The Role of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

Paper prepared under the TerrAfrica Work Program

John Pender*, Frank Place**, Claudia Ringler* and Marilia Magalhaes*

* International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)** World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

April 2009

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Climate change and land degradation are major threats to the survival and livelihoods of millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Major new opportunities exist to help improve the livelihoods of African smallholder farmers, pastoralists and other resource users while mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases, reducing land degradation and addressing other environmental problems in the context of the current negotiations to develop a post-Kyoto climate change framework, and international, national and local efforts to promote sustainable land management (SLM) and conserve biodiversity. This paper seeks to help address these threats and achieve the potential of these opportunities by informing policy makers, development practitioners, and others concerned about these issues about the linkages between climate change and SLM, the opportunities and constraints to promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation through SLM, and the policy and institutional options to overcome the constraints and realize the opportunities that are now or are becoming available.

This paper was prepared by researchers of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) as part of the TerrAfrica work program, with the support of the World Bank. The research team was supported by a Special Advisory Group (SAG) that included representatives of African governments, the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the World Bank, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the government of Norway, and Ecoagriculture Partners. The SAG provided valuable information and references that were used in the paper, as well as feedback on the outline and first draft of the paper. The authors also drew heavily upon the draft issues paper “Land Management and Climate Change” by Christophe Crepin and Frank Sperling of the World Bank. The authors are grateful to the World Bank for financial support of the research; to Christophe Crepin, Frank Sperling and Florence Richard for their leadership and guidance; and to the members of the SAG for providing valuable information, advice and feedback. In addition to the aforementioned, the following individual provided specific comments on early draft versions of the paper: Elizabeth Bryan, Saveis Sadeghian, Alejandro Kilpatrick , Elsie Attafuah, Evariste Nicoletis, Francois Tapsoba, Kwame Awere, Paule Herodote, Simone Quatrini, Sven Walter and Sara Scherr. Martin Bwale, Elijah Phiri, Odd Arnesen and Dominique Lantieri provided additional guidance. The authors are solely responsible for any errors or omissions that remain.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................i

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................1

2. The Challenge of Climate Variability and Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa................4

2.1 Climate Variability in Sub-Saharan Africa.......................................................................42.2 The Impact of Climate Change on Sub-Saharan Africa...................................................52.3 The Role of Extreme Events.............................................................................................52.4 Land Use Change and Climate Change............................................................................62.5 Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.....8

3. The role of Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa.......................................11

3.1 Land Degradation in sub-Saharan Africa........................................................................113.2 Sustainable Land Management under Climate Change..................................................17

4. Policies and Strategies to Promote Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in SSA through

SLM............................................................................................................................................27

4.1. Existing Policies and Strategies Related to Climate Change and SLM..............................274.2. Opportunities and Constraints to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change through SLM...434.3. Options to Address Opportunities and Constraints to Climate Mitigation and Adaptation through SLM in SSA..................................................................................................................64

5. Conclusions............................................................................................................................76

References....................................................................................................................................103

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Regional averages of temperature increases in Africa from a set of 21 global

models............................................................................................................................................82

Table 2-2. Projected mean temperature increases in African countries........................................83

Table 2-3. Regional averages of change in rainfall in Africa from a set of 21 global models

84

Table 2-4. Transition matrix of changes in environmental constraints to crop agriculture of

land in sub-Saharan Africa.............................................................................................................84

Table 2-5. Severe environmental constraints for rain-fed crop production ..................................85

Table 2-6. Percentage of land with severe versus slight or no constraints for reference

climate and maximum and minimum values occurring in four GCM climate projections ..........85

Table 3-1. The extent of land degradation and its effects in sub-Saharan Africa.........................86

Table 3-2. Importance of causes of degraded lands by continent.................................................87

Table 3-3. Examples of sustainable land management practices for climate change

adaptation and mitigation...............................................................................................................88

Table 3-4. Mitigation potential of alternative land management practices on soil carbon...........90

Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volumes, and values..........................................................................91

Table 4-2. Estimated economic mitigation potential by agricultural and land management

practices in Africa..........................................................................................................................91

Table 4-3. Estimated economic mitigation potential by agricultural and land management

practices in Africa..........................................................................................................................92

Table 4-4. Summary of progress during 2007 in Phase 2 TerrAfrica countries............................93

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Number of flood events per decade, by continent......................................................94

Figure 2-2. Total Number of People Affected by Droughts in Africa. 1964-2005.......................94

Figure 2-3. Projected increases in rainfall from 1961-90 to 2070-99 ...........................................95

Figure 2-4. Changes in sub-Saharan land with no or slight environmental constraints ...............95

Figure 2-5. Probabilistic projections of production impacts in 2030 from climate change ..........96

Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates of land degradation in sub-saharan Africa in 2003...............97

Figure 3-2. Effect of improved land management and climate change on crop yields................98

Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emission sources by location...........................................................99

Figure 4-1. Potential size of REDD payments............................................................................100

Figure 4-2. Potential savings by 2030 from mitigation options in agriculture...........................101

Figure 4-3. Income potential from REDD payments vs. governance indices............................102

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSMMAGALHAESAEZ Agro-ecological zoneAFOLU Agriculture, forestry and other land usesAGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in AfricaA/R Afforestation or reforestationBSAP Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlansCAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development ProgramCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCCX Chicago Climate ExchangeCDCF Community Development Carbon FundCDM Clean Development MechanismCEEPA Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in AfricaCER Certified Emissions ReductionsCGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCIF Climate Investment FundsCILSS Institute of the Sahel of the Interstate Committee of the Sahelian

CountriesCSIF Country Strategic Investment FrameworkCSIRO Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research OrganizationCTF Clean Technology FundDfID Department for International DevelopmentDNA Designated National AuthorityDOE Designated Operational EntityEAP Environment Action PlanEC European CommunityERU Emission Reduction UnitEU European UnionFCPF Forest Carbon Partnership FacilityFIP Forest Investment ProgramGCCA Global Climate Change AllianceGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment FacilityGFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and RecoveryGGAS Greenhouse Gas Abatement SchemeGHG Greenhouse GasesGLASOD Global Land Assessment of DegradationICRISAT International Crop Research Institute of the Semi-Arid TropicsIGAD Intergovernmental Authority for Development

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISDR International Strategy for Disaster ReductionJI Joint ImplementationlCER Long-term Certified Emissions ReductionsLDCF Least Developed Countries FundLULUCF Land use, land use change and Forestry LGP Length of growing periodMEA Multilateral Environmental AgreementNAP National Action Programme of the UNCCDNAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action of the UNFCCCNARS National agricultural research systemNCAR National Center for Atmospheric ResearchNDVI Normalized Difference Vegetative indexNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO Non-governmental organizationNSW New South WalesODA Official Development Assistance OTC Over the counterPoA Programme of ActivitiesPPCR Pilot Program for Climate ResilienceRAP Regional Action ProgrammeREC Regional Economic CommunitiesREDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and DegradationSCCR Special Climate Change FundSCF Strategic Climate FundSLM Sustainable land managementSLWM Sustainable land and water managementSIP Strategic Investment ProgramSRAP Sub-regional Action ProgrammesSRE Scaling up Renewable Energy SRES Special Report on Emissions ScenariosSSA Sub-Saharan AfricatCER Temporary Certified Emissions ReductionsUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSD United States DollarVCS Voluntary Carbon StandardWRI World Resources Institute MMAGALHAES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Coping with climate variability is a major challenge for the people of sub-Saharan Africa

(SSA). The high dependence of the economies and rural people of SSA upon rainfed agriculture,

the prevalence of poverty and food insecurity, and limited development of institutional and

infrastructural capacities in this region make coping with natural climate variability a perennial

challenge. In the past several decades, the number of extreme weather events in particular sub-

regions and the number of people affected by droughts and floods have grown dramatically.

This challenge is being magnified by global climate change in most of SSA. Many climate

models predict negative impacts of climate change on agricultural production and food security

in large parts of SSA. Higher temperatures throughout all of SSA will cause shorter growing

periods, drying of the soil, increased pest and disease pressure, and shifts in suitable areas for

growing crops and livestock. Mean rainfall is predicted by most models to decline in many areas

of SSA, especially in southern Africa, while rainfall is more likely to increase in parts of eastern

and central Africa and predictions are more variable in western Africa. Beyond the impacts on

mean trends, climate change is expected to cause more extreme weather events. Even in many

areas where rainfall is expected to increase, higher temperatures will reduce growing periods.

These changes are predicted to reduce the area of land suitable for rainfed agriculture by 6%

(averaged across several projections), and reduce total agricultural GDP in Africa by 2 to 9%.

Agricultural losses are expected to be as much as 50% in southern Africa during drought years.

These problems can exacerbate and be exacerbated by land degradation. Severe land

degradation – caused mainly by conversion of forests, woodlands and bush lands to agriculture,

overgrazing of rangelands, unsustainable agricultural practices on croplands, and excessive

exploitation of natural habitats – is reducing primary productivity on as much as 20% of the land

in SSA, with the most severe impacts in drylands and forest margins. Climate variability and

change can contribute to land degradation by exposing unprotected soil to more extreme

conditions and straining the capacity of existing land management practices to maintain resource

quality, contributing to de-vegetation, soil erosion, depletion of organic matter and other forms

of degradation. These changes can cause land management practices that were sustainable under

other climate conditions to become unsustainable, and induce more rapid conversion of forest or

i

rangeland to unsustainable agricultural uses. At the same time, land degradation increases the

vulnerability of agricultural production and rural people to extreme weather events and climate

change, as the fertility and buffering capacities of the land and livelihood assets are depleted.

Land degradation is not an inevitable result of climate variability and change, however.

Much depends upon how land resource users respond to climate changes. Climate change

can offer new opportunities for productive and sustainable land management (SLM) practices,

such as reforestation, improved water management, integrated soil fertility management,

conservation agriculture, agroforestry, improved rangeland management and others as a result of

changing biophysical or market conditions.

New opportunities for SLM are arising from regulations and emerging markets to mitigate

global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU)

practices in SSA can play an important role in mitigating GHG emissions by reducing

agricultural emissions of GHG and sequestering carbon in vegetation, litter and soils. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that improved agricultural and

land management practices in SSA, including improved cropland and grazing land management,

restoration of peaty soils, restoration of degraded land and other practices, could reduce GHG

emissions by 265 Mt CO2e per year by 2030 (at opportunity costs of up to $20 per tCO2e).

Afforestation in Africa could sequester 665 Mt CO2 per year, while reduced deforestation and

forest degradation (REDD) in Africa could reduce emissions by 1,260 Mt CO2e in 2030 (at

opportunity costs of up to $100 per tCO2). These potential emission reductions in Africa

represent about 6.5% of global GHG emissions in 2000; a substantial potential impact even if it

would not solve the climate problem by itself. If payments for these carbon mitigation

services were available, this could also provide large flows of funds (more than $10 billion

per year if only half of the potential reductions were achieved) to help promote SLM

activities in Africa.

SLM can also reduce vulnerability and help people adapt to climate variability and change.

For example, farmers in the Ethiopian highlands report investing in soil and water conservation

measures as their most common response to declining rainfall. Many SLM practices can

simultaneously achieve both adaptation and mitigation goals, especially those that increase soil

ii

organic carbon. SLM represents a preventative approach to climate change that can reduce the

need for costly ex post coping measures, like changing crops and livelihoods, clearing new lands

for agriculture and migration. The predicted negative yield impacts of climate change are often

dwarfed by proven positive yield impacts of improved land management. In addition to positive

impacts on average yields, many SLM practices reduce the variability of agricultural production

(for example, soil and water conservation and organic practices that improve soil moisture

holding capacity or integrated pest management practices that reduce vulnerability to pests),

while others can help to diversify agricultural income (for example, agroforestry with non-timber

tree products or crop rotations). A combination of SLM practices can be used to combat the

different manifestations of climate change.

Despite the large potential for SLM to contribute to climate change mitigation and

adaptation in SSA, little of this potential is currently being realized. SLM practices are

adopted on only a small percentage of agricultural land in SSA. Degradation of agricultural land

and expansion of agriculture into forests, woodlands and bush land are continuing at a rapid

pace.

There are many policy frameworks, strategies, institutions and programs to promote

climate mitigation and adaptation through SLM in SSA, but the impacts of these are so far

quite limited. Among the potentially most important mechanisms are the Clean Development

Mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the

voluntary carbon market, various climate mitigation and adaptation funds, the United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Comprehensive African Agricultural

Development Program (CAADP) of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD),

TerrAfrica, and regional, sub-regional and national policy processes linked to these. Current use

of these mechanisms is very limited:

Among AFOLU measures, the CDM allows only afforestation and reforestation (A/R)

projects, but only 10 A/R projects in SSA are in the CDM pipeline.

