Category: Agriculture

Hawaii turns to traditional aquaculture to boost food security in the face of climate change

Hawaii turns to traditional aquaculture to boost food security in the face of climate change

By Joe Gasowski  

The small island archipelago of Hawaii, today imports over 85% of its food and in 2012 the Hawaii State House’s self-sufficiency bill, said that the islands were “dangerously dependent” on food imports. In fact, the most geographically isolated State in the U.S. only has domestic supplies of fresh produce to last ten days. This represents a substantial threat to the islands’ resilience to economic and environmental shocks and stresses, such as those posed by climate change. Today, in an effort to strengthen food security, Hawaiians are turning to traditional knowledge to restore the islands’ fishponds, providing a sustainable source of protein for Islanders and also restoring and protecting marine ecosystems.

Hawaii was not always so reliant on imports to sustain its people. In fact, in the early 1900s, it would even export large quantities of their food production abroad. Hawaii’s rich tradition of aquaculture dates back over 800 years and at one time the islands’ 488 fishponds were able to feed over a million Hawaiians. However, the islands were flooded with cheap US food imports in the later part of the 20th century, making key crops cheaper to import than to grow locally.

By 2010, Hawaii was importing over 50% of its seafood and around 85% of all its food. The focus of the economy had shifted to tourism, bringing with it considerable coastal development and urbanisation. The islands fishponds were left to decay. Today, just thirteen fishponds have been restored to some level and six are in active use. However, climate change, coastal erosion and the degradation of marine ecosystems have helped to spark a resurgence in interest in restoring the fishponds.

Building resilience through fishpond restoration

Climate change is driving significant changes to Hawaii’s ecosystems. Increasing water temperatures, saline intrusion in coastal areas and more erosion from storms and sea-level rise, are putting a strain on the marine environment and damaging other forms of agriculture. With increased incidence of drought and the degradation of the islands’ soils, aquaculture is becoming increasingly important as a source of food production.

The mounting threats to the Islands’ resilience caught the attention of local activists, such as Walter Ritte who have since then battled hard to rebuild the network of fishponds. In 2012 they helped pass state legislation to help speed up the legal processes that facilitate the restoration of fishponds.

Walter and other researchers on the islands, realised that the methods that to create the fishponds had many benefits for strengthening ecosystems. The process for creating a fishpond starts high in the mountains, where rivers flow through nutrient-rich forests. As the waters reach the lowlands, islanders plant fields of the root vegetable taro along the river’s path, and as the waters spread across the land they collect nutrients in mud and algae. The wider the rivers spread, and the slower the water moves, the more silt and mud is transferred to the coast, which is then used to combat erosion.

Image: Tarot is planted in wide fields adding nutrients to the waters that flow through them.

The fishponds themselves are stone circles built into the sea with specially designed mākāhā (gates) that allow fish to come in at high tide. The nutrient-rich river waters flow into these ponds, attracting small fish, which in turn attract larger fish to predate on them. Eventually, when the fish are ready to spawn, they leave the ponds, through the mākāhā at high tide. Local fishermen then capture the fish that they need, letting a proportion go back to the ocean to sustain stocks.

Image: The wall and gate of a fishpond under restoration in Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park. Credit: National Park Service.

IOngoing climate challenges

Today though, the sustainability of the fishponds faces new threats from climate change. Reduced rainfall and increased temperatures have reduced the amount of fresh water on the islands, reducing river flow rates. At the same time, increased temperatures are making it harder to grow native plants including taro and warmer waters are disrupting delicate marine ecosystems.

Scientists from the University of Hawaii have been closely working with local communities to monitor in the He’eia fishpond on Oʻahu Island. Between 2004 and 2016, they are observing the consequences of climate change and the El Niño effect on the ecosystems around the fishponds. In 2009 there were two incidents that led to substantial numbers of fish dying in the ponds at He’eia; one in May and on in October. The researchers found that on both occasions, the mortality rates were the highest when there had been a drop in wind velocity and the surface water temperatures increased 2-3˚C higher than the baseline. This caused the hypoxia in the ponds, suffocating the fish. The unprecedented events show the significance of El Niño on Hawaii’s marine ecosystems. This type of El Niño impacting Hawaii has become 3 times more frequent in the last 30 years.

As climate change and its impacts are expected to worsen over the coming decades, researchers and local communities have been devising ways to adapt Hawaii’s aquaculture. Together they have come up with three ideas to lower the death rates of these fish:

  1. Moving the net pens closer to the mākāhā (gates) where the fish will be in higher water flows. The other gates can be used as a way of decreasing temperature in the fishponds and also to increase the aeration of these ponds and keep them breathing. 
  2. Install artificial aeration systems to oxygenate fishponds at times of highest risk (like during El Nino events).
  3. Changing the time of the fish harvest to be at the start of the heatwaves, reducing the potential for losses and allowing fish to escape into cooler oceans.

Other pressures such as pollution from human settlements are also being considered. On the island of Molokai, for instance, they are using swales to help filter polluted water and use wastewater to help irrigate crops.

Through these efforts, Hawaii’s fishponds are gradually being brought back to life, with 19 fishponds either in operation or being actively restored. The methods used by islanders have the potential to build the resilience of ecosystems in the face of considerable climate threats, as well as increase the food security of the isolated island archipelago.

Cover photo of Fishpond near He`eia of Oahu, Hawaii. Credit: State of Hawaii.
India is waking up and smelling the coffee when it comes to climate change

India is waking up and smelling the coffee when it comes to climate change

By Devika Singh

Coffee has been fuelling our energy levels, productivity and the global economy for over 500 years now. Since the 16th century, coffee has been one of the most valuable agricultural commodities traded internationally, with tropical and developing countries being the largest producers and suppliers to consumers in temperate countries. While the coffee industry is growing at a high compound annual growth rate of 5.5%, the economy of the industry is volatile and highly sensitive to weather in the producing countries.

How do you value your cup of Joe?

The global coffee industry is valued at around US$ 42.5 billion, however, the economic impact of the industry is much higher; in the US alone it was valued at US$ 225.2 billion in 2015. As of 2006, the number of people involved in the coffee supply chain from cultivation and management to the final product is around 500 million. Around 25 million small-scale family farmers across the coffee producing countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia contribute 80% of the world’s coffee; Brazil and Vietnam are the two largest coffee-producing countries in the world, followed by other Latin American and African countries, with India being the 7th largest coffee producer in the world.

The global coffee market is complex and highly interconnected, with coffee supply (imports and exports) and pricing being regulated by the International Coffee Agreements. The Agreements helped promote coffee consumption and demand while strengthening the economy of coffee-producing nations in Latin America and Africa.

However, with a lack of consensus in negotiations by the International Coffee Organisation (ICO), dismantling of pricing regulations, market fluctuations and exploitation by roasters and retailers in the early 1990s, coffee prices fell to their lowest levels by 2001 (reaching less than a third of their 1960 levels). This fall in pricing was also influenced by a 1400% increase in Vietnam’s coffee production in the 1990s, making it the largest Robusta producer in the world. The fall in prices in 2001 impacted over 25 million households across Latin America, Asia and Africa, the majority of whom were small-scale farmers.

A climate-sensitive crop

Globally, as of 2015, for every pound of coffee sold (retail), the farmer received only 0.7 cents, while the distributor received 159 cents. With falling coffee prices, increasing costs of production (including labour wages), changing climatic patterns, and the low profitability for producers, coffee production, especially for the small farmers is becoming increasingly unprofitable. Mr Madhu Bopanna, a coffee plantation consultant in Kodagu, India, has revealed that the dependence on coffee as a source of livelihood is slowly being replaced due to multiple instabilities: reduced prices in the global market for coffee due to an increase in global coffee production; climate variability; an increase in diseases and pests; reduced soil moisture levels and reduced water availability. In Kodagu, which produces more than 50% of India’s coffee, coffee is slowly becoming the secondary source of income, while pepper and timber have taken centre-stage.

A recent study has found that 60% of all wild coffee species are facing extinction, making the plant group one of the most threatened in the world. This is of significance to coffee cultivation as Arabica and Robusta, the two main coffee species forming 100% of the coffee market, have very low levels of domestication, i.e., their variance from the wild species is minimal. Impacts based on climate change projections, especially drought and changing rainfall patterns, combined with other anthropogenic factors causing environmental degradation, contribute to the high level of extinction risk, threatening agricultural production.

Wild coffee species are largely forest-dwelling and have narrow climatic envelopes (climatic envelope refers to the climate within which the species currently lives, i.e., the specific rainfall and temperature patterns). They have low adaptive capacity to changing environmental factors.

With the majority of coffee plantations belonging to smallholders, the sensitivity of ecological balance, plantation management, wealth distribution and the maintenance of rural lifestyles becomes increasingly difficult. Variations in temperatures up to ±5°C result in changes in humidity, dry periods, variations in rainfall, wind shears, advection, wind stress, and cloud cover all leading to the depression of coffee yield and loss of quality. The frequency of droughts in coffee-growing areas has increased globally and is considered to be one of the highest environmental stressors in coffee production. Marginal areas without irrigation may experience reductions in yield of up to 80% during dry years.

Robusta plantation in Somwarpet taluk, Kodagu district, Karnataka. Photo taken by the author.

A history of coffee production in India

Coffee has been produced in India for over 3 centuries, traditionally in the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka, with Karnataka accounting for more than 70% of the country’s coffee production. The coffee sector in India has over 300,000 holdings (2016-17) with around 659,865 people forming the labour pool (based on the average number of casual and permanent labour employed). Within Karnataka, the Kodagu district (Coorg) is the largest coffee-producing district, with more than a 50% share of total coffee produced.

