Farming is caught by climate change in both directions.
Rising temperatures, shifting rainfall and more frequent extremes cut yields and threaten livelihoods. And farming, together with the land clearing it drives, is itself a major source of greenhouse gases.
Climate-smart agriculture is an approach that tries to deal with both at once, while still producing more food.
The term was introduced by FAO in twenty ten,
and it now appears in national climate plans, development programmes and university courses worldwide.
In this video: why farming and climate are linked, the three pillars, practices for adapting, practices that cut emissions while raising output, practices that serve all three goals, a worked example on emissions per tonne, and an honest look at the criticisms.
The advice is general and global.
Your local extension service knows what fits your farm.
Start with the impacts.
The IPCC's sixth assessment report, in twenty twenty-two, concluded that climate change has already slowed the growth of farm productivity over the past fifty years, with the largest effects in warmer, lower-income regions.
Heat at flowering, drought, floods, pests moving into new areas and changing seasons all reduce yields and make them less predictable.
Now the emissions.
Agriculture, forestry and other land use together account for roughly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Counting the whole food system, with processing, transport, packaging and waste, the share rises to about a third. On the farm, the largest sources are methane from cattle and other ruminants and from flooded rice, nitrous oxide from fertilised soils and manure,
and carbon dioxide from clearing forests and draining peatlands.
And people still need more food. So cutting production is not the answer.
FAO defines climate-smart agriculture by three goals.
First, sustainably increasing productivity and incomes. Second, adapting and building resilience to climate change.
And third, reducing or removing greenhouse gas emissions, where possible.
Those two words, where possible, matter.
For a smallholder in a low-emitting, food-insecure region, productivity and adaptation come first, and lower emissions are a bonus, not an obligation.
For high-emitting, intensive systems, cutting emissions weighs more. That is why climate-smart agriculture is an approach, not a fixed list of technologies.
Whether a practice is climate-smart depends on where and how it is used.
For productivity and adaptation, start with stress-tolerant varieties:
crops bred to tolerate drought, heat, floods or salt, such as rice varieties that survive two weeks under water, and drought-tolerant maize.
Manage water: harvest rainwater, give supplementary irrigation at critical stages, use drip irrigation where it pays, and schedule watering better. Use climate information services, seasonal forecasts and weather advisories, so that sowing dates, varieties and inputs match the coming season.
Diversify crops, livestock and income sources, so one bad season does not mean total loss.
And transfer risk with index-based insurance, which pays out on rainfall or satellite triggers.
Many practices that cut emissions also raise output or save money.
Use nitrogen efficiently: the right source, at the right rate, at the right time and in the right place.
That cuts nitrous oxide and fertiliser costs together. In rice, alternate wetting and drying can cut methane substantially while saving water.
For livestock, better feed quality and animal health raise output per animal, which lowers emissions per litre of milk or kilogram of meat.
Feed additives that reduce methane from the rumen are emerging. Manage manure: cover the stores, use anaerobic digestion,
and apply it at the right time.
Reduce food loss and waste, which avoids the emissions of producing food nobody eats.
And by far the largest opportunity linked to farming is avoiding deforestation
and protecting peatlands.
Some practices often serve all three goals.
Agroforestry, trees on farms, stores carbon, shelters crops and diversifies income.
Conservation agriculture, with minimum tillage, permanent soil cover and rotations, conserves water and soil,
and in some conditions builds soil carbon.
Integrated soil fertility management builds soil organic matter.
And better grazing management restores degraded pastures.
But trees on farms do not cancel the methane and nitrous oxide from the rest of the farm, and stored carbon can be lost if the trees are cut. They are one part of a wider set of measures.
Here is a worked example of how results are measured. A maize farm yields three tonnes per hectare,
and its fertiliser and field operations emit the equivalent of two point four tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. That is zero point eight tonnes per tonne of grain.
With improved varieties and better-timed fertiliser, it now yields four tonnes, and emits two point six.
Emissions per tonne of grain fall to about zero point six five,
a drop of about nineteen per cent. But emissions per hectare rose by about eight per cent. Is that climate-smart?
If the extra tonne means less forest is cleared elsewhere to grow the same food, yes, strongly.
If total production simply grows, total emissions rise.
That is why assessments look at both measures, emissions per tonne and in total, and at land use beyond the farm.
A balanced view includes the criticisms.
The term is vague: almost any practice can be labelled climate-smart, so it can be used to rebrand business as usual, or to sell products without evidence.
Triple wins are not guaranteed: a practice may raise yields while raising emissions, or cut emissions while costing farmers income, so results must be measured locally. Many argue that cutting emissions should fall mainly on high-emitting systems and countries, not on smallholders with tiny footprints.
And soil carbon is slow to change, variable and reversible, which makes claims hard to verify.
Can smallholders afford it? Many practices cost little: better timing, water harvesting, diversification.
Others need investment or credit. Programmes that combine practices with information, insurance and finance have had the most uptake.
And climate-smart is not the same as organic: organic is defined by input rules, climate-smart by outcomes.
To recap.
Climate-smart agriculture pursues three goals:
more productivity and income, adaptation and resilience, and lower emissions where possible. Adapt with stress-tolerant varieties, water harvesting and better irrigation,
climate information, diversification and index insurance.
Cut emissions with efficient nitrogen, alternate wetting and drying in rice, better livestock feeding, manure management and less food waste.
Agroforestry, conservation agriculture and soil organic matter can serve all three.
Judge results per tonne and in total.
And choose what fits your own farm.
For grow guides, farming explainers and the pest and disease encyclopedia, visit laisha.ai.
And before you go: Laisha Lens number one is out, our free guide to November, for every climate zone on Earth.
North of the equator, the cool-season crops go in:
winter wheat and garlic in the temperate north,
wheat, barley and lentil on the autumn rains of the Mediterranean,
and on the plains of South Asia the whole rabi season,
wheat, mustard, chickpea and potato.
South of the equator it is spring, and the tropical south sows soybean, maize, cotton and rice on the first rains.
Lens also covers crop residue without fire, the pests worth walking the field for, and a study plan for agri students.
Open My farm's November, choose your zone and up to three crops, and it builds your field jobs, week by week, with the pests to scout for. It is free, and needs no account. Our free November Lens, with your farm's month plan, is on laisha.ai slash lens.
From all of us at Laisha: may your fields do well this season. Thank you for watching.