No offsets are supplied to the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) by SLM projects in

SSA, and only about 0.2 MtCO2e were offset through other voluntary transactions

involving land management in SSA in 2007.

iii

Many carbon mitigation funds have been established, but most do not support AFOLU

activities in SSA.

National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) have been developed by most

African countries, but implementation has been limited by funding and other constraints.

Several adaptation funds have been established, but they are small compared to the total

need, and access to these funds in SSA has been very limited so far.

Implementation of National Action Programmes of the UNCCD has also been limited by

funding constraints and other factors.

NEPAD’s CAADP and TerrAfrica are working in partnership to promote upscaling of

SLM in Africa, with increasing focus on climate change mitigation and adaption. TerrAfrica

has mobilized $150 million in funds that are expected to leverage an additional $1 billion to

support this goal. CAADP and TerrAfrica are working with African governments to develop and

support Country Strategic Investment Frameworks (CSIFs) for SLM. Integrating strategies and

programs to promote SLM and address climate change with each other and with national

development strategies and policies is a major challenge. Addressing this challenge is a major

emphasis of the CSIFs.

There are opportunities to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation through

SLM in SSA through existing mechanisms. In the present context, the opportunities include

increased use of the CDM to finance A/R projects; increased use of voluntary carbon markets

and carbon mitigation funds to test and demonstrate methodologies for a wider range of AFOLU

activities; increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities prioritized by African

governments; increased funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation through programs

promoting SLM in Africa; and increased integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation

activities, including SLM, into development strategies of African governments and donors.

Many challenges and constraints may prevent realization of these opportunities. The main

constraints to expanded use of the CDM to support SLM in the present framework include CDM

eligibility restrictions; high transactions costs of registering and certifying CDM projects; low

prices for certified emissions reductions (CERs), especially for A/R projects; long time lags in

achieving CERs; uncertainty about the benefits of projects and the future of the CDM; and land

iv

tenure insecurity in many African contexts. These constraints are exacerbated by the limited

technical, financial and organizational capacities of key actors in SSA. Many of the same

constraints apply to supporting AFOLU investments through voluntary and other compliance

carbon markets, although to a lesser degree in some cases. Constraints to increased use of

adaptation funds to support SLM activities for climate adaptation include the limited size of

these funds; lack of coordination among key government ministries; lack of technical and human

capacity to implement adaptation activities; and others.

Major new opportunities may arise as a result of development of a cap and trade system in

the United States and inclusion of REDD and a broader set of AFOLU activities in the post

Kyoto climate framework. Prospects for a U.S. cap and trade system have substantially

improved as a result of the election of 2008, although passage of such a system or U.S.

ratification of a post Kyoto treaty is by no means assured. The 2007 Bali Plan of Action of the

UNFCCC urges consideration of REDD payments in the post-Kyoto framework, and many

proposals for such schemes have been tabled by Parties to the convention and others. Proposals

for expanding the eligible AFOLU activities in the post-Kyoto framework are also being

suggested, although the UNFCCC has not taken a formal decision to consider those.

There are many uncertainties, challenges and constraints to realizing these new

opportunities as well. Challenges to U.S. participation in the global carbon market include the

political challenge of achieving ratification of a post-Kyoto treaty; concerns about the

effectiveness and risks of emissions reductions purchased from developing countries; and

possible opposition by U.S. lobby groups to offset payments to foreign land users. Challenges to

REDD payments include the technical difficulties and costs of defining baselines and assuring

additionality; concerns about leakages; potential adverse incentives caused by such payments;

concerns about the fairness of paying countries with a poor record of protecting forests and not

paying those that have protected their forests; possible negative impacts on poor people,

especially where they have insecure land and forest tenure; and concerns about flooding the

carbon market with cheap offsets. Many of the same challenges will affect payments for

AFOLU activities. Many of these concerns are likely to be less problematic than for REDD

payments, except the size of transaction costs relative to the value of payments per hectare.

Given the low payments per hectare possible for many AFOLU activities, projects will need to

v

focus on promoting profitable AFOLU activities by addressing other constraints to adoption,

such as lack of technical, financial and organizational capacity.

Based on this review, we have identified eight options to help take advantage of the

opportunities and overcome the constraints to increased use of SLM in SSA to mitigate and

adapt to climate change:

1. Advocate improvements in the post-Kyoto agreement that address these

opportunities and constraints, including

o Expanding eligibility in the CDM to include all activities that sequester carbon

or reduce emissions of GHGs, including REDD and AFOLU activities;

o Agreeing to national targets for GHG levels of developing countries, and use

a full GHG national accounting approach to credit reductions relative to

baselines (approach could be pilot tested in a few countries and for a specific set

of activities first); and

o Increasing funding for adaptation measures.

2. Simplify and improve the procedures to access funds under the CDM, adaptation

funds and other relevant funds.

3. Explore existing opportunities to increase participation in voluntary carbon

markets.

4. Expand knowledge generation and outreach efforts on the problems of climate

variability and change, land degradation, their linkages, and options for solution.

5. Improve coordination of efforts to address climate and land degradation and

integration with key government strategies and processes.

6. Expand investment in strengthening technical, organizational and human capacity

relevant to climate and land management issues in SSA.

7. Engage community leaders, farmers and other resource users in program and project

development.

8. Address specific policy, institutional and other constraints to SLM and climate

change mitigation and adaptation at national and local level in the context of

Country Strategic Investment Frameworks (CSIFs).

vi

To achieve success in the first two options, it will be quite important for stakeholders

concerned about SLM issues in SSA, including African governments, the UNCCD,

NEPAD, the TerrAfrica partnership, and civil society organizations to be actively involved

in advocating a continuation of the CDM, inclusion of AFOLU and REDD projects in the

CDM, and expansion of adaptation funds.

The remaining options are not closely bound to the UNFCCC process, and can be addressed

within the context of the NEPAD/CAADP and TerrAfrica process to develop CSIFs for SLM in

each country. To achieve effective synergies with climate change issues in these processes, it

will be important to involve key stakeholders from the climate change community in these

processes, where they are not yet involved.

vii

1. Introduction

Climate variability and change are major threats for developing countries, especially for the

people of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The high dependence of the economies and rural people of

SSA upon rainfed agriculture, the prevalence of poverty and food insecurity, and limited

development of institutional and infrastructural capacities in this region make coping with

natural climate variability a perennial challenge. This challenge is being magnified by global

climate change, which is predicted by many models to have some of the most negative impacts

on agricultural production in tropical and sub-tropical regions, and especially in parts of SSA

(Cline 2007; Lobell et al. 2008). Higher temperatures throughout SSA are causing increased

evapotranspiration, shorter growing periods, drying of the soil, increased pest and disease

pressure, shifts in suitable areas for growing crops and livestock, and other problems for

agriculture. Climate change is also expected to cause increased variability of rainfall in much of

SSA, and increased intensity and frequency of extreme events, including droughts, floods, and

storms.

Concerted and effective responses by governments, civil society, the private sector,

communities and individuals are necessary to address the challenges posed by climate variability

and change. At the global level, much emphasis has been placed to date on mitigating climate

change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) through international actions to

implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),

particularly through the Kyoto Protocol, as well as other government and private mitigation

initiatives. Despite these actions, it is now widely recognized that it is unlikely that levels of

GHG can be kept low enough to avoid significant adverse impacts from global warming. As a

result, the need to adapt to climate change is increasingly recognized as well, although less

progress has been made toward international action to address this need.

Many actions are needed to mitigate and adapt to climate variability and change. At a

global level, most mitigation activities have focused on reducing emissions of GHG through

improvements in the energy efficiency of industrial activities. Few of these activities have been

in SSA, given the low level of industrialization of this region. Large economic potential also

exists to help mitigate climate change through activities related to agriculture, forestry and land

use (AFOLU), such as afforestation and reforestation, avoiding deforestation and forest

1

degradation, soil and biomass carbon sequestration through improved cropland and rangeland

management and restoring degraded lands, and reduced GHG emissions through improved

management of livestock and manure, paddy production, and nitrogenous fertilizer. SSA could

contribute substantially to climate change mitigation through such activities. However, these

potentials are so far mostly untapped, largely because most of these activities are not eligible for

certified emissions reduction credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the

Kyoto Protocol, the largest carbon market for developing countries. Other major constraints

include the substantial challenges related to the feasibility and costs of establishing, monitoring

and verifying emissions reductions through projects related to such dispersed, small-scale

activities. Overcoming these constraints requires carbon markets to agree upon and accept simple

standards for measuring GHG offsets, and the development of institutions to monitor and enforce

small-scale activities.

Many of the mitigation actions related to agriculture, forestry and land can also help

people to adapt to climate change. For example, agroforestry activities can increase farmers’

agricultural productivity and income security by improving soil fertility, reducing vulnerability

to drought, and helping to diversify income sources, while also sequestering carbon. Water

harvesting, soil and water conservation measures, conservation agriculture, organic soil fertility

management and other sustainable land and water management practices can have similar

income and resilience enhancing impacts, and would also increase carbon sequestration and thus

reduce GHG emissions. Recognition of the potential of such land and water management

practices to help rural people adapt to climate change is increasing, as evidenced by the fact that

such measures are prioritized by almost all of the National Adaptation Programmes of Action

adopted in the region.

Sustainable land management (SLM) measures are also essential to address problems of

land degradation and associated poverty and food insecurity, as prioritized by all countries that

have ratified the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and to protect

and preserve biodiversity, as prioritized under the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD). Hence, there is potential to pursue several critical objectives synergistically through

promotion of SLM in SSA, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change while reducing land

degradation, conserving biodiversity, and reducing poverty and food insecurity.

2

The objectives of this report are to i) review the evidence on climate variability and

change and land degradation in SSA, ii) assess the potential for sustainable land management

(SLM) approaches to help mitigate and adapt to these problems, iii) consider the policies and

institutional strategies being used to promote mitigation and adaptation (emphasizing those

relevant to SLM in SSA), and iv) identify key opportunities and constraints affecting these

policies and strategies, and options to help improve their effectiveness. The next three sections

of the paper address each of these objectives, while the final section concludes. In each section,

we highlight the key messages at the outset of the section, followed by detailed discussion of

these points.

3

2. The Challenge of Climate Variability and Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa

Key messages

SSA is highly vulnerable to climate variability and change.

o The impacts of climate variability have increased in SSA in recent decades, and

are expected to continue to do so as a result of climate change.

o The impacts of climate change on future land use, agriculture and food security

are predicted to be negative throughout much of Africa, as a result of rising

temperatures everywhere, and declining and more variable rainfall in many

locations.

These impacts will exacerbate and be exacerbated by widespread land degradation in

SSA.

2.1 Climate Variability in Sub-Saharan Africa

The frequency and intensity of climate-related natural disasters have increased in SSA since the

1960s. While trends in the frequency of droughts are not readily discernible for all of SSA,

floods are increasingly common (Figure 2-1) (Gautam 2006). Although there are no Africa-wide

trends in the frequency of droughts, their impact – as indicated by the number of people affected

by droughts – shows a strongly increasing trend (Figure 2-2). During 1960-2006, the majority of

droughts in SSA occurred in East and West Africa with an increasing trend in the frequency of

droughts in East Africa and a declining trend in West Africa. East Africa accounted for more

than 70 percent of all people affected by drought during 1964-2006 in SSA, with Ethiopians

being the most affected (39 percent of all affected) (Ibid.).

4

2.2 The Impact of Climate Change on Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa will be strongly affected by climate change. In fact, the increased trend in

natural disasters mentioned above is likely in part a response to a warmer climate1. The region is

particularly vulnerable to climate change because of its dependence on rainfed agriculture for

both food and income, and high poverty and malnutrition levels. Modeling studies indicate that

the African continent is already warmer today than it was a 100 years ago (Hulme, et al. 2001)

and that it will continue to warm throughout this century (Christensen et al. 2007; Cline 2007;

Hulme et al. 2001). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth

Assessment Report (AR4) predicts that temperature increases will exceed the expected global

mean increase of 2.5oC in all regions of SSA (Table 2-1) (Christensen et al., 2007). Furthermore,

warming is expected to be more intense in the interior semi-arid tropical margins of the Sahara

and central southern Africa (Hulme, et al. 2001). Cline (2007) projects mean temperature

increases of 3-4 oC by the end of the 21st century for most individual countries in the region

(Table 2-2). Some of these temperatures may well exceed the optimal temperature for

agriculture for some key food crops in the region.

Predictions of climate change impacts for precipitation patterns are much less

certain and consistent across models (Hulme et al. 2001; Boko et al. 2007). Generally,

dry areas are expected to get drier and wet areas are likely to become wetter (IPCC AR4

2007). Rainfall is likely to decrease in much of the winter rainfall region in South Africa

and in the western margins of Southern Africa. In East Africa, mean rainfall is likely to

increase—but most of the additional rainfall may fall on the sea, and not on land (see

Funk et al. 2008). In the Sahel, the Guinean Coast and the southern Sahara, it is

uncertain how rainfall will evolve in this century. Overall, the subtropics are likely to get

drier and the tropics are likely to see an increase or little change in precipitation (Table 2-

3, Figure 2-3) (Christensen et al. 2007; Cline 2007) .

1 According to Conway et al. (2008), robust identification and attribution of hydrological change is severely limited by poor data, conflicting behavior across basins/regions, low signal-to-noise ratios, sometimes weak rainfall-runoff relationships and limited assessment of the magnitude and potential effects of land use and cover change or other anthropogenic influences (p. 24).

5

2.3 The Role of Extreme Events

Easterling et al. (2007) cite several recent studies that project increased frequency of extreme

weather events such as droughts and floods, which will have more serious consequences for food

production and food security for SSA than projected changes in mean climate temperature and

precipitation, given the high dependence of the region on rainfed agriculture. Climate variability,

particularly severe droughts, has been directly linked to declines in economic activity (measured

by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), whereas gradual increase in mean temperature has not yet

been linked to changes in GDP (Brown et al. 2008).

The Sahel region, one of the poorest regions of the world with large semi-arid

areas, will likely be among the most impacted by climate extremes. However, there is

still limited information on the predicted incidence of future extreme events (Boko et al.

2007). While some studies link Indian Ocean warming to drought in the Sahel and

expect a drier Sahel over the next 100 years (Held et al. 2005; Tschakert 2007), others

suggest that a warmer North Atlantic Ocean since the 1990s has been the reason for the

Sahel’s recent swing from drought to moist conditions, and that this trend will continue

with a Sahel monsoon 20-30 percent wetter by 2049 compared to the 1950-99 average

(University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) 2005). Given the high

vulnerability of the Sahel combined with high uncertainty regarding future climate

outcomes, it will be crucial to devise robust adaptation strategies that are (cost)-effective

under the full range of expected climate outcomes. Given the larger agreement on rainfall

outcomes for Eastern Africa (but see also Funk et al. 2008) it should be easier to develop

appropriate adaptation and mitigation strategies for this region.

2.4 Land Use Change and Climate Change

2.4.1 Climate change impacts on land use change

Climate change is expected to increase the area of drylands in SSA and hence reduce the area

suited to intensive agriculture. According to Nellemann et al. (2009) past soil erosion in Africa

might have generated yield reductions from 2-40 percent, compared to a global average of 1-8

percent. If nutrient depletion continues in Sub-Saharan Africa, about 950,000 km2 of land is

threatened by irreversible degradation in that region.

6

Studies project that in SSA, constraint-free prime land will decrease while land

with severe constraints is likely to increase under global warming. Fischer et al. (2002)

project the impacts of climate change on agriculture in SSA by using twelve climate

projections of SRES scenarios simulated by four GCM groups (Hadley Centre,

Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research Organization (CSIRO), Canadian

Climate Centre, and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)). In 11 out of 12

GCM climate projections, land with no or only slight constraints decreases while in 10

out of 12 projections land with severe climate, soil, or terrain constraints (prohibiting use

for rainfed agriculture) increases. Agro-ecological zone (AEZ) simulations predict an

expansion of land with severe climate, soil or terrain constraints in SSA, by 30-60 million

hectares, in addition to the 1.5 billion hectares already unfit for rainfed agriculture under

current climate (Fischer et al. 2005). For the SRES A2 scenario, for instance, ‘good’ land

(sum of suitable and very suitable land) decreases for all four GCM climate projections

considered, by an average of 6 percent of total Sub-Saharan prime land, ranging from 8.2

million hectares (NCAR-PCM) to 27.3 million hectares (CSIRO). On the other hand,

land with severe climate, soil or terrain constraints, increases in the majority of climate

projection considered, in the range of 26-61 million hectares. Table 2-4 shows that out of

15.1 million km2 of land facing severe constraints under the reference climate, only

80,000 km2 are expected to improve with climate change while more than 650,000 km2 of

land considered moderately constrained, slightly constrained or unconstrained for

agriculture are predicted to face severe environmental constraints by the 2080s due to

climate change.

All regions of Africa are likely to experience increases in severe environmental

constraints for rainfed crop production according to HadCM3-A1F1 projections for 2080.

Northern, Southern and Western Africa already contain most of the land that is too dry

for rainfed production. These regions are predicted to face increases in the share of area

too dry for rainfed cultivation from 88%, 59% and 51% during 1961-1992 to 95%, 79%

and 54% by 2080, respectively (Table 2-5). Moreover, model scenarios project a decrease

in land area with no constraints or only slight constraints for all regions of Africa, with

the Southern region expecting to see a decrease of up to 90% according to the most

pessimistic scenarios (Table 2-6) (Fischer, Shah, and Van Velthuizen 2002). Figure 2-4

7

shows that land suitability for rainfed agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa decreases with

the increase of atmospheric CO2 across different scenarios.

2.4.2 Land use change impacts on climate

Available global climate models poorly replicate present and past rainfall variability in Africa.

Many global climate models do not consider the effects of El Niño events on climate variability

or the effects of changes in land covers, vegetation feedbacks and feedbacks from dust aerosol

production in Africa and other regions (Hulme et al. 2001; Christensen et al. 2007). However,

the importance of land-cover change in altering regional climate in Africa has long been

suggested (Hulme et al. 2001). Different studies indicate that vegetation patterns help shape the

climatic zones of Africa and, changes in vegetation result in alteration of surface properties and

the efficiency of ecosystem exchange of water, energy and CO2 with the atmosphere

(Christensen et al. 2007). As a result of these limitations, available climate models might

underestimate the impacts of global warming in regions facing land degradation and reduction in

the vegetation cover.

Among the regions of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rate of land

degradation (World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 2005). In Africa, land

degradation affects 67 percent of total land area with 25 percent characterized as severe

and very severely degraded and 4 to 7 percent as non-reclaimable. Some of the countries

that have the worst rates of soil degradation are: Rwanda and Burundi (57 percent),

Burkina Faso (38 percent), Lesotho (32 percent), Madagascar (31 percent), Togo and

Nigeria (28 percent), Niger and South Africa (27 percent) and Ethiopia (25 percent)

(Bwalya et al. 2009). Defries (2002) estimates that land cover change, such as continued

deforestation expected to occur in the tropics and subtropics will have a warming effect

as a result of reduced carbon assimilation.

2.5 Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to face the largest challenges regarding food security as a result

of climate change and other drivers of global change (Easterling et al. 2007). Overall, Fischer et

al. (2005) estimate that as a result of climate change, agricultural GDP in Africa is expected to

fall by between -2 to -8 percent (HadCM3 and CGCM2) and -7 to -9 percent (CSIRO model)

8

(Fischer et al. 2005). Many farmers in Africa are likely to experience net revenue losses as a

result of climate change, particularly as a result of increased variability and extreme events.

Dryland farmers, especially the poorest ones, are expected to be severely affected.

Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn (2006) estimated that a 10 percent increase in

temperature will lead to a loss in net revenues per hectare, on average, of 8.2 percent for

rainfed production. On the other hand, irrigated farmers are likely to have slight gains in

productivity (as higher temperatures support yield growth in most of Africa as long as

sufficient water is available), which suggests that irrigation might be an effective

adaptation strategy2.

Output from 20 GCMs shows that many food crops in Southern Africa will be

negatively affected without adaptation (Lobell et al. 2008). During extreme El Niño years

(drought years), productivity in southern Africa is expected to drop by 20 to 50 percent,

with maize being the crop most drastically affected (Stige et al. 2006). Crops and regions

likely to be particularly adversely affected from climate change include: maize and wheat

in Southern Africa, groundnuts in West Africa and wheat in the Sahel (Lobell et al.

2008). Fischer et al. (2005) even suggest that by 2080 suitable land for wheat might

completely disappear in Africa. However, these predictions do not take into account

improvements in crop technologies and changes in farm management practices, and thus

might overestimate adverse impacts. On the other hand, these predictions likely

underestimate the potential impacts of extreme events, including storms, fires, and floods,

and are not well suited to model the long-term effect of droughts on river flows and

groundwater availability.

According to Fischer et al. (2005), most climate model scenarios agree that

Sudan, Nigeria, Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Sierra

Leone, Angola, Mozambique and Niger are likely to lose cereal production potential by

the 2080s. Those countries account for 45 percent of the total number of undernourished

people in sub-Sahara Africa, or 87 million undernourished people. On the other hand,

Zaire, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Benin, Togo, Ghana and

2 The authors used the Ricardian model, linking land rents and climate, proxied by the present value of future net revenue, for this analysis. This is somewhat controversial for the context in SSA given poor land and other markets.

9

Guinea (accounting for 38 percent of the undernourished population in SSA) are

projected to gain cereal-production potential by the 2080s (Fischer, Shah, and Van

Velthuizen 2002; Fischer et al. 2005).

Climate variations tend to disproportionately affect livelihoods of the rural poor

as a result of their reduced capacity to buffer against climate risk through assets or the

financial market (Brown et al. 2008). Therefore, appropriate adaptation measures targeted

at this group should be a priority.

Sustainable land management measures are among the important approaches that

households can use to adapt to climate vulnerability and change. For example, most

farmers in Ethiopia consider soil and water conservation techniques a key strategy to

adapt to global warming (Deressa 2008). SLM measures can also help to mitigate GHG

emissions and climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil and vegetation, or by

reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide or methane caused by poor land

management practices.

However, climate change adaptation strategies that do not involve sustainable

land management approaches, such as land expansion into forest areas or excessive crop

input applications, including pesticides, might exacerbate land degradation and contribute

to GHG emissions. For instance, in the Morogoro region of Tanzania, environmental

degradation has increased as a result of farmers’ responses to droughts and other

environmental stresses, which have involved agricultural intensification and

extensification, livelihood diversification and migration (Paavola 2004). While these

strategies have been instrumental for farmers’ survival, they have also contributed to

increased deforestation, soil nutrient depletion, soil erosion and reduced water retention.

Therefore, by increasing environmental degradation, short-term adaptation strategies

adopted to cope with current climate changes might increase the vulnerability of the

population to future impacts of climate change.

It is therefore critical to examine the potential for SLM approaches to help

mitigate and adapt to climate change in SSA, as well as to reverse land degradation. The

next section addresses these issues in detail.

10

3. The role of Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa

Key messages

Land degradation is widespread in Africa, especially in drylands and forest margin

areas.

Land degradation in SSA is caused mainly by conversion of forests, woodlands and

rangelands to crop production; overgrazing of rangelands; and unsustainable

agricultural practices on croplands.

Climate variability and change can contribute to land degradation by making current

land use practices unsustainable and inducing more rapid conversion of land to

unsustainable uses. However, climate change also can offer new opportunities for

sustainable land management, by increasing temperature and rainfall in some

environments, through CO2 fertilization effects, or through the development of markets

for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Land degradation increases the vulnerability of rural people in SSA to climate variability

and change, while SLM can reduce it.

SLM also provides major opportunities to mitigate climate change by sequestering

carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

3.1 Land Degradation in sub-Saharan Africa

It is widely accepted that management of African lands is much less productive and sustainable

than what is possible or desirable. The strong evidence for this comes from data on land

degradation and its effects.

The first attempt to quantify the extent and severity of land degradation in Africa was

from a “convergence of evidence” and expert consensus through the Global Assessment of Soil

Degradation (GLASOD) project (Oldeman, 1994). That effort generated data which revealed

that by 1990 some 20 percent of the region was affected by slight to extreme land degradation.

The data indicate that the land degradation in different classes is light (one percent), moderate

(four percent), severe (five percent) and very severe (seven percent) such that seven percent of

11

the region is degraded to such an extent as to directly affect its productive potential. All land

uses have significant degraded areas, with agriculture and rangeland estimated to have the

greatest proportion.

A more recent assessment of human induced land degradation was made by Vlek et al

(2008) using analyses of changes in the normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) between

1981 and 2003. The NDVI is a measure of “greenness” based on analyses of satellite images.

Changes in the NDVI over time are caused both by changes in rainfall as well as by changes in

management/exploitation by humans and animals. They found that in more than 50% of the sites,

there was an increase in NDVI, or a greening phenomenon. For the most part, these areas

correspond to increases in annual rainfall amounts, often starting from historically low levels in

the early 1980s. In these cases, it is not possible to determine whether land management is

improving or worsening and therefore whether land degradation is occurring; it is possible that

the increased rainfall is off-setting negative effects of exploitation in terms of overall vegetation

estimates.

Vlek et al (2008) find that overall in sub-Saharan Africa, about 10% of the land showed

clear declines in NDVI which were unrelated to rainfall decline and were thus classified as

degraded areas (the authors conjecture that total degraded area in sub-Saharan Africa should

include another 10% of land identified as severely degraded by GLASOD, because that land

would not have shown further decline in NDVI). These areas are home to about 60 million

people and a large proportion can be found in the Sahelian semi-arid belt south of the Sahara and

extending eastward into Sudan and Ethiopia (see Figure 2.1). In terms of land use, the areas with

the highest rates of degradation were mixed forest/savanna (24%), mixed forest/cropland (15%)

and agriculture (9%)3. Thus, there have been clear patterns of vegetation decline in forest margin

areas. On the other hand, though woodlands and grasslands have sizeable degraded areas, as a

percent of total land area, they are more likely to have had stable or increasing vegetation cover

over the period studied.

Table 3-1 provides additional evidence on specific forms of land degradation.

Soil loss from erosion is high and water stress is widespread. Eswaran et al. (1997)

estimated that only 14% of the continent is relatively free of moisture stress. Soil

phosphorus deficiency is widespread in all regions and remains a major constraint to 3 A land unit was classified as agriculture if more than 50% of the area was agriculture – with clearly demarcated crop or pasture fields.

12

agricultural productivity (Verchot et al. 2007) and aluminum toxicity and low cation

exchange capacity are major constraints on the continent (FAO 2000). Henao and

Banaante (2006) estimate that 85 percent of African farmland had nutrient mining rates

of more than 30 kg/ha of nutrients annually and 40% of land had mining rates of over 60

kg/ha per year. If these figures are extrapolated to the roughly 190 million hectares of

cultivated land in Africa, this would translate into a fertilizer replacement cost of well

over $500 million in 2006 and even more in 2008, with soaring fertilizer prices.

Increases in agricultural production have largely been met through opening up new land

to cultivation and have been obtained at the cost of soil degradation as soils are mined for

their nutrients.

The consequences are enormous. Agricultural productivity has been stagnant on

the continent, whereas it has increased markedly elsewhere. As much as 25% of land

productivity has been lost to degradation in the second half of the 20th century in Africa

(Oldeman 1998). Because of the importance of agriculture to African economies, this

has cost between 1% to 9% of GDP, depending on the country (Dregne and Kassas 1991;

Dreschel et al 2001). Few African countries are self-sufficient in food production,

resulting in massive annual food imports. At the household level, rural poverty rates in

Africa remain high, with an increase of the number of rural poor between 1993 and 2002

(World Bank 2007). In 2001, about 28 million Africans faced food emergencies due to

catastrophic events (e.g. flooding) that were caused or exacerbated by land degradation

(FAO 2001b).

3.1.1. Causes of land degradation

The important proximate causes of land degradation are:

Conversion of forests, woodlands, and bushlands which are ill-suited to permanent

agriculture;

Overgrazing of rangelands;

Excessive exploitation of natural habitats (e.g. harvesting for fuelwood in woodlands);

and

13

Unsustainable agricultural practices (e.g., farming on steep slopes without sufficient use

of soil and water conservation measures, excessive tillage, declining use of fallow

without application of soil nutrients).

In terms of affected area, UNEP (1997) estimated that overgrazing was the most

important contributor to degradation, followed by poor agricultural practices and then by over-

exploitation (see Table 3-2). It is useful to explore these causes in more detail because they shed

light on useful technological, institutional, and policy interventions that can reverse land

degradation processes and as well contribute positively to climate change adaptation and

mitigation.

In terms of land conversion, 15 million hectares of forests were cleared annually in

Africa during the 1980s, reducing slightly to 12 million per year in the 1990’s (FAO 2001a).

The rate of deforestation of 0.6% per year for the past 15 years is among the highest globally.

About 26% of deforestation is estimated to pave the way for smallholder agriculture (FAO

2001a). Studies have found that population growth is a good predictor of land use change, for

example in Uganda and Malawi (Otsuka and Place 2001). Between 1961 and 1999, agricultural

expansion accounted for two-thirds of crop production increase in sub-Saharan Africa, compared

to only 29% globally (MEA 2005). In the absence of growth in employment opportunities in

urban areas, rural population continues to grow rapidly in sub-Saharan Africa (at about 2.3%),

fueling the quest for new agricultural land.

With respect to rangelands, WRI (1994) estimated that between 1945 and 1992, almost

500 million hectares of African rangelands became degraded. Overgrazing was estimated to

have accounted for half of the degradation. However there is much unsettled debate about how

much of the observed degradation (e.g. vegetation loss) is due to management and how much to

climate changes. Both are clearly related, as climate change shocks, like a prolonged drought,

will lead to reduced vegetation to which herd size cannot be easily adjusted in the short term.

Hiernaux (1993) and Behnke and Scoones (1993) both indicate that unanticipated changes in

climate have had a more important impact on rangeland vegetation than rangeland management,

arguing therefore that rangeland degradation is not irreversible in most cases.

There are not many studies that quantify the extent of excessive exploitation of natural

habitats. Instead, studies often point towards the dependence of rural populations on the

resources found in natural habitats. In Zambia, for example, more than half the country’s

14

fuelwood is converted to charcoal, requiring the clearance of some 430 km2 of woodland every

year to produce more than 100,000 tonnes of charcoal (Chenje 2000). In 2000, over 175 million

m3 of wood were used in Western Africa for fuelwood and charcoal production (Broadhead et al

2001). Similarly, high percentages of energy are met from fuelwood and charcoal in most

African countries such as The Gambia (85 %), Niger (90 %), Uganda (96%) and Kenya (75%)

(Broadhead et al 2001).

Many case studies have shown that the rate of adoption of soil fertility, soil conservation,

and water management practices is low in SSA, although substantial numbers of farmers do use

particular practices. Within SSA, there are at least 167,000 certified organic farms operating a

total organic area of about 231,000 ha (Willer, Yussefi-Menzler and Sorensen 2008). According

to UNEP-UNCTAD (2008), at least 1.9 million farmers in Africa use practices that could be

classified as “near organic” on nearly 2 million hectares; i.e., traditional sustainable land

management practices that apply similar principles as those applied in organic agriculture. This

estimate is based on a review of nearly 300 interventions promoting such practices in developing

countries (Pretty et al. 2006; Pretty et al. 2003). In East Africa, Kruseman et al (2006) show that

fewer than 5% of farmers in Tigray practice long fallows, improved fallows, mulch, or apply

green manures and only 7% plowed crop residues back into the soil. Benin (2006) finds

similarly low percentages of plots having been improved by farmers in the Amhara region of

Ethiopia. Pender et al. (2004) found in Uganda that fewer than 20% of plots had received

inorganic fertilizer, manure, compost, or mulch and only one quarter incorporated crop residues.

In the Sahel, some technologies, such as contour ridging and zai pits are becoming widespread.

But still, many practices, especially in terms of adding nutrients to soils, remains low (Shapiro

and Sanders, 2002). In a study in central Malawi, Place et al (2001) found that just 21% of

farmers invested in water management. Wyatt (2002) found terracing investment in the past five

years on just 33% of plots, despite the hilly terrain.

On the other hand, there have been a few land management practices where adoption

rates have expanded noticeably. The expansion of the zai pit system in Burkina Faso and Niger

has been well documented (e.g. Shapiro and Sanders 2002; Franzel, et al. 2004). Stone terracing

was found to be practiced by almost half of farmers in Tigray (Kruseman et al 2006) and

Deininger et al (2003) estimated that 47% of all Ethiopian farmers had built or maintained

terraces between 1999 and 2001. Rainwater harvesting methods is another that has been found

15

to be widely used, e.g. in semi-arid Tanzania (Hatibu et al 2001).4 Various other conservation

techniques, like bunding (e.g. Kenya), minimal tillage (e.g. Zambia), agroforestry (e.g.

Tanzania), or terracing (e.g. Madagascar), are often practiced by at least 20% of farmers across a

range of African sites, putting total adoption in the millions. Despite these bright spots, what is

considered to be a good adoption rate for recently introduced technologies is tens of thousands of

farmers and for mature technologies, upwards of 50% of plots/farmers. Hence, there remains

quite a large amount of land without significant improvement. Based on a review of these and

other studies, Pender (2008) estimated that at least 6 million smallholder farmers in SSA are

using low-cost, productivity-enhancing land management practices on at least 5 million ha of

land. Although this appears to be a large number, it still represents less than 3% of total cropland

in SSA (191 million ha in 2005 [FAOSTAT 2008]).

The reasons for low adoption are many. There are certainly cases where technologies are

not attractive to farmers, for example, those which require significant labor, land, or cash and

those which may seem to pay off only well into the future. But a large number of technologies

are found to be ‘technically’ effective and used in certain communities, by certain farmers, or on

certain crops. That suggests that it may not be the technology per se, but the conditions that

shape costs, benefits and risks from the technology. For example, investments in land have been

found many times to be related to improved market access or production of higher value crops

(Place et al 2003). Certainly, the lack of strong profit potential of many traditional crops coupled

with high risks (e.g. from variable rainfall and markets) reduces incentives for investments of

any kind in agriculture. Kassie, et al. (2008) and Kato et al. (2009) both find for the Nile basin in

Ethiopia that soil and water conservation investments perform differently in different rainfall

areas and regions, which underscores the importance of careful geographical targeting when

promoting and scaling up soil and water conservation technologies. Lastly, even where

technologies and incentives are sufficient, there may still be missed opportunities for adoption

due to poor information flows to farmers. This is especially a consideration for SLM practices

that are knowledge intensive.

4 It should be noted that adoption rates of relatively recently developed technologies are often bolstered by significant investment in dissemination.

16

3.2 Sustainable Land Management under Climate Change

The relationships between land degradation and sustainable land management and climate

change are complex and multi-directional. Briefly, they can be described by 4 distinct processes:

Climate change effects on land management and land degradation

Climate change and variability can contribute to land degradation by making current land

management practices unsustainable (e.g, through increased rainfall/flooding) or through

inducing more rapid conversion of land into unsustainable practices.

Climate change may offer new opportunities for sustainable land management by

enhancing rainfall or growing periods in some places or through creating markets that

might pay farmers for improved sustainable land management practices.

Effects of land degradation/sustainable land management on climate change impacts

Land degradation increases vulnerability of people to climate variability and change, by

restricting the range of viable rural enterprises, reducing average agricultural productivity

and incomes, increasing production vulnerability, and reducing local resource asset

levels, thus undermining people’s ability to adapt to climate change.

Sustainable land management can reduce vulnerability to climate change and increase

people’s ability to adapt and in many cases can contribute to climate change mitigation

through improved carbon sequestration and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Each of these relationships is discussed in turn, drawing on both conceptual and empirical

analyses.

3.2.1: Climate variability and change may exacerbate land degradation

The types of climate change predicted for sub-Saharan Africa – increased temperatures, reduced

rainfall in many places, prolonged droughts, reduced growing periods, and increased high

intensity rainfall events–can intensify degradation from unprotected sites and strain the ability of

existing land management practices to maintain resource quality. Some examples of likely

climate change effects are increased extreme rainfall events causing increased erosion and

17

flooding in sloping lands and prolonged drought periods causing depletion of vegetation and soil

microfauna in cultivated lands and rangelands. In general, increased temperatures and reduced

rainfall will increase aridity. ICRISAT estimates that with a 2oC increase in temperature coupled

with a 10 percent decline in rainfall, 1.6 million km2 of sub-humid areas in Africa will become

semi-arid and 1.1 million km2 of semi-arid areas will become arid (Cooper et al. 2009). The

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) notes that both effects are likely to alter

vegetation cover, both in terms of reducing overall levels, but also by altering the diversity of

species (those which can thrive on higher temperatures and increased carbon dioxide levels will

outcompete others).

These effects are quite evident in the rainfall – vegetation cover relationships in the

Sahelian rangelands. Between 1970 and 2000, annual rainfall in 26 of the 30 years was below

the historic long term average (Brooks 2004) creating what many observed as desertification (see

also section 2). Droughts, in combination with human or livestock population pressure, have

induced a conversion from grasslands to more degraded shrublands (MEA 2005).

The flipside of prolonged and frequent droughts are floods. In 2007 and 2008, over 20

African countries have been severely affected by floods causing great crop loss and dozens of

deaths. One of the latest examples was in southern Africa from December 2007-January 2008.

That experience showed that prevailing topography and soil characteristics in the region can lead

quickly to soil saturation and flooding, even with modest increases in rainfall above the norm.

Climate change may also lead to more rapid conversion of natural habitats into agriculture or to

unsustainable use/harvesting of natural resources. As trends over the past 20 years have shown,

expansion of agricultural area remains high in Africa. By contrast, the Green Revolution in Asia

is estimated to have saved as much as 271 million of hectares of land from conversion to

cropland compared to the absence of global cereal productivity increases (UNFCCC 2008). Low

productivity is undoubtedly a contributing factor to high rates of land clearing, and climate

change is expected to put even more downward pressure on yields of major crops in much of

Africa. Studies in Africa have also shown that in times of drought and other hardships,

communities often resort to harvesting of wild resources – fruits, fodders, grasses, and other

marketable products – for survival. Where climate change increases the frequency and scale of

demand for natural resource harvesting, there is greater likelihood of resource degradation.

18

However, degradation is not an inevitable result of climate variability and change.

For example, many of the predicted rainfall and length of growing season decreases will

not be new to communities although they will increase in prevalence. The impact of such

events much depends on the capacity of households and communities to mitigate and

adapt to such changes. As an example, in the Makindu area of Kenya, the average length

of growing period (LGP) could decrease by 5-10% by the year 2050, when temperatures

are predicted to have increased by 1-2oC (Thornton et al 2006). However, Cooper et al

(2009) note that even today farmers at Makindu experience LGP’s ranging from 25 days

(crop failure) to over 175 days. Thus, a 5-10% decrease in the average LGP is unlikely

to result in farmers having to cope in the future with a situation that they have not and are

not already experiencing; existing sustainable land and water management technologies

to meet current climate variability can therefore help farmers immensely to cope with

future climate change (Cooper et al 2009). Thus, adapting to more frequent extreme

climate events will likely be the larger challenge for African farmers. This will require

concerted efforts on the part of local institutions and national policy makers, a theme

which will be addressed in section 4.

3.2.2 Climate change also may offer new opportunities for improved land management and

livelihoods

While much of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to face harsher agro-climatic conditions, some

areas are predicted to improve. For example, under certain climate change scenarios through

2050, large areas of Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Nigeria are

predicted to experience an increase in the length of growing period (Thornton et al, 2006),

leading to potentially higher agricultural productivity in such areas. This in turn may offer

greater incentives for investment in agriculture and land management. Increased carbon dioxide

from climate change is expected to have a positive effect on plant growth for many C3 plants

such as rice, wheat, soybeans, legumes, and most trees (Cline 2007). This is through the

stimulus of CO2, for a given level of water and sunlight, on the photosynthesis process which

produces energy for plant growth.

With climate change markets for greenhouse gas emission reduction and carbon

sequestration have emerged, promoted by the Kyoto Protocol and voluntary markets.

19

Furthermore, in late 2005, a process was initiated to develop a formal program for financing of

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in developing countries (REDD). This

may be formally approved by countries in Copenhagen 2009 to set the stage for a financial

mechanism to be implemented in the post-2012 climate change framework.5 Improved

management of forests would therefore possibly be rewarded in terms of carbon

maintained/increased. SLM on non-forested lands could help enable this to happen through

increased provision of forest products on farms and through improving land productivity and

reducing incentives for forest conversion.

Concurrently, there are discussions for rewarding carbon sequestration in all landscapes,

including agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). While AFOLU is not being

considered to fall under REDD or other formal carbon market mechanisms in the 2009

negotiations, efforts are underway to develop a framework and timetable for its future inclusion.

In addition, standards for AFOLU are being prepared, and pilot projects are already under

development using voluntary carbon markets, including the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS).

SLM will be vital for such AFOLU programs to succeed, as it is only with improved SLM that

increased carbon sequestration in vegetation and soils can occur (see section 3.2.4 below for

some concrete examples).

3.2.3 Land degradation increases the vulnerability of rural people to climate change

Land degradation increases vulnerability of people to climate variability and change, by

restricting the range of viable rural enterprises, reducing average agricultural productivity and

incomes, increasing production vulnerability (e.g., by reducing soil water holding capacity and

organic matter content), and reducing local resource asset levels (broadly defined), thus

undermining people’s ability to adapt to climate change (e.g., reduced ability to collect forest

products or produce livestock in response to shortfalls in crop production due to climate

variation). Ample studies show that crop yields are lower on degraded lands (e.g. Vanlauwe et

al. 2007; Shepherd and Soule 1998)). Moreover, the yield response to fertilizer applications is

lower on degraded land (Bationo et al. (2003) in Niger and Marenya (2008) in Kenya).

Degraded areas are often widespread, affecting entire communities (Shepherd and Walsh, 2007)

and have been found to be related to the length of time under cultivation (Marenya 2008). But 5 The prospects for promoting SLM through carbon markets, REDD payments, and other policy approaches are discussed further in section 4 of the paper.

20

other studies have found that the degree of degradation can also vary within farm units. For

example, greater land degradation often occurs on the more distant fields from the household

compound, since application of manure and other organic materials tends to be concentrated

close to the residence (Tittonell et al. 2005, Prudencio 1993, Bamwerinde et al 2006). Thus, the

effect of degradation on vulnerability to climate change may be multifaceted – reaching many

more households than what might be predicted from land degradation maps.

A study by Place et al (2006) contrasting the central and western highlands of Kenya

demonstrates how differences in land stewardship and productivity can make a huge difference

in enterprise opportunities and poverty. While they have similar rainfall patterns, the western

Kenya highlands are characterized by depleted soils, poor yields, and lack of commercial

enterprises, while in the central highlands, soil conservation and fertility inputs are high, a wide

range of profitable crop, livestock and tree enterprises are tested and grown, and rural poverty

rates are the lowest in all of Kenya. The adaptive capacity of central Kenya to climate change is

much greater as a result.

Finally, it is worthwhile to review the CEEPA (Centre for Environmental Economics and

Policy in Africa) studies of climate impacts on agriculture. Though the studies used cross-

sectional household data, the results from across 8 different countries consistently found that

households received lower income from agriculture where rainfall was lower, and also often

when temperatures were higher, controlling for several other factors (e.g. Deressa 2006, for

Ethiopia). This shows that profitable agricultural opportunities in the more challenging climates

are either not generally available or are underutilized by farmers, even where they are available.

Hence, communities are already economically vulnerable to climates that are predicted to

become more prevalent. Land degradation which restricts the types of enterprises which are

viable worsens this. Bamwerinde et al (2005), for example, found that plots of lower quality

(e.g. stoney lands) in southwest Uganda were dominated by a single land use, woodlots.

3.2.4 Sustainable land management is effective in climate change adaptation and mitigation

Sustainable land management offers opportunities for enhancing the adaptation capacity of

communities and for mitigating the effects of climate change. Many practices can

simultaneously achieve both adaptation and mitigation goals, especially those which increase soil

21

organic carbon. Principles of diversification (especially for adaptation) and revegetation

(especially for mitigation) are critical in applying SLM practices under climate change.

Adaptation

Most, if not all of the practices currently promoted under the heading of sustainable land

management practices, are likely to be even more necessary and beneficial under the specter of

climate change. This is illustrated in Figure 3.2, which shows generally likely impacts on Africa

crop yields from climate change, from sustainable land management practices, and from the

interaction of both. Note that predicted negative yield impacts from climate change are still

dwarfed by positive proven yield impacts from sustainable land management practices (Cooper

et al 2009). To illustrate this more clearly, Cooper et al (2009) explore the situation in a semi

arid area of Kenya where the average LGP under current climate and normal soil management is

110 days. This is reduced by 8%, with a 3oC rise in temperature, to 101 days under an average

climate change scenario. However, the application of maize residue mulch under the climate

change scenario in fact raises the average LGP to 113 days. Thus, while research must continue

to improve land management options for farmers, there are ample technologies available that can

effectively help farmers adapt to climate change (and in some cases overcome climate change).

Table 3.3 lists a number of beneficial SLM practices, under the sub-headings of improved

crop and livestock management, improved soil management, and improved water management.

Many of the technologies will help to increase average productivity (e.g. improved agronomic

practices, nutrient management, enriched pastures, and water management), some of those and

others will also reduce variability of production (e.g irrigation and integrated pest management

(IPM)) and yet others may serve to diversify agricultural portfolios (e.g. agroforestry systems,

crop rotations). The processes through which the SLM practices affect productivity vary across

different practices and thus there are often additive and possibly synergistic effects through

integration of two or more practices. For example, ICRISAT (1985) found that water

management and nutrient management together increased water use efficiency by a large amount

in Niger. Long term trials at Kabete in Kenya found that soil carbon stocks were 30% greater

through a combination of animal manure and mineral fertilizer application than on any single

nutrient management method (Nandwa and Bekunda 1998). With predictions of increased

droughts, higher temperatures (and evaporation rates), and more frequent catastrophic rainfall

22

events, the incremental impact of many of the SLM practices is likely to increase, e.g. those

which better manage scarce water resources, those that preserve soil moisture (e.g. zero tillage),

and those which can prevent soil erosion. In addition to the anticipated impacts of SLM on

agricultural productivity, SLM practiced on farms and off farms, especially if coordinated at

catchment or watershed scales, can have important impacts off-site, such as on hydrological

flows, hydroelectric power generation, and flooding risk, all of which are expected to be affected

by climate change.

There is mixed evidence on farmer adoption of SLM specifically as an adaptation

strategy to climate change. For example, in South Africa, Thomas et al (2007) found that

farmers and communities focused on diversification of enterprises and enhancing networks but

not on investing in SLM practices (also found in Senegal, Sene et al 2006). However, Benhin

(2006) found that farmers in other South African sites were in fact increasing use of irrigation

and soil conservation practices as part of adaptation strategies (also found in Kenya by Kabubo-

Mariara and Karanja, 2006). In the Nile Basin of Ethiopia, Yesuf, et al. (2008) found that 31%

of farmers who perceived long term declines in rainfall (most farmers surveyed) reported

investing in soil and water conservation measures – the most common adaptation measure

adopted – while 4% reported adopting water harvesting and 3% planted trees as adaptation

measures.

One clear adaptation practice appears to be the choice of crops grown. Kurukulasuriya

and Mendelsohn (2006) found that crop choice across 11 African countries is highly related to

temperature and precipitation. The conclusion they draw is that more attention must be given to

expanding the range of crops suitable to warmer and drier climates. However, this ignores the

strong role that some SLM practices can play in overcoming or reversing the productivity

decreasing impact of harsher climate change (even without making a crop choice change), as

shown above. Inattention to the potential of SLM as an adaptation strategy in current literature

(e.g. for Zambia, Jain 2006) could lead the prioritization of lead future research and development

investments astray.

Mitigation

Sustainable land management can play a significant role in climate change mitigation through

reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and sequestering carbon in vegetation, litter, and soils.

23

A first major impact in Africa would be on the rate of land conversion to cultivation, which as

noted above, is still high. In fact, according to Figure 3.3, land use change and deforestation

accounts for the overwhelming amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Africa, about 64%, which

is a much greater share of GHG emissions than elsewhere in the world. As will be discussed

below, many of the SLM practices which are useful for climate change adaptation and mitigation

are also productivity enhancing, and as such would depress the push factors which have long

induced rapid land conversion in Africa, as has been the experience in Asia.

In addition to their effects on land use change, SLM practices can also have important

mitigation effects in situ, on the agricultural lands themselves. The UNFCCC (2008) estimates

that for Africa, 924 mega tons of additional CO2 could be stored with the adoption of improved

agricultural practices. Much of this (89%) is predicted to come from soil carbon, because

although the amount of additional carbon that can be sequestered in soils is less than the potential

above ground (e.g. through trees),for a given size of land, the total volume of soil is high. The

types of practices that can build soil carbon almost always represent win-win outcomes because

improved soil carbon has been proven to contribute positively to plant growth and agricultural

productivity (Swift and Shepherd 2007).