The ecology of the coffee agroforestry systems of Coorg has traditionally provided climate resilience to the hill communities, economic sustenance (making it one of the wealthiest districts of India), as well as water flow to the Cauvery river. The fluctuating rainfall patterns with their high impact on coffee production have resulted in a move towards irrigation, which has replaced the traditional rain-fed agroforestry ecosystem in order to sustain coffee production and ensure a sustained income to coffee farmers.

Mixed cropping visible in the coffee agroforestry system of Kodagu. Photo taken by the author.

Reports from the Coffee Board of India (CBI) indicate a rainfall deficit of 19% between 2015-2016, resulting in production deficits of up to 25%. The length of the rainy season has seen a decrease of 14 days over the last 35 years, along with strong fluctuations in annual rainfall. While this has directly impacted coffee production and its output, it has also caused a 31% deficit in the Krishna Raja Sagara dam reservoir (built across the Cauvery river), downstream of Kodagu. In 2019 again, the district witnessed severe drought in May followed by spells of intense rainfall in July and August leading to destructive flooding. The impacts of the drought and flood on coffee plantations in 2019 are yet to be estimated.

Climate impacts on coffee productivity

According to Christian Bunn’s Modeling the climate change impacts on global coffee production, the total area under coffee production is expected to double from 2000 levels by 2050. At the same time, total production is projected to fall by at least 20% in all GCM scenarios. Between 1977 and 1997, the district of Kodagu lost up to 30% of its forest cover and doubled its area under coffee cultivation. The productivity of coffee in Kodagu fell from 3,596 kg/ha. in 2014-15 (for Arabica and Robusta) to 1,174 kg/ha. in 2016-2017, while the area under coffee production in Kodagu increased from 106,527 ha. in 2015-16 to 107,089 ha. in 2016-17.

Burning of an Arabica plant affected with White Stem Borer in Kodagu. Photo taken by the author.

The declining productivity has been attributed to climatic variations, an increase in diseases and pests such as the white stem borer which destroys Arabica crops, lower returns on investments (due to current price trends in the global coffee market) and the shift from traditional agroforestry plantations to irrigation systems.

Looking towards adaptation options

Most large planters have started taking definitive steps to reduce their vulnerability to unstable rainfall patterns by establishing irrigation systems and rainwater harvesting, and using technology. For instance, Mr Bopanna has begun the use of Hydrogel, a gel-based humectant that can retain up to 300 times its original size in water. This gel is mixed into the soil base of every individual coffee plant to make up for the loss in soil moisture due to rising temperatures and changing rainfall trends.

Water storage ponds-cum-fishing ponds within a plantation in Kodagu. Large planters are increasingly creating these ponds to combat periods of rainfall deficit. Photo taken by the author.

While large plantation owners can invest in individual adaptive systems, small planters are unable to afford these technologies and are therefore unable to cope with the impacts of climate variability. They are dependent on the policies and schemes of the Coffee Board. The Coffee Board of India (CBI) has taken numerous steps to address planters’ concerns and climate change challenges. However, a majority of its plans are centred around providing development support, subsidies, insurance and extension services.

Policy actions focused on adaptation are required to restore the ecological balance of the coffee agroforestry system and build its resilience to climate change. Investing in local dialogue and capacity building with planters across the state and aggregating the wealth of experience and data collected by each planter are necessary first steps towards developing an adaptation strategy for the sensitive region and its economy.

Cover photo was taken by the author.

Not just dirt: Why soil health is vital to build climate resilience

Not just dirt: Why soil health is vital to build climate resilience

By Lydia Messling

The IPCC’s recent report on climate change and land, highlighted the pressing need for changes to be made to land management practice. Land degradation and climate change threaten to reduce food production and lead to a 25% food production deficit by mid-century. Globally, soil biodiversity has been estimated to annually contribute between US$ 1.5 and 13 trillion to the value of ecosystems services. Despite this, soil biodiversity is often overlooked in policy. This neglect poses a serious threat to food security.

Producing sufficient food to feed a growing population, relies upon being able to grow healthy crops that survive until harvest season after season. To a large extent, this depends on the health of the thin 30-40cm layer of topsoil that plants grow in. Measuring the soil organic carbon (SOC) of this soil provides an indicator of the soil’s health. When soils reach low levels SOC they can tip past the point where they have any hope of being restored, resulting in devastating irreversible degradation of the land. Poor land management practice, soil erosion, and other land degradation processes can reduce soil health. Climate change and its impacts act as an additional stress factor.

Just as poorly managed soils can exacerbate climate change and reduce food security, healthy soils can have the opposite effect. Sequestering carbon in the soil can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improving the soil’s resilience to extreme weather events and also increase crop yields.

