Making trees count
0 likes42 views
Agroforestry integrates trees with crops and livestock, providing numerous benefits pertinent to climate action efforts, such as enhancing soil health and food security. Despite 40% of countries including agroforestry in their climate commitments, significant obstacles exist in measuring and reporting its contributions due to institutional, technical, and financial barriers. Recommendations to improve agroforestry's visibility in national reporting include enhanced guidelines and capacity building to help integrate agroforestry into measurement, reporting, and verification systems.
Making trees count
- 1. agroforestry for livelihoods and climate Todd Rosenstock
- 2. What is agroforestry? Silvopastoral Shadow systems Parklands Boundary planting Intercropped Scattered trees
- 3. Agroforestry for sustainable development and climate action Economic development Fodder Energy security Nutrition Carbon sequestration and soil health
- 4. 1. Methods and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits and resilience. 2. Improved soil carbon, soil health and soil fertility under grassland and cropland as well as integrated systems, including water management. 3. Improved nutrient use and manure management towards sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. 4. Improved livestock management systems 5. Socioeconomic and food security dimensions of climate change in agriculture. Agroforestry addresses Koronivia Joint Work Program on Agriculture
- 5. Making trees count MRV of agroforestry under the UNFCCC Todd Rosenstock Andreas Wilkes, Courtney Jallo, Nictor Namoi, Medha Bulusu, Marta Suber, Damaris Mboi, Rachmat Mulia, Elisabeth Simelton, Meryl Richards, Noel Gurwick, Eva Wollenberg
- 6. Our approach DOCUMENT REVIEW KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS National communicationsNationally Determined Contributions Key word searches to understand if and how countries were planning to use agroforestry Examine GHG inventories for where agroforestry is visible and the methods used to capture it 147 countries 12 countries ü Known interest in agroforestry (e.g., Nepal) ü Agroforestry-based actions under development (e.g., Colombia) ü Number of explicit mentions of agroforestry in document review (e.g., Rwanda)
- 7. Rosenstock et al. 2019. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Explicit mentions of agroforestry in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) 1. Countries plan to use agroforestry for climate action
- 8. Rosenstock et al. 2019. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Explicit mentions of agroforestry in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) 1. Countries plan to use agroforestry for climate action
- 9. Rosenstock et al. 2019. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Explicit mentions of agroforestry in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) 40% of countries 1. Countries plan to use agroforestry for climate action
- 10. Rosenstock et al. 2019. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Explicit mentions of agroforestry in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) 40% of countries 1. Countries plan to use agroforestry for climate action 71% of African countries
- 11. 2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly represented in GHG inventories
- 12. Five principles of MRV 1. Consistency 2. Transparency 3. Accuracy 4. Comparability 5. Completeness 2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly represented in GHG inventories
- 13. Five principles of MRV 1. Consistency 2. Transparency 3. Accuracy 4. Comparability 5. Completeness Is agroforestry visible in GHG inventories? 2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly represented in GHG inventories
- 14. Five principles of MRV 1. Consistency 2. Transparency 3. Accuracy 4. Comparability 5. Completeness countries Is agroforestry visible in GHG inventories? 2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly represented in GHG inventories 147
- 15. Five principles of MRV 1. Consistency 2. Transparency 3. Accuracy 4. Comparability 5. Completeness countries Is agroforestry visible in GHG inventories? 2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly represented in GHG inventories 147 105 report AFOLU
- 16. Five principles of MRV 1. Consistency 2. Transparency 3. Accuracy 4. Comparability 5. Completeness countries Is agroforestry visible in GHG inventories? 2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly represented in GHG inventories 147 105 report AFOLU 41 report subcategories
- 17. 3. Source of data used for accounting are diverse but typically basic
- 19. Emission Factors Activity data area of land use head of cattle amount of fertilizer applied carbon stock per land use methane per head nitrous oxide per fertilizer applied
- 21. Emission Factors Activity data 83%Of countries report using Tier 1 for AFOLU
- 22. Agroforestry is often not explicitly represented in GHG inventories Factor Ethio pia Bangl adesh Boli via Ch ile Colo mbia Indo nesia Nep al Per u Rwa nda St. Lucia To go Vietn am Institutional arrangement and enabling environment Political support Definitions of forest Changes in government mandates and interest Conflicting or unclear mandates Technical facilities and capacities Clear representation of land Resolution of available satellite imagery Availability of locally relevant stock change factors Human capacity for data collection or processing Project-level experience with MRV Finance Sustained funding or cost of MRV Enabler Constraint Both
- 23. Agroforestry is often not explicitly represented in GHG inventories Factor Ethio pia Bangl adesh Boli via Ch ile Colo mbia Indo nesia Nep al Per u Rwa nda St. Lucia To go Vietn am Institutional arrangement and enabling environment Political support Definitions of forest Changes in government mandates and interest Conflicting or unclear mandates Technical facilities and capacities Clear representation of land Resolution of available satellite imagery Availability of locally relevant stock change factors Human capacity for data collection or processing Project-level experience with MRV Finance Sustained funding or cost of MRV Enabler Constraint Both 4. Institutional, technical and financial barriers prevent agroforestry MRV