Table 3.3 provided a list of many types of land and water management practices that can

contribute to soil carbon build up (last column). Table 3.4 enriches that by providing estimates

of the amount of soil carbon sequestration that could be achieved through effective application of

alternative land management practices (Smith and Martino 2007). First, it should be noted that

the potential for increased carbon sequestration is higher in humid areas than in dry areas, for

most SLM practices. For example, many SLM practices that are being practiced by some

farmers in Africa, such as improved agronomy, minimum tillage, nutrient management, and

agroforestry can each store between 0.26 and 0.33 tons per hectare of additional CO2 equivalent

per year, per hectare in the drier areas and between 0.55 and 0.80 in more humid areas. Second,

more significant restoration activities are likely to be much more effective in soil carbon

sequestration than practices that support intensive agriculture. Hence, table 3.4 shows much

higher per hectare carbon storage from set asides (i.e. exclosures), and restoration of organic

soils (e.g. peats) and degraded lands. The same can hold true for rehabilitation of degraded

rangeland where set aside practices and revegetation efforts could significantly increase carbon

storage. The table also indicates that farmers are likely to be able to enhance soil carbon

24

sequestration through the integrated use of several SLM practices and communities are likely to

benefit more from possible carbon projects through integrated use of on-farm and off-farm SLM

practices.

In parallel to discussions to identify beneficial SLM practices, there is also some debate

about potential harmful practices. One receiving significant attention is the agricultural

intensification model of irrigation and high fertilizer use. Smith and Martino (2007) review

findings that irrigation and nitrogen fertilizers contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, in

South Asia, increased use of fertilizer is a main source of emissions from agriculture. Further,

there is additional contribution to greenhouse gases during the production of fertilizers.

However, Vlek et al. (2004) point out that in a landscape context, if the use of fertilizers can

enable the removal of land from agriculture and possible reforestation on that land, then fertilizer

use can have a clear positive effect on net carbon sequestration. But whether agricultural land

could be reduced on a large scale in Africa following yield increases is debatable, given the

limited extent of non-agricultural employment opportunities.

Lastly, various land management practices can contribute to climate change mitigation

through above ground carbon sequestration. The most important of these practices is the

planting of woody vegetation in landscapes or on farms (agroforestry). In Africa, while tree

cover has been shown to be decreasing in forests and woodlands (see above), tree planting or

protection of naturally occurring trees by farmers has been shown to be increasing in many

regions (Place and Otsuka 2002; Holmgren et al. 1994; Mortimore et al. 2001; Larwanou,

Abdoulaye and Reij 2006). The ability of agroforestry to increase carbon depends ultimately on

the type and density of trees and the length of time before they are harvested. At one extreme,

multi-strata agroforests in humid zones (e.g. homegardens on Mt. Kilimanjaro) can store up to 40

tons of carbon per hectare – or roughly between 11 – 15 tons of tons of CO2 equivalent per

hectare per year (UNFCCC 2008). Those which are harvested more frequently or sparse

woodlands in dryland areas (e.g. the parklands of the Sahel) will sequester much less over a

similar period of time. In contrast, annual crop fields and pastures will often store below 10 tons

of carbon per hectare (Palm et al. 1999).

A much more detailed analysis of the adaptation and mitigation potential of specific land

and livestock management practices can be found in Woodfine (2009). In addition to describing

25

the practices and qualitatively assessing their adoption and adaptation potential, that paper

provides quantitative evidence (where available) for mitigation benefits and costs.

In conclusion, sustainable land management presents the necessary integrated

response for securing land and water quality in a changing climate. Managing land

resources productively over the long-term requires (i) addressing environmental and

socio-economic issues, incorporating climate and drought risk (ie., diversification of

production and livelihoods can accommodate greater climate uncertainty and

vulnerability), (ii) balancing trade-offs between different land uses within the landscape

(ie., watershed planning), and (iii) greater uptake of locally appropriate and generally

profitable productive practices (ie, intercropping, agroforestry, soil moisture

management, terracing, low-till, etc.).

26

4. Policies and Strategies to Promote Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in SSA through SLM

While elements of SLM have had some success in isolated settings in Africa, a range of policy,

institutional, and knowledge barriers prevent larger uptake. In this section we discuss policies

and strategies to promote climate change mitigation and adaption in sub-Saharan Africa through

promoting sustainable land management. First we review existing policies and strategies, and

the extent of their implementation. Then we consider opportunities and constraints to scaling up

mitigation and adaptation using SLM approaches, and based on this, identify options to take

advantage of the opportunities and overcome the constraints. The key messages are summarized

at the beginning of each major subsection.

4.1. Existing Policies and Strategies Related to Climate Change and SLM

Key messages

There are many policy frameworks, strategies, institutions and programs affecting

opportunities and constraints to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation

through SLM in SSA. Among the most potentially important are the CDM, the voluntary

carbon market, climate mitigation and adaptation funds, the UNCCD, NEPAD/CAADP,

TerrAfrica and regional, sub-regional and national policy processes linked to these. SLM

can provide an integrative framework for the various policy conventions and available

financing mechanisms.

The current use of these mechanisms to support SLM projects in SSA is very limited:

o Only 10 afforestation or reforestation projects in SSA are in the CDM pipeline.

o No offsets are supplied to the CCX by SLM projects in SSA, and only about 0.2

MtCO2e were offset through other voluntary transactions involving land

management in SSA in 2007 (less than 0.5% of global voluntary transactions).

o Many carbon mitigation funds have been established, but most do not support

AFOLU activities in SSA.

27

o Several adaptation funds have been established, but they are small compared to

the total need, and access to these funds in SSA has been very limited so far.

o Implementation of National Action Programmes of the UNCCD has been limited

by funding constraints and other factors.

NEPAD’s CAADP and TerrAfrica are working in partnership to promote upscaling of

SLM in Africa, with increasing focus on climate change mitigation and adaption.

o TerrAfrica has mobilized $150 million in funds that are expected to leverage an

additional $1 billion to support this goal.

o CAADP and TerrAfrica are working with African governments to develop and

support CSIFs for SLM. Integrating strategies and programs to promote SLM

and address climate change with each other and with national development

strategies and policies is a major challenge. Addressing this challenge is a major

emphasis of the CSIFs.

The existing policies and strategies that affect climate change mitigation and adaptation activities

in SSA through SLM include multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), such as the

UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, the UNCCD, the CBD, and other relevant MEAs; and voluntary

carbon markets and related mitigation projects and activities. These also include regional

initiatives to promote SLM, including the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme (CAADP) and the Environment Action Plan of the New Partnership for African

Development (NEPAD), the TerrAfrica partnership, and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in

Africa (AGRA). Most of these initiatives involve consultative planning processes at the sub-

regional level, usually involving the regional economic communities (RECs), as well as detailed

planning and implementation processes at the national level. In addition, most nations have

broader policy and development strategy frameworks that initiatives related to climate change

and SLM must be consistent with and support, such as their poverty reduction strategies, rural

development strategies, environmental policy frameworks, and others.

We discuss each of these policies and strategies briefly, focusing on aspects most

relevant to promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation in SSA through SLM.

28

4.1.1. UNFCCC

Mitigation

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was developed at

the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 (also called

the “Rio Earth Summit”) and entered into force in 1994, with its main objective “to stabilize

GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent further human-induced

global warming”. Parties to the convention adopted the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in 1997, which

required reductions of emissions of four GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and

sulphur hexafluoride) by “Annex 1” (industrialized) countries relative to their emission levels in

1990 (an aggregate 5.2% reduction, with varying reductions required of different countries). The

KP entered into force in February 2005 and will expire in 2012. As of January 2009, 183

countries had ratified the Protocol6, with the United States being the sole Annex 1 country not to

ratify it.

In addition to requiring emissions reductions by Annex 1 countries, the KP

provided for emissions trading through three market mechanisms: i) emissions trading

within Annex 1 countries; ii) the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), through which

Annex 1 countries can purchase certified emission reductions (CERs) by supporting

projects implemented in developing countries; and iii) Joint Implementation (JI), through

which Annex 1 countries can purchase emission reduction units (ERUs) through projects

in other developed countries or transition economies. Emissions trading in the European

Union (EU) is by far the largest market, with a total volume of more than 2 billion tons of

CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in emission allowances worth $50 billion traded in the EU

Emissions Trading Scheme in 2007, accounting for more than two-thirds of the entire

carbon market (Table 4.1). The CDM is the second largest market, accounting for CERs

of nearly 800 million tons of CO2e valued at nearly $13 billion in 2007.

Of these mechanisms, only the CDM supports projects in SSA. The rules of the

CDM allow support to projects that reduce emissions of GHG, such as installation of

more efficient industrial processes or replacement of hydrocarbon fuels by renewable

energy sources. In the agricultural sector, eligible projects include those that reduce

6 Technically, these countries had ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol (see http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php). All of these terms imply that the terms of the agreement are legally binding.

29

GHG emissions through improved manure management, reduction of enteric

fermentation in livestock (e.g., through improved feeding practices), improved fertilizer

usage or improved water management in rice cultivation

(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a01.pdf, p. 45). Most agricultural

CDM projects involve flaring of biogas produced by intensive livestock operations

(UNEP Risoe 2009). Afforestation and reforestation projects are also eligible for

emission reduction credits under the CDM. Other AFOLU activities, such as

revegetation of grasslands or soil carbon sequestration in agricultural lands, are not

eligible for the CDM.

By March 2009 there were only three registered CDM projects related to

afforestation or reforestation, accounting for less than 0.2% of all registered CDM

projects and about 200,000 tCO2e of CERs. None of these registered CDM

afforestation/reforestation projects was in Africa

(http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/index.html). Many more afforestation/reforestation

projects are in the CDM pipeline, however, including several in Africa. Globally, there

were 35 afforestation/reforestation projects in the pipeline by early March 2009, of which

10 were in SSA (UNEP Risoe 2009). These include five projects in Uganda, two in

Tanzania, and one each in Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali. By

2012, these projects are expected to generate about 3 MtCO2e of emission offsets; mostly

due to a large reforestation project in Tanzania (Ibid.). The total emissions reductions

from these 10 projects is a very small fraction of the total emission reductions from all

CDM projects in SSA, estimated at about 32 Mt CO2 eq by 2012. This total is itself a

small fraction of the total amount of emission reductions purchased under CDM.

Adaptation

Although the main emphasis of the UNFCCC is on GHG mitigation, in recent years there has

been increasing attention paid to the need for adaptation. The UNFCCC requires all signatory

countries to take appropriate actions to facilitate adaptation, and developed country parties are

required to provide financial resources to developing countries to meet these obligations, with

particular emphasis on assisting small island developing countries, least developing countries,

and countries otherwise highly vulnerable to climate variability. As part of their obligations

30

under the UNFCCC, most countries in SSA have developed National Adaptation Programmes of

Action (NAPAs), which identify strategies and priority projects for adapting to climate change.

However, these programs have yet to be fully implemented in most cases, in part due to lack of

funds to support the prioritized activities.

Several international funds have been established to support climate change

adaptation. Three of these are under the control of the Global Environment Facility

(GEF). The Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) fund is a $50 million fund that

supports demonstration projects in non-Annex 1 countries on adaptation activities with

global environmental benefits (Ambrosi 2009). The Least Developed Countries Fund

(LDCF) is a $180 million fund that supports priority adaptation projects identified by the

NAPA’s of the poorest countries, which includes most countries in SSA. The Special

Climate Change Fund (SCCF) is a $90 million fund similar to the LDCF, but which is

available to all non-Annex 1 countries (Ibid.). In addition to these funds, the UNFCCC

manages a new Adaptation Fund that was established under the Kyoto Protocol and

financed by a 2 percent levy on CDM projects. The size of the fund will depend on the

total value of CDM projects that are approved, but this fund is expected to reach $100

million to $500 million by 2012 (UNFCCC 2007).

Other funds that support climate change adaptation include the Global Facility for

Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), which works in partnership within the UN

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and focuses on building capacities

to enhance disaster resilience and adaptive capacities in changing climate (fund amount

$40 million in fiscal year 2008); the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP)

adaptation facilities for Africa ($90 - $120 million); various trust funds and partnerships

housed in multi-lateral development banks (MDBs); and climate related research led by

the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) ($77 million)

(Ambrosi 2009). In addition, several new funds have been established supporting both

climate change adaptation and mitigation activities, including two Climate Investment

Funds (CIF) managed by the World Bank and regional development banks, and the

Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) supported by the European Community (EC)

(with funds of about €300 million) (Ibid.).