How does climate change affect soil health and what can be done?

Through changes in average temperatures, more frequent and intense extreme events, and other factors, climate change can affect soil structure, stability, topsoil water holding capacity, nutrient availability and erosion. The IPCC’s report on land lists many interconnected processes that affect degradation processes, but climate change also directly effects salinization, and permafrost thawing, waterlogging of dry ecosystems and drying of ecosystems, and a broad group of biologically mediated processes like woody encroachment, biological invasions, pest outbreaks, together with biological soil crust destruction and increased burning.

For example, prolonged dry seasons can dry out the soil, causing the organisms in the soil to die and for nutrients to be lost. Similarly, prolonged wet seasons can inundate the soil and wash away the nutrients needed for plant growth, as well as eroding and removing the soil. One of the ways that soil can be made more resilient to climate change is by increasing the soil’s organic matter.

What are soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic matter (SOM)?

Soil organic matter (SOM) is divided into ‘living’ and ‘dead’ components, such as roots and microorganisms and decaying plants and animals. SOM contains all sorts of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, potassium, calcium and magnesium, and also determines how much water the soil can contain – all important elements for plant growth. SOM is quite hard to measure though, so measurements are taken of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) instead. About 58% of the mass of organic matter exists as carbon (depending on geography), so the percentage of SOM can be calculated from the SOC measurement. Therefore, a decrease in SOC means a decrease in SOM.

Why is SOM important?

Besides providing crucial plant nutrition, SOM provides soil with its structure. This structure is the reason healthy soil doesn’t just get blown away in the wind, and how plants can spread their roots to remain stable. Soil structure is also important for being able to hold moisture whilst not waterlogging plants and retain nutrients, preventing them from being washed away completely in heavy rains. Land that has been overworked and lost much of its SOM content will have poor soil structure. Farmers may use chemicals to replace the nutrients that have been lost from a lack of SOM but will find it difficult to provide the soil structure that is needed for plants to grow and be resilient to climate impacts.

How can SOM be lost, and how can it be replaced?

Agriculturalists have already been adopting different methods to increase SOM content and to improve soil health, as loss of SOM is also related to intensive farming practices. As such, many methods exist for increasing SOM in soils, many of which are easy to deploy but are yet to see the rapid adoption. These include reducing how often soil is tilled, erosion control measures, soil mulching, maintaining ground cover, rotating crops, using different crop breeds, careful timing of grazing, and diversifying plants by including trees and shrubs amongst the crops.

All of these measures seek to increase and preserve the amount of SOM in the soils. As such, they improve fertility rates, make the soil more resilient to weather events, and secure the food supply by increasing the likelihood of a good harvest year after year. Soils also have the potential to be an important carbon sink. The 4 per 1000 initiative, launched at the Paris COP in 2015, champions increasing SOC content as a climate mitigation measure. A theoretical increase of just 0.4% of the world’s SOC would be greater than the increase in atmospheric CO2 experienced in 2015.

Climate change putting extra pressure on fish stock

Climate change putting extra pressure on fish stock

By Anna Haworth

Fisheries provide food and support livelihoods across the world. It is estimated that over 56 million people are employed by or subsisting on fisheries. However, they are also under extreme pressure, with many stocks overfished and poorly managed. Climate change, through warming ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and habitat loss, is an additional stress to fish populations, which may be pushed to the point of collapse.

Research published earlier this year in the journal Science suggests that climate change is already beginning to disrupt the complex, interconnected systems that underpin this major source of food and employment. The study looked at historical abundance data for 124 species in 38 regions, which represents roughly one-third of the reported global catch. The researchers compared this data to records of ocean temperature and found that 8% of populations were significantly negatively impacted by warming, while 4% saw positive impacts. Overall, though, the losses outweigh the gains.

“We were surprised how strongly fish populations around the world have already been affected by warming,” said Dr Chris Free, a University of California, Santa Barbara scientist who led the research, “and that, among the populations we studied, the climate ‘losers’ outweigh the climate ‘winners.’”

Cod, herring and various shellfish species are among the creatures already suffering due to climate change. The decline has been even most pronounced in key fishing regions such as the East China Sea, Sea of Japan, North Sea, Iberian Coastal and Celtic-Biscay Shelf, where climate-induced losses have been as high as 35% over the last 80 years. On the other hand, the greatest gains occurred in the Labrador-Newfoundland region, Baltic Sea, Indian Ocean and Northeastern United States.

These findings highlight the importance of accounting for the effects of climate change in fisheries management. In practical terms, this means coming up with “new tools for assessing the size of fish populations, new strategies for setting catch limits that consider changing productivity and new agreements for sharing catch between winning and losing regions” Dr Free explained.

The research team also stressed that ocean warming is just one of many processes affecting marine life and the industries that rely on it. Ocean acidification, falling oxygen levels and habitat loss will also impact marine life. More research is necessary to fully understand how climate change will affect fish populations and the livelihoods of people that depend on them.

