window with minimum global warming potential contribution from rice soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:2086–2091

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Development Department, The World Bank, 1818 H St NW, Washington, DC, 20006, USA

    Hari Bansha Dulal & Gernot Brodnig

  2. The University of Trinidad & Tobago, Lots #74-98 O’Meara Industrial Park, Arima, Trinidad, West Indies

    Kalim U. Shah

Authors
  1. Hari Bansha Dulal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gernot Brodnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kalim U. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hari Bansha Dulal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dulal, H.B., Brodnig, G. & Shah, K.U. Capital assets and institutional constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 16, 1–23 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9250-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9250-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation