BARELY six months left in the race to December’s international conference to formulate a new treaty to address climate change in Copenhagen, there’s still “less optimism” that agriculture will be included on the agenda of negotiations—this, even as the sector, especially those in Asia-Pacific will be “hit hard,” a foreign agriculture and climate-change expert said.

“There is less optimism [now] than a few months ago…. They [negotiators] are moving very slowly. They are still talking, but I’ve not seen any signs of strong commitments yet,” Dr. Mark Rosegrant, director of environment and production technology division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (Ifpri), told the BusinessMirror in an interview.

“There were huge statements of principles that agriculture should be on [the agenda], but there seems to be not very rapid movement toward that goal.”

Rosegrant was referring to the just-concluded UN climate-change negotiations in Bonn, Germany, in early June where, he said, no “tangible movement or implementation” was made on agriculture for the Copenhagen treaty after it was accepted “in principle” in another conference in Copenhagen in March.

‘Dramatic reductions’ in agricultural production

At the same time, Rosegrant disclosed an Ifpri study showing “dramatic reductions” in agriculture production as a result of adverse effects of climate change by 2050.

He said Southeast Asia would be “hit fairly hard,” but South Asia would be hit “worst of all.”

“India and some other South Asian countries are going to be hardest hit,” he said.

Declines in maize, rice production

Rosegrant, in a speech at the recent high-level dialogue on climate change at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), disclosed figures—released for the first time—showing the effects of climate change on specific agricultural crops.

He said rainfed-maize production in the Asia-Pacific region in 2050 would decline by 17.4 percent; irrigated maize production by 8.5 percent. Irrigated-rice production will incur “heavy losses” of 16.2 percent, and rainfed rice, 12.6 percent.

Meanwhile, irrigated wheat production will decline by 21.1 percent, and rainfed wheat production by 16.4 percent. The Philippines will be among those hit in the rice and maize production, while India will suffer in wheat production.

Along with the decline in food production, he sees a hike in prices as a result. Prices will increase by 10 percent for soybeans, by 52 percent for maize and by 20 percent to 30 percent for rice.

As a result, since consumers will not afford the high-priced agricultural crops, calorie availability will have an average decline of 9 percent; and child malnutrition will increase by 11 percent.

He added that international trade in agriculture would become even more important under a climate-change situation because of the differential effects of losers versus winners.

“Many more developing countries will depend more on imports for [their] food needs. And if [no agreement] in the Doha Round [of trade talks] is reached, the more you’re going to be paying more for those imports,” he said.

Philippines is ‘doing pretty well’

However, despite the general global gloomy outlook in putting agriculture on the agenda in the climate change treaty, Rosegrant said the Philippines is “doing pretty well.”

“There was strong sponsorship of energy strategies,” he said, noting President Arroyo’s speech at the high-level dialogue in ADB. He cited the government’s support to the move replacing of incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps, and the biomass conversion in agriculture.

“In Southeast Asia, and in Asia, in general, the Philippines is actually pretty effective in trying to do the right thing. So it is one place where you are up in front of issues,” he said. “At least you’re trying.”

Ifpri pushing agriculture agenda

The Washington-based Ifpri, headed by Dr. Joachim von Braun, has been pushing to include adaptation and mitigation measures in agriculture on the agenda of the 15th Conference of Parties on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December. The conference will formulate a treaty that will replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.

Ifpri sees the urgent need to include agriculture in the Copenhagen convention, saying that agriculture and climate change are “inextricably linked.”

It said agriculture is part of the climate-change problem because it contributes about 15 percent of the annual greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions compared with the 13.1 percent from transportation.

However, agriculture, it said, it is also part of the solution because it offers opportunities for mitigating GHG through carbon sequestration, soil and land-use management and biomass production.

“Agriculture does account for emission so if you ignore that sector you are throwing out that part of the solution,” Rosegrant said.

Besides Ifpri, other international groups in agriculture  concerned on the issue are the centers under the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and Ifad.

Economic crisis, US and China inaction

Rosegrant pointed to the global economic crisis, and the US and China inaction as among the culprits in the gloomy outlook on agriculture.

“I think one of the big problems is that economic crisis is causing people to put climate change in the back burner of many countries, which is not, of course, an appropriate approach,”

He said many would say, ‘“Dozens of years could be out before we feel the worse. So let’s [deal] with the economic crisis [first].’ That’s a very inappropriate [attitude], but that’s the way some politicians think.”

He said there’s “more worry” now because the US “is dragging its feet” and in a “slowdown,” not moving forward with any kind of strict climate-change regime.

At the same time, he said China, considered among the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, “is not making any commitments either yet.”

He said, “Politics seems to be worsening in the US” and that also means “to hold things back” if the US does not come through in a positive way.

“Some are making wait-and-see games, so nobody wants to make the first commitments because they feel they have to come to a bargaining, perhaps. So how they are going to come together so they would make some mutual commitments is really a tough call,” he said.

It was only on Friday when the US House of Representatives approved the landmark legislation known as American Clean Energy and Security Act designed to reduce the country’s greenhouse emissions that contribute to global warming: 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

The measure is creating a national cap-and-trade program to ensure reductions in emissions and require electricity producers to obtain at least 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020

Rosegrant said the Bonn conference focused more on reducing emissions from activities in forestry, through the REDD approach, or reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, than on agriculture.