The full Science article is available here

Cover photo by Erwan Hesry on Unsplash.
Impact of climate change on bees and food production

Impact of climate change on bees and food production

By Sophie Turner

Three out of four crops across the globe, which produce fruits or seeds for human consumption, depend on pollinators. As one of the most important pollinators in the world, bees are crucial for food production, human livelihoods and biodiversity. Unfortunately, bees and other pollinators are declining in abundance in many parts of the world with recent figures suggesting by as much as 30 per cent per year. If this trend continues, the cost of our fruit and vegetables could significantly increase, nutritious crops will be substituted increasingly by staple crops like rice, corn, and potatoes, resulting in an imbalanced diet, and the quantity of food in the world that relies on pollination by insects would diminish.

Bees provide the majority of biotic pollination and are at risk from a multitude of factors; changes in land use, intensive agricultural practices, monocropping (growing a single crop year after year on the same land), and the use of pesticides have all contributed to large-scale losses, fragmentation and degradation of bee habitats. Pests and diseases are also a threat to bee colonies, some of which have occurred as a result of transporting bees long distances. Furthermore, higher temperatures, shifting seasons and extreme weather events are also causing problems for bees.

Their habitat range is shrinking.

As global temperatures rise, North American and European honeybee ranges are getting smaller. In their most southern habitats, bees are dying from high heat and in their most northern habitats, they are remaining mostly static, so their range is shrinking.

A shift in the seasons may cause bees to mistime their spring emergence.

Both bees and plants hone in on specific weather cues, like snow melt or air temperature, to let them know when spring has sprung. If weather patterns and temperatures shift beyond the norm, plants and bees may become out of sync, resulting in bees emerging long after the plants are ready to be pollinated. 

They are at greater risk of disease.

Bees are extremely susceptible to certain mites and gut parasites, and these parasites have been steadily increasing due to warming weather conditions. Higher temperatures and more frequent heat waves as a result of climate change, are likely to exacerbate these problems in the future, which could cause Colony Collapse and wipe out entire hives.

Globally, pollination has an estimated market value of up to $577 billion USD annually which represents about 10 percent of the global crop market. In the UK, it is estimated that insects contribute over £650 million per annum to the economy through the pollination of many commercial crops such as tomatoes, peas, apples and strawberries. Some bee species have already been lost from the UK and a lack of pollinating insects points to an increased need for hand-pollination (or innovative technology).

According to a University of Reading study, the labour costs involved in hand-pollinating UK crops without bees would cost over £1.8bn a year. This potential increase in the cost of food production would mean an increase in food prices. Given that affordable food is already an issue for many people living in poverty, this could only serve to exacerbate an already significant barrier to nutritious and sufficient diets.

Thankfully, there are measures that can be taken to reverse the decline of bees and other pollinators. Whether you are a land manager, a gardener, window-box owner or business, some simple actions include:

  • Growing more flowers, shrubs and trees that provide nectar and pollen as food for bees and other pollinators throughout the year.
  • Planting herbs and vegetables – lavender, basil, mint and tomatoes provide food for bees as well as for humans.
  • Providing water for bees to take back to the hive.
  • Avoiding disturbing or destroying nesting or hibernating insects, in places like grass margins, bare soil, hedgerows, trees, dead wood or walls.
  • Thinking carefully about the use of pesticides, especially where pollinators are active or nesting or where plants are in flower. Many people choose to avoid chemicals and adopt methods like physically removing pests or using barriers to deter them.
  • Buying locally grown, organic fruits and vegetables to support beekeepers in your area.

Farmers can also help maintain pollinator abundance, diversity and health by leaving field corners uncultivated to create a habitat for pollinators, and applying to Defra for the Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package to help address the declines in our wild insect pollinators.

It is easy to take for granted the plants, fruit and vegetables in our fields and gardens but they could not flourish without bees and other pollinating insects carrying pollen from one flower to another. If these pollinators continue to decline, the health of our food industry would be damaged, and some of the food that is essential for a healthy diet would become a lot harder to grow, and therefore more expensive. Taking action to help these insects is therefore key to global food security and nutrition.

Cover photo by Eric Ward on Unsplash.
Danone’s dairy-farming ‘Margarita Project’ serves up a cocktail of adaptation actions

Danone’s dairy-farming ‘Margarita Project’ serves up a cocktail of adaptation actions

Mexican dairy farmers are benefiting from the ‘Margarita’ project which aims to sustain livelihoods of small-scale milk producers in the face of climate change. The project, from the international food company Danone, is designed to encourage sustainable milk-sourcing strategy in the Jalisco province. In support of the project, and with funding from PROADAPT, Acclimatise delivered a supply chain climate risk assessment that identified key climate risks and opportunities for farmers to build their resilience.

