1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Regional patterns of GHG emissions are shifting along with changes in the world economy.
Based on Figure 1.6

5. AFOLU emissions for the last four decades/General Trend

6. Global trends from 1971 to 2010 in area of land use/Region
Some of this being transferred to Africa???

7. AFOLU emission-WGII/AR5/ Sector

8. 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

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

10. Prospects for AFRICA

11. 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)

12. 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)

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

14. Forest Sector
• Importance of non forested
lands
• MRVs
• 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 “Forest” Ecosystems

16. 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

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
• 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.

19. 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.

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
©Ocean/Corbis
www.mitigation2014.org