31

The CIF were established in 2008 and include two funds: the Clean Technology

Fund (CTF), which will focus on financing projects and programs in developing

countries which contribute to the demonstration, deployment, and transfer of low-carbon

technologies (mainly clean energy technologies); and the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF),

which will be broader and more flexible in scope and will serve as an overarching fund

for various programs to test innovative approaches to climate change

(http://go.worldbank.org/FHNFBC0W10). By September 2008, donor governments had

pledged $6.3 billion to these two funds, including $4.3 billion for the CTF and $2.0

billion for the SCF (Op cit.; “CIF Financial Status as of January 26, 2009”). Of the two

CIF funds, the SCF is the most relevant to supporting SLM activities. Under the SCF,

three programs are envisioned so far – a Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), a

Forest Investment Program (FIP), and a program for Scaling up Renewable Energy

(SRE). The PPCR is intended to be complementary to other adaptation funds, focusing

on providing programmatic finance for developing and implementing country-led

national climate resilient development plans, and providing lessons that can be taken up

by countries, the development community and the future climate change regime. The FIP

is intended to mobilize significantly increased funds to reduce deforestation and forest

degradation and to promote sustainable forest management. Of the $2 billion pledged to

the SCF, $240 million was specifically targeted to the PPCR, $58 million to the FIP, and

$70 million to the SRE (most of the pledged funds were not allocated to any specific

program).

In addition to funds specifically targeted to promoting climate change adaptation

(and mitigation), increasing attention is being paid to addressing climate issues in regular

flows of official development assistance (ODA). The integration of climate change

adaptation and mitigation concerns into broader economic development programs offers

an important opportunity to scale up investments that will have beneficial impacts on

adapting to and mitigating climate change, including investments in sustainable land

management. We discuss this opportunity further in a subsequent section.

Although these adaptation funds are available and growing in size, they represent

only a small fraction of the funds that will be needed to finance adaptation activities in

developing countries. According to a UNFCCC study of the costs required for climate

32

change mitigation and adaptation, $28 billion to $67 billion per year will be required to

finance adaptation activities in developing countries by 2030 (UNFCCC 2007). About

$14 billion per year is estimated to be needed for adaptation in the agriculture, forestry

and fisheries sector, with about half of this in developing countries. Most of these

expenditures ($11 billion) will be needed to finance capital assets; for example for

irrigation, adoption of new practices or to relocate processing facilities, and much of this

(especially in developed countries) is expected to be financed by private sources. $3

billion is estimated to be needed annually for agricultural and natural resource

management research, development and extension, primarily in developing countries,

with public sources expected to provide most of this. The additional expenditures to

protect natural ecosystems are estimated to be $12 to $22 billion globally (Ibid.).

4.1.2. Other carbon compliance markets and voluntary carbon markets

In addition to the carbon markets that have arisen as a result of the Kyoto Protocol’s emission

reduction requirements, other compliance markets as well as voluntary carbon markets have

arisen as a result of buyers who want to prepare for expected future requirements (for example,

industries in the United States), who want to offset their “carbon footprint”, to demonstrate

corporate social responsibility, for public relations, or other reasons. Other non-Kyoto

compliance markets include Australia’s New South Wales (NSW) Greenhouse Gas Abatement

Scheme, which began in 2003 and is focused on reducing GHG emissions from the power sector,

and emerging markets in North America resulting from state or provincial level regulations of

GHGs, such as the Oregon Standard, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of ten states in the

eastern United States, the Global Warming Solutions Act in California, the Western Climate

Initiative of six western U.S. states and three Canadian provinces, and the Midwestern Regional

GHG Reduction Program of six Midwestern U.S. states and Manitoba province of Canada

(Capoor and Ambrosi 2008; Hamilton, et al. 2008).7

Voluntary markets include the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which is based

on a voluntary cap and trade system, project-based transactions for “pre-CDM” projects

(i.e., those that are in the process of seeking registration under CDM), and other emission

7 Forty-four state and provincial governments in the U.S. and Mexico have already established GHG emission reduction targets and/or renewable portfolio standard targets, or are participating in one of three emerging regional GHG emissions trading programs in North America (Capoor and Ambrosi 2008).

33

reduction projects. Transactions occurring outside of the CCX are referred to as the

“over the counter” (OTC) market by Hamilton, et al. (2008). In 2007, 16% of OTC

transactions were based on projects meeting CDM or JI standards, while 7% were based

on CCX standards. A growing number of third party standards are used in voluntary

carbon markets. In 2007 about 87% of OTC transactions were verified by a third party

(Hamilton, et al. 2008). The most commonly used standards are the Voluntary Carbon

Standard (VCS) (29% of OTC transactions in 2007), the VER+ standard (9%), and the

Gold Standard (9%) (Ibid.). Of these commonly used standards, only the Gold Standard

requires certification of a project’s social and environmental benefits in addition to

certified reductions of greenhouse gases. Other third party standards also require social

and environment benefits (e.g., CCB standards, Plan Vivo and Social Carbon standards),

but were much less commonly used in 2007. Most of the third party standards include or

accept methodologies for certifying projects related to land use, land use change and

forestry (LULUCF).

These other carbon markets are growing rapidly, but are still a very small

proportion of the total carbon market, compared to the Kyoto based markets. For

example, the volume of emissions reductions transacted in the CCX in 2007 was less than

1 percent of the total volume of emissions reductions traded that year, and only about 0.1

percent of the total value of exchanges (Table 4-1). This reflects not only the relatively

small size of this market, but also the low prices obtained for voluntary emissions

reductions compared to the prices for emissions reductions in the compliance markets,

especially under the EU ETS. In early 2008, the mean price for emission allocations

under the EU ETS ranged between 20 and 25 Euros per tCO2e, while prices for CERs

under the CDM ranged between 8 and 13 Euros per tCO2e and prices on the CCX were in

the $1 to $4 (1 to 3 Euros) per tCO2e range for most of 2007 (Capoor and Ambrosi

2008).8

Although voluntary markets are small in scale and offer much lower prices,

almost all carbon finance for LULUCF or AFOLU related projects is through these

markets.9 In 2007, at least 5 MtCO2e were offset through land use projects in the OTC

8 Projects with a Gold Standard certification or pre-CDM projects compliant with CDM requirements obtain higher prices in the voluntary market, but still below the levels of registered CDM projects (Capoor and Ambrosi 2008). 9 The term LULUCF has been replaced by the more encompassing term AFOLU (Jindal, et al. 2008).

34

market (Hamilton, et al. 2008). Although this is a tiny fraction of the entire CDM market

(nearly 800 MtCO2e in 2007), it is much larger than the CDM market for land use

projects (0.2 MtCO2e for the three registered CDM land use projects in 2007). In

addition, about half of the offsets purchased through the CCX between 2003 and 2007

(amounting to about 17 MtCO2e) were for land use projects – primarily soil carbon

sequestration projects (Ibid.). However, none of the CCX offsets and fewer than 5

percent of the OTC offsets for land use projects were for projects in Africa.

Voluntary markets are important in fostering innovation in the carbon market by

demonstrating the feasibility of new types of trades and contracts that are not allowed

under the Kyoto Protocol. For example, contracts are traded on the CCX for soil carbon

sequestration in croplands and rangelands and for reducing deforestation and forest

degradation (REDD), even though such projects do not qualify under CDM (Bryan, et al.

2008). Eligible projects for agricultural soil carbon sequestration include projects

promoting conservation tillage and grass planting. Standard contracts have been

developed for these projects, and for conservation tillage, emissions reductions are

credited at a rate between 0.2 and 0.6 tCO2 per acre per year (0.5 to 1.5 tCO2 per hectare

per year). REDD projects earn offsets for additional net carbon sequestered compared to

the previous year. Although such markets appear to offer little to African nations and

farmers because of their small size and limited trading of AFOLU projects in Africa, they

may be very important in demonstrating the feasibility of such contracts to the

negotiations in Copenhagen on the post-Kyoto climate treaty.

4.1.3. Carbon mitigation funds

Various carbon mitigation funds have been established by multilateral and bilateral donors and

development banks, which can be particularly important to finance development of carbon

mitigation projects in SSA. There are at least 17 funds and facilities managed by multilateral

development banks with a value of close to US$3 billion, of which a large part (about two-thirds)

is already committed (Ambrosi 2009). The World Bank has established three carbon funds –

including the BioCarbon Fund (BCF), the Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF), and

the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) – which are targeted to poorer countries and, in

the case of the BCF, to rural areas of developing countries. The CDCF, which was established in

35

2003 and currently totals about $129 million, focuses on financing projects related to AFOLU

that also provide significant development benefits to communities in the project vicinity. The

BCF, which was established in 2004 and totals about $54 million, focuses mainly on financing

afforestation and reforestation activities eligible under CDM projects and the broader set of

AFOLU activities eligible under JI projects; but it also has a smaller window to explore and

finance options not eligible under the KP mechanisms but that may be creditable under other

programs (such as restoration of degraded land, rehabilitation of dryland grazing lands, etc.).

The FCPF was launched at the UNFCCC meeting in Bali in December 2007, but is not yet

operational. It is intended to focus on financing REDD activities. In addition, the GEF is

providing about $250 million per year in grant financing for mitigation activities during 2006-

2010.

Many other carbon mitigation funds have been established by particular governments

(especially in Europe and Japan), development banks and private investors. Almost all of these

focus on financing CDM and/or JI projects. Many of these focus on financing projects in

particular geographic regions or particular sectors. Few of these target SSA or AFOLU

activities, although several permit financing of any project that is eligible for the CDM or JI.

Some of these funds – for example, the European, Dutch and Danish government funds –

specifically exclude AFOLU projects because of concerns about the technical, business and

political feasibility of such projects.

4.1.4. UNCCD

Like the UNFCCC, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was

established as an outcome of the UNCED in 1992. It was adopted by the United Nations in 1994

and entered into force in December 1996. The objective of the convention is to combat

desertification – defined as land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas due to

various factors, including human causes and climate variability – and mitigate the effects of

drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa.

192 countries have ratified (or approved, accepted or acceded to) the convention. A major

emphasis of the UNCCD is to integrate objectives of poverty reduction and economic and social

development with the objective of combating desertification and mitigating drought. In recent

years, the UNCCD Secretariat and the Global Mechanism (which focuses on financial resource

36

mobilization for implementing the convention) have increasingly emphasized the synergies

between the UNCCD and other MEAs, especially the UNFCCC.

Under the UNCCD, affected developing countries are required to develop

National Action Programmes (NAPs) to combat desertification and mitigate drought,

which diagnose the causes of these problems and identify strategies, enabling policies

and specific actions and investments to address them. These programs have been

generally developed through consultative and participatory processes involving

stakeholders from governments at different levels, civil society, the private sector, and

representatives of communities. To date, NAPs have been developed by 34 countries in

SSA.

In addition to the NAPs, Sub-regional Action Programmes (SRAPs) and a

Regional Action Programme (RAP) have also been developed in Africa under the

UNCCD. These sub-regional and regional programs are intended to ensure adequate

coordination of the national programs and address issues that aren’t adequately addressed

within national programs, such as management of transboundary resources, drought

warning systems, information collection and dissemination, sub-regional or regional

research priorities, and others.

Although many NAPs, SRAPs and a Regional Action Programme have been

developed in Africa, progress in implementing these programs has been slow. In some

cases, this may be due to the relatively recent development of these programs. For

example, the NAPs for Botswana, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial

Guinea and Guinea were not submitted until 2006, and the SRAP for Central Africa was

not submitted until 2007. However, in most cases, NAPs and SRAPs were submitted by

2002.

The most serious constraint to implementation for many years was the lack of

financial support for the convention, either from international donors or national

governments. This situation has been changing in recent years, since the Global

Environment Facility (GEF) was designated a financial mechanism of the UNCCD (in

2003), and since establishment of important new partnerships to promote SLM in Africa,

including the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

and the Environment Action Plan (EAP) of the New Partnership for African

37

Development (NEPAD), and the TerrAfrica partnership. These initiatives are raising

substantial amounts of funds to support SLM and the UNCCD. Since October 2006, the

Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (GM), the GEF Secretariat and its Implementing and

Executing Agencies have developed a pipeline of 20 projects addressing land degradation

in Africa, Asia and Latin America, for which the envisaged financing exceeds $3 billion

over ten years (http://www.global-mechanism.org/work-with-us/strategic-partnerships/

gef). The TerrAfrica partnership has mobilized $150 million in GEF funds to support

SLM activities in SSA, which is expected to leverage up to $1 billion in funds from other

sources. These activities are discussed further in a later subsection. In addition, there are

opportunities to substantially increase SLM investments that contribute to climate change

mitigation and adaption through the CDM mechanism and climate adaptation funds,

highlighting the potential synergies between the UNCCD and UNFCCC.