The assessment indicated that the dairy industry faces several climate risks that threaten production. One of the most significant risks is the inability of farmers to produce enough fodder (such as hay, grass and silage). If fodder yields do not cover the livestock’s nutritional needs, farmers have to purchase from suppliers, which can often be prohibitively expensive, especially if precipitated by and extreme weather event such as a drought.

Dairy cattle are also extremely vulnerable to hot temperatures because of their high metabolic rate and poor water retention, which impact their reproductive performance. High temperatures combined with increased soil moisture can also create prime conditions for the spread of pathogens and parasites.

The report also identified adaptation options that could help farmers build resilience. Importantly the assessment found that the cost-effectiveness of adaptation options was closely linked to farm size. Farms with at least 40-50 productive cows are able to introduce certain resilience measures more quickly than farms with smaller herds. For farmers ‘below the thresholds’ financial, behavioural, institutional and knowledge interventions with low-capital investment need to be introduced progressively. 

Adaptation measures identified in the report include:

  • Tree planting which drives water infiltration and preservation and protects cattle from heat stress and solar radiation whilst capturing and storing C02;
  • Installation of biodigesters to provide manure and slurry management and treatment techniques to reduce GHG emissions, improve soil quality and moisture preservation and reduce chemical fertilizer costs and associated environmental impacts; and
  • Crop surveillance for early detection of infectious diseases.

The Margarita project has provided farmers with a full suite of services to increase dairy quality and productivity. Some indicators include increases in the number of cows per farm, overall yield increase, improved milk quality and increase price per litre. The project has achieved considerable success by supplying 12% of Danone’s milk procurement volumes and doubling the incomes of over 300 small-scale dairy farmers in Jalisco.

For more details about this project, read the full report here.

Cover photo by Michael Pujals on Unsplash.
Climate change adding to pressure on land threatening global food security finds landmark IPCC report

Climate change adding to pressure on land threatening global food security finds landmark IPCC report

By Will Bugler

Climate change is undermining human’s ability to provide enough food as pressures on soils mount. At the same time, poor land use practices are increasing global greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change and making adaptation and resilience efforts more difficult. This stark warning comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land, released yesterday.

The report, which is the most comprehensive study ever undertaken into the land-climate system, shows that better land management has the potential to save huge amounts of greenhouse-gas emissions. However, the growing demand for food will mean that most land must remain productive, and therefore it will not be possible to limit global warming to 2˚C, let alone 1.5˚C through land management alone.

The report found that climate change is contributing to land degradation through increased rates of erosion and desertification. “In a future with more intensive rainfall the risk of soil erosion on croplands increases,” said Kiyoto Tanabe, Co-Chair of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, “sustainable land management is a way to protect communities from the detrimental impacts of this soil erosion and landslides. However, there are limits to what can be done, so in other cases degradation might be irreversible,” he said.

The report provides some indications of the risks to land productivity from different levels of climate change. It finds that even at 1.5˚C of warming, there will be serious impacts on food and water security, making adaptation efforts essential. “New knowledge shows an increase in risks from dryland water scarcity, fire damage, permafrost degradation and food system instability, even for global warming of around 1.5°C,” said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I. “Very high risks related to permafrost degradation and food system instability are identified at 2°C of global warming,” she said.

The fact that many scientists believe 2˚C of warming is likely to be a best-case scenario, clearly indicates that adaptation efforts should consider the implications of climate change at 3˚C and 4˚C of warming.

The report indicates that climate change poses a direct threat to global efforts to improve nutrition and end hunger. It shows how climate change is affecting all four pillars of food security: availability (yield and production), access (prices and ability to obtain food), utilization (nutrition and cooking), and stability (disruptions to availability).

“Food security will be increasingly affected by future climate change through yield declines – especially in the tropics – increased prices, reduced nutrient quality, and supply chain disruptions,” said Priyadarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III. “We will see different effects in different countries, but there will be more drastic impacts on low-income countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean,” he said.

The report finds that to successfully feed the world population in the future, it is likely that dietary habits will need to change, shifting towards plan-based diets, and away from consumption of meats, especially beef, lamb and other ruminants.

The report also shows that there are ways to manage risks and reduce vulnerabilities in land and the food system, with positive results for communities’ resilience to extreme events. This can be the result of dietary changes or ensuring a variety of crops to prevent further land degradation and increase resilience to extreme or varying weather.

Download a copy of the report here.

Cover photo by James Baltz on Unsplash.
Climate change: having the right combination of tree ‘personalities’ could make forests more resilient

Climate change: having the right combination of tree ‘personalities’ could make forests more resilient

By Tom Ovenden, University of Stirling

Every tree in a forest has a neighbour. In many forest neighbourhoods, the same species are often found living together, especially when the growing conditions are similar. Sometimes these neighbours are close and sometimes far apart, but collectively they form part of a community, with some species naturally being more dominant than others, especially in terms of biomass production. But what happens when the going gets tough? A drought is coming and there’ll be winners and losers.

