Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 (section)

=== Box 7.6 | Case Study: Mitigation Options and Costs in the Indian Agricultural Sector ===

<div id="h2-19-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''Objective'''

To assess the technical mitigation potentials of Indian agriculture and costs under a business as usual scenario (BAU) and Mitigation scenario up to 2030 ( [[#Sapkota--2019|Sapkota et al. 2019]] ).

'''Results'''

The study shows that by 2030 under BAU scenario GHG emissions from the agricultural sector in India would be 515 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 (using GWP100 and IPCC AR4 values) with a technical mitigation potential of 85.5 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 through the adoption of various mitigation practices. About 80% of the technical mitigation potential could be achieved by adopting cost-saving measures. Three mitigation options, for example, efficient use of fertiliser, zero-tillage, and rice-water management, could deliver more than 50% of the total technical abatement potential. Under the BAU scenario the projected GHG emissions from major crop and livestock species is estimated at 489 MtCO 2 -eq in 2030, whereas under mitigation scenario GHG emissions are estimated at 410 MtCO 2 -eq implying a technical mitigation option of about 78.67 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 (Box 7.6, Figure 1). Major sources of projected emissions under the BAU scenario, in order of importance, were cattle, rice, buffalo, and small ruminants. Although livestock production and rice cultivation account for a major share of agricultural emissions, the highest mitigation potential was observed in rice (about 36 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ) followed by buffalo (about 14 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ), wheat (about 11 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ) and cattle (about 7 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ). Crops such as cotton and sugarcane each offered mitigation potential of about 5 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 while the mitigation potential from small ruminants (goat/sheep) was about 2 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 .

[[#Sapkota--2019|Sapkota et al. (2019)]] also estimated the magnitude of GHG savings per year through adoption of various mitigation measures, together with the total cost and net cost per unit of CO 2 -eq abated. When the additional benefits of increased yield due to adoption of the mitigation measures were considered, about 80% of the technical mitigation potential (67.5 out of 85.5 MtCO 2 -eq) could be achieved by cost-saving measures. When yield benefits were considered, green fodder supplements to ruminant diets were the most cost-effective mitigation measure, followed by vermicomposting and improved diet management of small ruminants. Mitigation measures such as fertigation and micro-irrigation, various methods of restoring degraded land and feed additives in livestock appear to be cost-prohibitive, even when considering yield benefits, if any. The study accounted for GHG emissions at the farm level and excluded emissions arising due to processing, marketing or consumption post farm-gate. It also did not include emissions from feed production, since livestock in India mostly rely on crop by-products and concentrates. Further the potential of laser land levelling seems exaggerated which may also be redundant with already accounted potential from ‘improved water management in rice’. The mitigation potential of agroecological approaches/technologies such as natural farming which is picking up in India in recent years has also been overlooked.

<div id="_idContainer045m"></div>

'''Box 7.6, Figure 1''' '''|''' '''Contribution of various crops and livestock species to total agricultural emission in 2012 (baseline) and by 2030 under business as usual (BAU) and mitigation scenarios for Indian agricultural sector.''' Source: [[#Sapkota--2019|Sapkota et al. (2019)]] . Reprinted from Science of The Total Environment, 655, Sapkota T.B. et al., Cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation in Indian agriculture., 2019, with permission from Elsevier.

<div id="7.4.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="bioenergy-and-beccs"></span>