- 24. Agroforestry is often not explicitly represented in GHG inventories Factor Ethio pia Bangl adesh Boli via Ch ile Colo mbia Indo nesia Nep al Per u Rwa nda St. Lucia To go Vietn am Institutional arrangement and enabling environment Political support Definitions of forest Changes in government mandates and interest Conflicting or unclear mandates Technical facilities and capacities Clear representation of land Resolution of available satellite imagery Availability of locally relevant stock change factors Human capacity for data collection or processing Project-level experience with MRV Finance Sustained funding or cost of MRV Enabler Constraint Both 4. Institutional, technical and financial barriers prevent agroforestry MRV
- 25. Agroforestry is often not explicitly represented in GHG inventories Factor Ethio pia Bangl adesh Boli via Ch ile Colo mbia Indo nesia Nep al Per u Rwa nda St. Lucia To go Vietn am Institutional arrangement and enabling environment Political support Definitions of forest Changes in government mandates and interest Conflicting or unclear mandates Technical facilities and capacities Clear representation of land Resolution of available satellite imagery Availability of locally relevant stock change factors Human capacity for data collection or processing Project-level experience with MRV Finance Sustained funding or cost of MRV Enabler Constraint Both 4. Institutional, technical and financial barriers prevent agroforestry MRV
- 26. Agroforestry is often not explicitly represented in GHG inventories Recommendations 1. Guidelines for agroforestry reporting improve relevance to national policy and transparency 2. Capacity building on identifying and navigating institutional environment that supports inclusion of agroforestry in MRV systems 3. Accessible approaches for representation of lands with agroforestry 4. Develop carbon stock change and emission factor data and database relevant for reporting requirements
- 27. Thank you Todd Rosenstock | t.rosenstock@cigar.org More information USAID Climate Links: https://bit.ly/2Gy5cJn CCAFS & GRA: https://www.agmrv.org Briefs, article & full report UNCORRECTED PROOFAgriculture, Ecosystems and Environment xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com Making trees count: Measurement and reporting of agroforestry in UNFCCC national communications of non-Annex I countries Todd S. Rosenstock a, , Andreas Wilkes b, Courtney Jallo c, Nictor Namoi c, Medha Bulusu c, Marta Suber d, Damaris Mboi c, Rachmat Mulia e, Elisabeth Simelton e, Meryl Richards f, Noel Gurwick g, Eva Wollenberg f, h a World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), c/o INERA, No. 13 Avenue des cliniques, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo b Values for development Ltd, Bury St. Edmunds, United Kingdom c World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), PO Box 30677-00100, UN Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya d World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Lima, Peru e World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Hanoi, Viet Nam f CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Burlington, USA g USAID, Washington DC, USA h Gund Institute, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Agroforestry MRV UNFCCC Mitigation Adaptation Nationally Determined Contributions Climate Vnance A B S T R A C T Agroforestry the integration of trees with crops and livestock generates many beneVts directly relevant to the UNFCCC s Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture, including: (i) building resilience, (ii) increasing soil carbon and improving soil health, (iii) providing fodder and shade for sustainable livestock production and (iv) diversifying human diets and economic opportunities. Despite its significance to the climate agenda, agroforestry may not be included in measurement, reporting and veriVcation (MRV) systems under the UNFCCC. Here we report on a Vrst appraisal of how agroforestry is treated in national MRV systems under the UNFCCC. We examined national communications (NCs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of 147 countries, REDD+strategies and plans of 73 countries, and 283 Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), as well as conducted inter- views with representatives of 12 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We found that there is a significant gap between national ambition and national ability to measure and report on agroforestry. Forty percent of the countries assessed explicitly propose agroforestry as a solution in their NDCs, with agroforestry being embraced most widely in Africa (71%) and less broadly in the Americas (34%), Asia (21%) and Oceania (7%). Seven coun- tries proposed 10 agroforestry-based NAMAs. Of 73 developing countries that have REDD+strategies, about 50% identiVed agroforestry as a way to combat forest decline. Despite these intentions, however, agroforestry is not visible in many MRV systems. For example, although 66% of the countries reported non-forest trees in the national inventory, only 11% gave a quantitative estimate of number of trees or areal extent. Interviews revealed institutional, technical and Vnancial challenges preventing comprehensive, transparent inclusion of agroforestry in MRV systems. The absence has serious implications. If such trees are not counted in inventories or climate change programs, then a major carbon sink is not being accounted for. Only if agroforestry resources are mea- sured, reported and veriVed will they gain access to Vnance and other support. We discuss four recommendations to better match ability to ambition. 1. Introduction Integrating trees with crops and livestock, agroforestry provides op- tions for mitigating and adapting to climate change (Griscom et al., 2017). Trees create microclimates reducing ambient temperatures and heat stress, conserving soil moisture and producing nitrogen-rich fod der, thus increasing food availability (Dinesh et al., 2017; Thornton et al., 2017). Trees also generate products themselves, such as fuelwood and fruits, which support energy security and micronutrient adequacy, and diversiVes incomes (Iiyama et al., 2014; Jamnadass et al., 2011). Tree cover at landscape scale alters regional water cycles; trees recy- cle rainfall, reduce stormWow and recharge aquifers but can deplete groundwater depending on species and density of planting, thereby Corresponding author. Email address: t.rosenstock@cgiar.org (T.S. Rosenstock) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106569 Received 11 April 2019; Received in revised form 6 June 2019; Accepted 9 June 2019 Available online xxx 0167-8809/ © 2019.