Droughts can be a big challenge for many trees, and one that is only going to get worse as the world shifts to a hotter, drier climate. Different species have different strategies for dealing with this kind of stress, but how they deal with losing water is particularly important.

Trees have tiny pores in their leaves that they can open and close called stomata. Trees lose water through their stomata in a process called transpiration, and absorb carbon dioxide for use in photosynthesis – how plants make their food. Some trees are more conservative, closing their stomata early on in a drought to prevent water loss, but this also limits how much carbon dioxide they can take in and so how much energy they can generate.

Some trees use a riskier strategy and leave these pores open for longer to continue absorbing carbon dioxide, but this also increases the risk of a process called cavitation, which stops them being able to transport water. Clearly, each strategy has its advantages and disadvantages, and all trees sit somewhere between really conservative and really risky.

Stomata allow trees to inhale carbon dioxide (CO₂) and exhale oxygen (O₂) and water (H₂O). NoPainNoGain/Shutterstock

Diversity like this in trees is fortunate, because if every species relied on the exact same strategy it would be a bit like putting all of their eggs in one basket. Having only a single strategy to deal with all that life can throw at them would leave forests pretty vulnerable. A diverse range of strategies for coping with stress is what gives forests some of their essential stability and resilience.

Which species has the best strategy to survive will depend in part on how long a stressful event lasts, how intense it is, how frequently it occurs – and what its neighbours are doing. How all of these different strategies work in a stressful environment like a drought will determine how the whole forest fares. A bit like personalities in humans, sometimes they work well together and everyone benefits, but sometimes they clash.

Recent research has started to tease apart who wins and who loses when certain species are planted together, and how this changes under stressful conditions. Somewhat amazingly, much of this information can be extracted from tree rings, which contain a physical record of how well each individual tree grew when something like a drought came along.

Tree rings allow scientists to see how different trees respond to the same stressful event – and how the identity of the species in their immediate neighbourhood influences this response. Crucially, this research is also shedding light on some of the complicated reasons why species respond so differently depending on who they grow next to.

Each pale and dark ring together denote a year’s growth. The wider the ring, the more growth occurred during that year. Tom Ovenden, Author provided

Love thy neighbour

Why some trees do better next to certain neighbours and not others is extremely complicated and not yet fully understood. But at a basic level, we can imagine that each tree species has a whole range of traits, characteristics and functions that make up its personality.

How a tree responds to stress might have something to do with the level of direct competition between its neighbours. For example, some trees have deep roots and some trees have shallow roots – two trees with shallow roots will directly compete for water, but a deep rooted species can access water lower down in the soil and avoid some of this competition. This is called “niche differentiation” – by using the environment differently, two different species can occupy the same place.

Being able to predict which tree species will make good and bad neighbours is really important. For instance, placing two trees together that are more risky when it comes to deciding when to close their stomata could mean they use up the limited water quicker than a conservative and a risky tree growing together.

Reforesting large parts of the Earth has been suggested as a method for slowing climate change. Technologies are being developed to suck carbon from the air and store it too, but trees have benefited from a 350m year research and development programme that makes them perfect for the task.

Understanding what tree species work well together – and crucially why – can help guide how reforestation is implemented in the decades to come. With a greater variety of tree “personalities”, forests are likely to be more resilient to droughts, pests and diseases than those made up of a single species. Diversity comes in many forms – making sure the forests planted today are resilient in the future will partly depend on choosing tree neighbours wisely.

That is the unequivocal conclusion of a report released last week, as the country battles yet another record-breaking heatwave.

The July 2018 heatwave, which killed 1,032 people, saw temperatures reach 41.1C, the highest temperature ever recorded in the country. Torrential rains also triggered landslides and the worst flooding in decades.

Penned by the Meteorological Society of Japan, the study is the first to establish that some aspects of the international heatwave could not have occurred in the absence of global warming. Scientists reached this conclusion by employing a technique known as event attribution (EA).

The relatively new method, lead author Yukkiko Imada told Climate Home News, sought to pin down the causality of climate change in the heatwave by simulating 18 climate scenarios with and without the current 1C global warming above pre-industrial levels.

They found a one in five chance of the heatwave occurring in the current climate, but almost no chance of in a climate unchanged by human activity.

Imada described the findings as “really surprising”. “For more than 5 years, we have been studying several extreme events… using the EA strategy,” Imada said. “But in most cases, we could express the results like ‘the likelihood of the event increased by X times due to the human-induced climate change’. That is, the probability rarely becomes ‘zero’ even under the non-warming climate [scenario].”

The study shows it was “essentially impossible” for a heatwave that devastating to happen under natural conditions, Nicholas Leach, a researcher in climate attribution at Oxford University, told CHN.

