agroforestry for
livelihoods and climate
Todd Rosenstock

What is agroforestry?
Silvopastoral
Shadow systems Parklands
Boundary planting Intercropped
Scattered trees

Agroforestry for sustainable development and climate action
Economic
development
Fodder
Energy security
Nutrition
Carbon
sequestration and
soil health

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly
represented in GHG inventories

Five principles of MRV
1. Consistency
2. Transparency
3. Accuracy
4. Comparability
5. Completeness
2. Agroforestry is rarely explicitly
represented in GHG inventories

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

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

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

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

3. Source of data used for accounting
are diverse but typically basic

Emission Factors
Activity data

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

Emission Factors
Activity data

Emission Factors
Activity data
83%Of countries report
using Tier 1 for
AFOLU

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

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

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

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

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

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.