Interactions of mitigation options with vulnerability and adaptation

Agricultural actions to mitigate GHGs could: a) reduce vulnerability (e.g. if soil carbon sequestration reduces the impacts of drought) or b) increase vulnerability (e.g., if heavy dependence on biomass energy makes energy supply more sensitive to climatic extremes). Policies to encourage mitigation and/or adaptation in agriculture may need to consider these interactions (medium agreement, limited evidence). Similarly, adaptation-driven actions may either a) favour mitigation (e.g., return of residues to fields to improve water-holding capacity will also sequester carbon) or b) hamper mitigation (e.g., use of more nitrogen fertilizer to overcome falling yields, leading to increased N₂O emissions). Strategies that simultaneously increase adaptive capacity, reduce vulnerability and mitigate climate change are likely to present fewer adoption barriers than those with conflicting impacts. For example increasing soil organic matter content can both improve fertility and reduce the impact of drought, improving adaptive capacity, making agriculture less vulnerable to climate change, while also sequestering carbon (medium agreement, medium evidence) [8.5].

Effectiveness of climate policies: opportunities, barriers and implementation issues

Actual levels of GHG mitigation practices in the agricultural sector are below the economic potential for the measures reported above (medium agreement, limited evidence). Little progress in implementation has been made because of the costs of implementation and other barriers, including: pressure on agricultural land, demand for agricultural products, competing demands for water as well as various social, institutional and educational barriers (medium agreement, limited evidence). Soil carbon sequestration in European croplands, for instance, is likely to be negligible by 2010, despite significant economic potential. Many of these barriers will not be overcome without policy/economic incentives (medium agreement, limited evidence) [8.6].