“Climate change is happening and it’s happening more and more quickly, at least in the past decade,” he said. “You would expect that from the fact that it is still warming to start seeing more of these papers.”

Born in the early 2000s, the field of “extreme weather attribution”, of which the study is part, has grown in the past years, with 230 peer-reviewed studies on record in March.  It tracks the human fingerprint of climate change on extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves, floods and storms. Though the field will usually conclude that the likelihood of an event has been multiplied by climate change, papers categorically linking an event to the climate crisis are not unheard of.

Back in December 2018, a study of the 2017/18 heatwave in the Tasman Seaconcluded the “overall intensity of the 2017/18 Tasman [heatwave] was virtually impossible without anthropogenic forcing”.

On Sunday, temperatures hit a new record of 39.5C on the island of Hokkaido, according to the Meteorological Society of Japan. This was the first time that the temperature shot past 38C during any month of the year.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Cover photo by Matt Artz on Unsplash.
Assessing the climate resilience and transformation potential of Mekong River Delta

Assessing the climate resilience and transformation potential of Mekong River Delta

By Renz Louie Celeridad

A master plan grounded in the context of climate change in the Mekong River Delta (MRD) is required to facilitate agricultural transformation. This is applicable especially in the region’s rice sector, which faces various climate-related risks such as floods, droughts, and salinity intrusion. Such risks were identified during the consultation meetings and field visits led by relevant government offices in Vietnam.

These activities enabled the Department of Crop Production (DCP) and several Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) offices, together with the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security in Southeast Asia (CCAFS SEA), to construct climate-related risk maps and adaptation plans (CS MAP). These tools were viewed as valuable resources in developing the agricultural adaptation plans of provinces in the MRD.

Considering the climate dimension in agriculture

Representatives from CCAFS SEA, DCP, and DARD offices found that farmers tend to disregard the provincial protocols on land use and production changes. At the provincial level, meanwhile, the focus is more on increasing the agricultural productivity than on adapting to climate change. 

Despite the focus on productivity, prices of agricultural products are unstable. This instability is influenced by the lack of linkages between the farms and markets and is compounded by weak farmer organizations. Farmers resort to engaging with middlemen to sell their products.

Such farmers exhibited a lack of knowledge and skills to shift to climate resilient crops, trapping them within the confines of traditional, climate risk-prone practices. Extension services and infrastructures that can facilitate this shift are either absent or non-existent due to lack of investments.

Transforming agriculture in the Mekong River Delta

Agricultural transformation must be planned together by the authorities and the farmers. The authorities can guide the farmers in adjusting their planting calendars or changing their cropping systems. The farmers then must report their plans to the authorities to receive appropriate support and guidance.

Government authorities may utilize the CS MAP they co-developed with CCAFS SEA to guide their farmers. At the subnational and national levels, they will need investments to build infrastructures, which can facilitate the transformation process. The government can generate investments from the private sector, international organizations and public-private partnerships.

The farmers, meanwhile, need several prerequisites to join this transformation. For instance, they must enhance their financial capacity to afford such transformation and protect themselves from climate risks. They must also be knowledgeable in growing new crops that are more resilient to climate change impacts.

They can achieve these prerequisites through capacity building activities and other extension services, including access to credit and insurance. Capable farmers foster strong farmer organizations, enabling them to combat climate change as a collective force. This collaborative environment among relevant actors can facilitate a productive and sustainable transformation in the rice sector of MRD. CCAFS SEA can contribute on this transformation by helping agricultural stakeholders in Vietnam identify location-specific climate-smart agriculture options.

Click here to read the publication.

This article was originally published on the IIED website.
Cover photo is of the Mekong River / Wikimedia Commons.
Climate change driving fungal disease that could wipe out banana crops

Climate change driving fungal disease that could wipe out banana crops

By Will Bugler

A fungal disease that attacks banana crops is on the rise thanks to climate change, suggests new research. Black Sigatoka, also known as “black leaf streak,” has been on the move since the 1960s from Asia to areas now including the Caribbean, Latin America and most recently to parts of Florida.

The fungal disease can reduce fruit production on infected plants by up to 80 percent, according to a study published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

The research found that changes to moisture and temperature conditions as a result of climate change have increased the risk of Black Sigatoka by more than 44 percent in affected areas during the past six decades.

“This research shows that climate change has made temperatures better for spore germination and growth, and made crop canopies wetter, raising the risk of Black Sigatoka infection in many banana-growing areas of Latin America,” said the study’s lead author Daniel Bebber of the University of Exeter.

The study makes no predictions about what future climate change might mean for the spread of the fungus or the risk to future banana crops throughout the world. However, it is indicative of the increased risk of pests and diseases that many crops face as global temperatures rise.

The study can be found here.

Cover photo by Lotte Löhr on Unsplash.