11.2.3 Transferable Technologies for both Adaptation and Mitigation
Mitigation options are available that could result in a significant decrease
in GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration into agricultural soils. If
implemented, most of them are more likely to increase rather than decrease crop
and animal productivity. Considerable progress has been made in evaluating the
potential effects of climate change on global agriculture, but significant uncertainties
remain, so agricultural policies are specifically appropriate for adapting to
climate change. A range of adaptation options can be employed to increase the
flexibility and adaptability of vulnerable systems, and reverse trends that
increase vulnerability. Many of these attempts to abate climate change will
be of immediate benefit, and can therefore be considered "no-regret"
technologies.
In order to achieve these objectives, technology transfer must occur more rapidly,
and with a more intense focus on those technologies that further sustainable
development. Table 11.3 summarises some key technology examples, catalogued
by objectives:
| Table 11.3 Examples of transferable
technologies catalogued by objectives and specific technology/objectives |
| OBJECTIVES |
TECHNOLOGY |
MITIGATION |
ADAPTATION |
POTENTIAL IMPACT |
RELATIVE COST |
TIME PATH |
FOOD SAFE |
REGIONAL APPLICATION |
| CO2 Sequestering in Soils |
Conservation tillage |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
H |
Decades |
H |
South America |
| |
Improve irrigation |
Yes |
Yes |
H |
H |
Years |
H |
Developing Countries |
| |
Yield improvement |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
M |
Decades |
H |
All |
| Higher Yields |
Genetics |
Yes |
Yes |
H |
M |
Decades |
H |
All |
| |
Improve inputs |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
M |
Decades |
M |
All |
| |
Pest Control |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
M |
Decades |
M |
All |
| Reducing Emissions |
Improve animal agriculture |
Yes |
Yes |
H |
M |
Years |
M |
All |
| |
Lower GHGs |
Yes |
Yes |
H |
Not sure |
Years |
H |
All |
| |
Improve feed efficiency |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
M |
Years |
H |
Developing countries |
| |
Concentrating on best lands |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
M |
Decades |
H |
All |
| |
Improve nitrogen efficiency |
Yes |
Yes |
M |
M |
Years |
H |
All |
M = MEDIUM H = HIGH
There are many barriers that may be encountered (Table 11.4). Some of these
options require more labour and some need more capital investment, which may
represent the main constraints slowing adoption of the technologies.
| Table 11.4 Barriers for adoption
of the selected mitigation technologies |
| NO. |
OPTIONS |
CONSTRAINTS |
| 1 |
Irrigation efficiency |
Requires large investments and national technology and assessment commitment
Requires technology transfer to the farm levelRequires cooperative community
action |
| 2 |
Direct seeding of rice |
Required intensive weed control |
| 3 |
Substitution of traditional varieties by improved varieties |
Less preferred grain qualityNew pest problems in certain areasChanged
management |
| 4 |
Conservation tillage |
Risk of reduction of yieldDifferent machinery needs, crop varieties, soil
moisture and temperature conditionsRequired intensive weed control |
| 5 |
Ammoniation of straw for animal feed |
Ammonium sulphate is more expensive than urea |
| 6 |
Large scale biogas digester |
More investments, more complex to operate and maintain |
In most cases the transfer of technologies needs to take into account, e.g.,
the link between technology adoption and diffusion and enhancing income in technology
receiving countries. This will be critical in achieving adoption and wide-scale
diffusion of alternative technologies in these countries. The lack of financial
incentives will be a major obstacle to the adoption of some of these practices.
Otherwise, the system depends on subsidies of some sort (e.g., cost shares)
to speed adoption and diffusion, and when the subsidy runs out, the practice
is dropped.
|