This document discusses Africa's opportunities for low-carbon, climate-resilient development in the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector. It notes that AFOLU is responsible for about 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions and outlines trends showing emissions increasing despite reduction efforts. The document then discusses challenges Africa faces in mitigation given expected emissions increases from food production. However, it also outlines large mitigation potential through land-based strategies like agriculture, forestry, and bioenergy. Key uncertainties are incomplete data and accounting for non-forest ecosystems and fluxes. Managing trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation is also discussed.
Implications of the AR finding in the AFOLU sector in Africa
1. Africaโs low carbon climate
resilient development
opportunities
23-02-2015
Dr Cheikh Mbow, ICRAF
Lead Author on AFOLU-Chap11
Implications of the
AR finding in the
AFOLU sector in
Africa
2. AFOLU (Facts)
โข Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) is unique among the
sectors in WGIII.
โข Enhancement of removals of GHGs, as well as reduction of emissions through
management of land and livestock.
โข Agriculture is central to the livelihoods of many social groups
โข AFOLU sector is responsible for ~ < 25% (~10-12 Gt CO2eq/yr) of
anthropogenic GHG emissions
โข Mainly from deforestation and agricultural emissions from livestock, soil,
biomass burning and nutrient management
โข2000-2010
โข GHG emissions/yr-1: agricultural @ 5.0-5.8 Gt CO2eq/yr
โข GHG flux/yr-1: land use change activities @ 4.3-5.5 Gt CO2eq/yr
3. Trends in emissions | What happened in the last decades?
โข The emissions of GHGs accelerated despite reduction effortsโฆ
Most emission
growth is CO2 from
fossil fuel
combustion
4. Regional patterns of GHG emissions are shifting along with changes in the world economy.
Based on Figure 1.6
8. Mitigation pathways and measures | How AFOLU will be influenced
by mitigation efforts in other sectors?
โข Mitigation requires changes throughout the economy. Efforts in one sector determine
mitigation efforts in others
11. What are the challenges for Africa (LDC Box WG III-Chap 11)
โข GHG will increase: food production leading to short term land
conversion
โข Technology will not be sufficient for the necessary transitions to
low GHG
โข Access to market and credits, capacities to implement mitigation
options
โข Non-permanence and leakage
โข Managing Risks, Co-benefits or trade-offs for mitigation (and
adaptation)
12. AFOLU and Low Emission Development Pathway
โขAFOLU: a variety of mitigation options and a large, cost-
competitive mitigation potentialโflexibilityโfor mitigation
technologies
โขProjections: landโrelated mitigation strategies (agriculture,
forestry, bioenergy) were projected to contribute 20 to 60%
of total cumulative abatement to 2030, and still 15 to 45%
in 2100.
โข RISKS: potential implications for biodiversity, food security
and other services (ensuring co-benefits, avoiding land
competition)
13. These Options make economic
sense even without the benefit of
carbon finance
14. Forest Sector
โข Importance of non forested
lands
โข MRVs
โข Mitigation as a response for
social adaptation needs?
15. Mbow et al., 2012, GLP Report series (REDD= challenges and
prospects for Africa)
Accounting for Non โForestโ Ecosystems
16. Agriculture
โขEmission from the agricultural sector (including fires,
shifting cultivation, cropland, pasture, etc.
โขNon CO2 GHG emission
โขSustainable agriculture potential to offset emission from
agriculture
โขImportance of bioenergy in the net budget
17. Land carbon cycle assessment
C-emission C-sequestration C-pools
Forest carbon stock inventory
Carbon accounting and surveys
Ecosystem models and mapping
Dynamic vegetation models
Trees Height,
DBH, TCC
Forest/trees
Biomass
Biomass change
over time
Forest
disturbance area
Field & RS
Field,Models&RS
Field & RS
Models & RS
Data requirements for land base mitigation
18. Methods used for an overall carbon budgeting
โข Independent observed data
โข Bottom-up ecosystem inventories of land fluxes,
biomass, etc.;
โข Satellite based approaches
โข NPP, GPP, NEP, Fire data and emission from
vegetation burning, Biomass maps;
โข Modeling
โข Atmospheric inversion, biogeochemical models,
dynamic vegetation modeling, phenology;
โข Secondary data (including activity data) to
derive emission databases on emission
factors.
19. Uncertainties and data gaps
โข Uncompleted data set:
โข Data gaps, short period of observations (productivity data, climate data,)
limited data e.g. for CH4 and N2O;
โข Assessment of fluxes from land use change:
โข Mostly deforestation and forest degradation, inter-annual variability of C
fluxes;
โข Implications of definition of forest and non-forest land cover:
โข Land cover reported areas: level of aggregation or disaggregation of cover
types in classification schemes;
โข Limited validation datasets:
โข For model calibration or scaling-up terrestrial fluxes, go beyond the dense
forest zones.
20. Managing trade-offs
Adaptation
Mitigation
Positive Negative
Positive
Soil carbon sequestration,
improved water holding
capacities, use of manure
instead, mixed agroforestry for
commercial products, income
diversification with trees,
reduced nitrogen fertilizer, fire
management
Dependence on biomass energy,
overuse of ecosystem services,
Increased use of mineral fertilizers
Poor management of nitrogen and
manure, over extraction of non-
timber products, timber extraction
Negative
Integral protection of forest
reserves, limited rights to
agroforestry trees, Forest
Plantation excluding harvest
Use of forest fires for pastoral and
land management, tree exclusion in
farming lands,
Bundling mitigation and adaptation benefits
Mbow et al, 2014-COSUST
21. Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fifth
Assessment Report
CLIMATE CHANGE 2014
Mitigation of Climate Change
ยฉOcean/Corbis
www.mitigation2014.org
Editor's Notes
Most of the emissions growth has taken place where economic development has been most rapid โ today and in the past.
Most of the recent emission increases have been concentrated in the fastest growing regions in the developing world.
From 2000 to 2010 about 75% of the 10 GtCO2eq increase in total annual GHG emissions took place in upper middle income countries. 18% of the emission growth occurred in lower middle income countries and 7% in low income countries, while GHG emission levels in high income countries remained stable at high levels.
For most low and lower-middle income countries, the largest source of emissions is AFOLU. The GHG emission shares of the energy and industry sectors tend to increase with income, and these are typically the largest sectors for upper middle and high income countries. Transport is a large sector for high income countries.
MAF : Middle East and Africa
EIT : Economies in Transition
CCS=Carbon Capture and Storage
Land use related mitigation options are amongst the most cost effective GHG abatement measures. Nutrient management, reduced slash and burn agriculture, grassland management, restoration of degraded lands and reforestation are almongst the many land use practices that can help sequester carbon while responding to adapation needs (McKinsey and Co, 2009). Agroforestry defined as a combination of trees and crops and/or animals have a big abatement potential at lower cost than other low emission pathways.
Secondly, there is a clear need to define conditions under which agroforstry can support the trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation and try to identify new frontier for safety nets that are beneficial to local vulnerable communities
More more details, please visit mitigation2014.org