He also attributed that talks in agriculture are “lagging behind” partly to the concern that “science isn’t quite as proven yet” in terms of soil-carbon sequestration.

“So more work has to be done there; some verification techniques on how much emissions are being reduced,” he said.

Still trying to be optimistic, Rosegrant said, “But if it [agriculture] is on their [agenda], at least that gives the potential that if an agreement goes through there will be a possibility of moving forward in another round of negotiation.”

The Inter Press Service said in a news report after the Bonn conference that the commitments the industrialized countries are willing to make are “far below” the target for emissions reduction in the 2007 Bali road map, following the advice of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The 30 industrialized nations did not go beyond the range of cutting more than 17 percent to 26 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. Japan came under attack after Prime Minister Taro Aso said the country would reduce its GHG emissions by 15 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020.

The IPCC proposals call for 25-percent to 40-percent reduction.

Governments reluctant to negotiate

When the BusinessMirror asked if governments, especially of the developing countries, are pushing for the inclusion of agriculture in the talks, Rosegrant said individual governments “have not really pushed it very hard yet.”

“I think it needs more education even in developing countries. This could be an important thing to generate incomes in those countries.”

One of the problems, he said, is that some countries perceive that if they get into agreements in order to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in agriculture, they have to pay farmers per unit of emission reduction for offsets.

“That message is still unclear to some governments,” he said.

As an example, Rosegrant cited India: it has been hesitant, not only in agriculture, but also to negotiate strongly in other adaptation and mitigation measures “because it feels it will be strongly penalized and will be forced to slow its own economic growth even though it is a very small overall contributor to [GHG] emissions.”

He added: “So their concern is that developed countries are using it [climate change] as a club against developing countries to hammer them to slow down their growth processes,” he said.

“I could see why they are worried about that in some extent. But I think it’s a fear that has to be downcast.”

Champions needed

Rosegrant said there have to be more approaches to individual developing countries because well-meaning institutions like Ifpri and others can help, “but [they] are not sitting at the table doing the negotiations.”

“There have to be champions among developed and developing countries to make that happen,” he said.

For a while, he said he thought the US might be a champion “but right now that does not seem to be happening. So at the moment there does not seem any strong force at the negotiating table.”

He said a few years ago Papua New Guinea was a big champion in avoiding carbon emission through deforestation.

“They helped keep the forest sector alive. But they didn’t get it all the way through the first time. A few strong voices can make a difference,” he said.

Ifpri agenda for negotiation

IFPRI launched in May its “Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen.” Ifpri director general von Braun listed three major avenues for negotiations in the run up before the December conference.

These are: agriculture-related investments as part of a Global Climate Change Fund; introducing incentives to reduce emissions and support technological change; and comprehensive information and monitoring services in soil and land-use management.

Asked what among these are the priority measures that should be considered, Rosegrant gave four concerns: One, to invest in crop-productivity growth because it has so many benefits.

He said, “If you can intensify the yield growth on existing areas, you don’t need to push in other part of lands and that’s a big emitter of carbon if you are going to cultivate more and more marginal lands. Crop production has direct effect on reducing emissions by stopping land conversion.”

He added that it also helps to generate more income for farmers, helps maintain the land base, in general, and uses less water.

Rosegrant also gave special mention to science and economic policy research in order to increase crop productivity. Now is the time, he said, when biotechnology, or specifically, genetically modified organisms (GMO) is urgently needed.

“I feel there is still a lot of opposition to GMOs but the best assessment show that you wouldn’t get effective drought tolerance—although you’ll get it through commercial breeding—but unless you’re willing to get the wider genetic variation, it’s very unlikely that you breed  crops effectively for climate change,” he said.

He said there are already some great new techniques going down the pipeline “but if we don’t do more in the developing world, only the North American, Brazilian and big Argentinian farmers will benefit from it [GMOs].”

The Philippine-based International Rice Research Institute and the India-based International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, both Cgiar members, have been undertaking research on crops that will adapt to climate change.

Two, he cited the need to develop rural roads, and information and extension services to farmers; and help them bring their produce to the market so they get more income and make them maintain stable agriculture that’s more environmentally friendly.

Three, to clarify the science, economics and the institutional bases on carbon sequestration.

As long as countries continue to point to gaps in science and say that it’s an impossible measure and will never be implemented by small farmers, it will slow down the implementation.

Fourth, investment is needed, which, only for Asia, would cost $2.4 billion a year of additional money.

“Those kinds of funds could not be generated by the developing countries alone,” Rosegrant said. There must be international efforts through development banks or through adaptation funds, as well.

The 13-country Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment, in a meeting in Rome the other weekend, urged the creation of a $2-billion fund to help developing countries adjust to climate change.

Rosegrant said $2.4 billion a year for Asia, is about a 30-percent increase over current investments for agriculture research, irrigation, rural roads and infrastructure to adapt and eliminate the negative impact of climate change on agriculture in the region.

“It will take very large new investment by governments, by development banks and other public agencies to counter-balance those negative impacts of climate change in agriculture,” he said.

Some of the key areas are investing in crop productivity, particularly targeting very specific crop stresses like drought tolerance, heat tolerance, and pest and diseases since climate change will put increase pressure on pest and diseases.

Another is on improving social safety-net protection, crop insurance to protect against the negative impacts.

“There’s going to be a whole series of policies that we’re going to put in place to adapt to climate change as, you know, it’s got to be done sooner and not later as we can’t keep waiting on this,” Rosegrant said.