Africa’s 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

AFOLU (Facts)• Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) is unique among the

sectors in WGIII.• Enhancement of removals of GHGs, as well as reduction of emissions through

management of land and livestock. • Agriculture is central to the livelihoods of many social groups

• AFOLU sector is responsible for ~ < 25% (~10-12 Gt CO2eq/yr) of anthropogenic GHG emissions • Mainly from deforestation and agricultural emissions from livestock, soil,

biomass burning and nutrient management

• 2000-2010• GHG emissions/yr-1: agricultural @ 5.0-5.8 Gt CO2eq/yr • GHG flux/yr-1: land use change activities @ 4.3-5.5 Gt CO2eq/yr

Trends in emissions | What happened in the last decades?• The emissions of GHGs accelerated despite reduction efforts…

Most emission growth is CO2 from fossil fuel combustion

Regional patterns of GHG emissions are shifting along with changes in the world economy.

Based on Figure 1.6

AFOLU emissions for the last four decades/General Trend

Global trends from 1971 to 2010 in area of land use/Region

Some of this being transferred to Africa???

AFOLU emission-WGII/AR5/ Sector

Mitigation pathways and measures | How AFOLU will be influenced by mitigation efforts in other sectors?

• Mitigation requires changes throughout the economy. Efforts in one sector determine mitigation efforts in others

Substantial reductions in emissions would require large changes in investment patterns.

Prospects for AFRICA

What are the challenges for Africa (LDC Box WG III-Chap 11)

• GHG will increase: food production leading to short term land conversion• Technology will not be sufficient for the necessary transitions to

low GHG• Access to market and credits, capacities to implement mitigation

options• Non-permanence and leakage•Managing Risks, Co-benefits or trade-offs for mitigation (and

adaptation)

AFOLU and Low Emission Development Pathway

•AFOLU: a variety of mitigation options and a large, cost-competitive mitigation potential—flexibility—for mitigation technologies

•Projections: land related 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.• RISKS: potential implications for biodiversity, food security

and other services (ensuring co-benefits, avoiding land competition)

These Options make economic sense even without the benefit of carbon finance

Forest Sector

• Importance of non forested lands• MRVs• Mitigation as a response for

social adaptation needs?

Mbow et al., 2012, GLP Report series (REDD= challenges and prospects for Africa)

Accounting for Non “Forest” Ecosystems

Agriculture

• Emission from the agricultural sector (including fires, shifting cultivation, cropland, pasture, etc.•Non CO2 GHG emission• Sustainable agriculture potential to offset emission from

agriculture• Importance of bioenergy in the net budget

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

Methods used for an overall carbon budgeting

• Independent observed data• Bottom-up ecosystem inventories of land fluxes,

biomass, etc.; • Satellite based approaches• NPP, GPP, NEP, Fire data and emission from

vegetation burning, Biomass maps; •Modeling• Atmospheric inversion, biogeochemical models,

dynamic vegetation modeling, phenology; • Secondary data (including activity data) to

derive emission databases on emission factors.

Uncertainties and data gaps

• Uncompleted data set:• Data gaps, short period of observations (productivity data, climate data,)

limited data e.g. for CH4 and N2O;• Assessment of fluxes from land use change: • Mostly deforestation and forest degradation, inter-annual variability of C

fluxes;• Implications of definition of forest and non-forest land cover: • Land cover reported areas: level of aggregation or disaggregation of cover

types in classification schemes;• Limited validation datasets: • For model calibration or scaling-up terrestrial fluxes, go beyond the dense

forest zones.

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

Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

© O

cean

/Cor

bis www.mitigation2014.org