4.1.5. CBD

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was also born at the 1992 UNCED, and entered

into force in 1993. The goal of the CBD is to conserve biodiversity, ensure sustainable use of its

components, and ensure equitable sharing of the benefits of use of genetic resources. 191

nations have ratified (or adopted, accepted or acceded to) the CBD, with the United States the

only major nation not to have done so (it has signed but not ratified the treaty). Among the issues

addressed by the convention include

Measures and incentives for conservation and sustainable use of biological

diversity;

Regulated access to genetic resources;

Access to and transfer of technology, including biotechnology; and others (e.g.,

technical and scientific cooperation, impact assessment, education and public

awareness, provision of financial resources, national reporting on

implementation).

The CBD has thematic programs focusing on biodiversity in many particular ecosystems,

including agriculture, dry and sub-humid lands, forests, inland waters, islands, marine and

coastal areas, and mountains.

38

The CBD is implemented mainly at the national level by the parties. Most

countries – including more than 40 countries in SSA – have developed Biodiversity

Strategy and Action Plans (BSAPs) to fulfill their obligations under the CBD. Funding

for implementation of these strategies and plans is provided by the GEF as well as

national governments and other donors. The GEF allocations to SSA countries for

biodiversity activities under fourth replenishment of the GEF trust fund (GEF-4) range

from $3.4 to $24.9 million.

As with other MEAs, the CBD is actively pursuing linkages to UNFCCC,

UNCCD and other agreements to increase synergies in biodiversity conservation.

Developing REDD is a major new area of emphasis for the CBD, and one of the areas

most relevant to SLM and climate change issues (his will be discussed further below).

The CBD is also promoting development of habitat networks and biological corridors in

agricultural landscapes, which also has synergies with addressing SLM and climate

change.

4.1.6. Other Multilateral Environmental Agreements

The UNFCCC, UNCCD, and CBD are the most important and relevant MEAs to issues of

climate change and SLM in SSA, but several others are relevant as well. Among these are the

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention for Cooperation in Protection and

Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region,

the Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal

Environment of the Eastern African Region, the Global Programme of Action for the Protection

of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, and the International Coral Reef

Initiative. Strategies and activities related to SLM and climate change mitigation and adaptation

are likely to have impacts on the resources covered by these MEAs; hence coordination is

needed to ensure that synergies are promoted and tradeoffs minimized among the objectives of

these different agreements.

4.1.7. NEPAD: CAADP and EAP

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is a vision and strategic framework

for Africa’s renewal. The NEPAD strategic framework document was adopted in 2001 by the

39

Organization for African Unity (now the African Union). NEPAD’s primary objectives are to

eradicate poverty, promote sustainable growth and development, integrate Africa in the world

economy, and accelerate the empowerment of women. NEPAD has undertaken several

initiatives to achieve its objectives. Among these, those most directly relevant to issues of SLM

and climate change are the Environment Action Plan (EAP) and the Comprehensive African

Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).

The EAP, which was adopted in 2003, proposes strategies and activities to

promote sustainable management of environmental resources in Africa, focusing on the

following themes: combating land degradation, drought and desertification; wetlands;

invasive species; marine and coastal resources; cross-border conservation of natural

resources; climate change; and cross-cutting issues. The program of the EAP on

combating land degradation, drought and desertification was based on the action

programs of the UNCCD, with the objective of facilitating implementation of the

UNCCD through support to finalizing and implementing NAPs and SRAPs,

strengthening information collection and knowledge sharing systems, harnessing

indigenous knowledge of land management, strengthening and mobilizing scientific,

technical, institutional and human capacities; establishing regional centers of excellence,

enhancing public awareness and education in support of the convention, promoting

participation of civil society and local communities in implementing the convention, and

promoting South-South cooperation. Implementation of this program area is achieved in

collaboration with the implementing agencies of the UNCCD. The program of the EAP

on climate change focuses on vulnerability assessment, development of adaptation

strategies, implementation of pilot projects and capacity strengthening activities. Projects

prioritized by the EAP on climate change include promotion of renewable energy;

establishment of linkages between climate change experts and energy initiative capacity

development for sustainable development and the CDM; and evaluating synergies of

climate adaptation and mitigation activities through pilot projects in agroforestry.

The CAADP is the most ambitious and comprehensive agricultural reform effort

yet undertaken in Africa, addressing policy and capacity issues in agriculture across the

entire continent. Development of the CAADP began in 2002, and was given major

impetus by the Maputo Declaration in 2003, in which the African Union leaders endorsed

40

CAADP and committed to increasing agriculture’s share of their national budgets to at

least 10% and achieve a 6% annual growth in agricultural production by 2015. The

CAADP program was developed through a series of consultations (“roundtables”) at

regional, sub-regional and national levels. It is based on four pillars: i) sustainable land

and water management; ii) improving market access; iii) increasing food supply and

reducing hunger; and iv) improving agricultural research and technology adoption.

Although there has been great progress in developing the overall program and the

content of the specific pillars, these have not been fully operationalized yet. To

operationalize Pillar 1 on sustainable land and water management, the proposed focus is

to be on addressing various barriers to upscaling SLM in Africa, including knowledge

management barriers, institutional and governance barriers, financial resource

bottlenecks, legislative and regulatory barriers, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

barriers (Bwalya, et al. 2009). The road map envisioned to achieve the goal of

sustainable land and water management (SLWM) includes steps to build a regional

consensus about SLWM, conduct an awareness raising and consensus building campaign,

building African-owned coalitions and partnerships, developing a mechanism for

coordinating and harmonizing grants, developing a Strategic Investment Program (SIP)

for SLWM in Africa, developing a regional knowledge base, developing generic country

specific SLWM investment framework (CSIF) guidelines, developing generic M&E

guidelines, providing a platform for providing comprehensive support to agricultural

water in SSA, and leveraging the political dialogue and addressing international rivers

and riparian issues (Ibid.). These steps are to be taken in the context of the TerrAfrica

partnership.

4.1.8. TerrAfrica

TerrAfrica is a partnership of African governments, NEPAD, regional and sub-regional

organizations, the UNCCD, multilateral and bilateral donors, civil society and research

organizations, to promote scaling up of SLM in SSA. It was initiated in 2005 to support

implementation of UNCCD, CAADP, and the Environment Action Plan of NEPAD. The

establishment of TerrAfrica was motivated by several lessons from past efforts to address land

degradation in Africa:

41

There are too many overlapping and scattered programs with conflicting

objectives.

Land degradation is too large for a single institution to address.

Narrow approaches have had a limited and unsustained impact.

Poor knowledge management has constrained scaling up of SLM.

TerrAfrica focuses on three activity lines: i) coalition building, ii) knowledge

management, and iii) investments in SLM. As mentioned earlier, TerrAfrica has

mobilized $150 million investment from GEF, which is expected to leverage up to $1

billion in additional funds from donors, governments and private sources.

TerrAfrica is working with many countries to develop Country Strategic

Investment Frameworks (CSIFs) for scaling up SLM. Progress is most advanced in four

pilot countries: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda. By the end of 2007, all of

these countries had made substantial progress to develop their CSIF; priority SLM

investments had been identified and in some countries mobilized; and analytical work

completed to support decision making for mainstreaming SLM in government programs

and expenditures (Table 4.2). These countries have all moved to Phase 2 of TerrAfrica

implementation, with an increased focus on implementing investment projects. For

example, in Ethiopia, a large watershed development project financed by the World Bank

and GEF was approved and initiated in 2008, drawing upon the Country Partnership

Program for SLM developed via the TerrAfrica partnership. Eleven other countries –

Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Mauritania, Lesotho,

Tanzania – were involved in Phase 1 of TerrAfrica implementation in 2007, during which

the focus was on planning, coalition building, and analytical activities (TerrAfrica 2007).

Most of these countries made substantial progress in 2008 in developing their CSIFs and

building the basis for programming SLM investments in the future.

The TerrAfrica partnership is playing an increasing role in promoting climate change mitigation

and adaptation in Africa through SLM. Because of the linkages between SLM and climate

change, as explained in sections 2 and 3 of this paper, TerrAfrica can help to improve climate

resilience in SSA by strengthening national capacities to incorporate SLM into their plans and

programs to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to access funding to support these plans

and programs.

42

4.1.9. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is an African-led partnership to boost

agricultural productivity in Africa in an environmentally sustainable way. It was established by

the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2006. The

Department for International Development (DfID) joined as a partner in 2008. AGRA works

with African governments, other donors, NGOs, the private sector and African farmers to

achieve its objectives. AGRA’s focus areas include

• Developing better and more appropriate seeds;

• Improving soil health;

• Improving income opportunities through better access to agricultural markets;

• Improving access to water and water-use efficiency;

• Encouraging government policies that support small-scale farmers;

• Developing local networks of agricultural education; and

• Understanding and sharing the wealth of African farmer knowledge.

To date, most AGRA grants have focused on promoting development and marketing

of improved germplasm. Of about $80 million in grants that had been provided by the

end of March 2009, $2.9 million was targeted to soil health research. The emphasis of

AGRA’s Soil Health Initiative will be on promoting integrated soil fertility management.

This may include promotion of “smart” fertilizer subsidies and other actions to increase

effective use of inorganic fertilizers in Africa, as well as promotion of complementary

organic practices.

4.1.10. Sub-regional and national level strategies and policies

As noted above, many of the MEAs and regional initiatives involve consultations and

development of strategies and plans at a sub-regional level. These have involved the Regional

Economic Communities (RECs) (e.g., in the CAADP roundtable process) and other sub-regional

bodies appropriate to the issue (e.g., CILSS and IGAD in developing strategies for adapting to

climate variability and change). The primary focus of all of these agreements and initiatives is at

the national level, where specific strategies, policies and plans must be developed and

implemented. At the national level, strategies and programs related to climate change and SLM

43

must be integrated with other key strategies, policies and processes such as countries’ poverty

reduction strategies, agricultural and rural development strategies, national environmental and

land policies, medium term expenditure frameworks, annual budgetary processes, and others.

Achieving harmonization of all of these different strategies and policies, and

translating them into specific budgets and activities that are effectively implemented,

monitored and evaluated within the governance processes of governments at different

levels, is a major challenge. Addressing this challenge has been a major emphasis of

TerrAfrica, the UNCCD and CAADP in their efforts to promote development of Country

Strategic Investment Frameworks for SLM that are well mainstreamed within the

overarching strategies and ongoing planning and budgetary processes of governments.

As indicated above, substantial progress has been made in this regard in several

countries, but much remains to be done. Similar efforts to achieve harmonization of

climate change mitigation and adaptation activities with broader government strategies

and governance processes are being pursued under the framework of the UNFCCC; for

example, in the process of developing the NAPAs. More work will be needed to ensure

that the policies and programs promoting SLM and those promoting climate change

mitigation and adaptation are coherent and synergistic with each other, as well as with

other government strategies, policies, and processes.

4.2. Opportunities and Constraints to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change through SLM

Key messages

The major current opportunities to increase funding for climate mitigation and

adaptation through SLM include

o increased use of the CDM to finance afforestation and reforestation (A/R)

projects;

o increased use of voluntary carbon markets and carbon mitigation funds to test

and demonstrate methodologies for a wider range of AFOLU activities;

o increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities that have been

prioritized by countries’ NAPAs;

44

o increased funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation through

programs promoting SLM in Africa; and

o increased integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation activities,

including SLM, into development strategies of African governments and donors.

Major new opportunities to support climate change mitigation and adaptation through

SLM may arise as a result of development of a cap and trade system in the United States,

and inclusion of REDD and AFOLU projects in the post-Kyoto CDM framework. The

prospects for these opportunities are uncertain, however.

The main constraints to expanded use of the CDM to support SLM in the present

framework include CDM eligibility restrictions; high transactions costs of registering

and certifying CDM projects; low prices for certified emissions reductions (CERs),

especially for A/R projects; long time lags in achieving CERs; uncertainty about the

benefits of projects and the future of the CDM; and land tenure insecurity in many

African contexts. These constraints are exacerbated by the limited technical, financial

and organizational capacities of key actors in SSA.

Many of the same constraints apply to supporting AFOLU investments through voluntary

and other compliance carbon markets, although to a lesser degree in some cases.

Constraints to increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities for climate

adaptation include the limited size of these funds; lack of coordination among key

government ministries; lack of technical and human capacity to implement adaptation

activities; and others.

Challenges to U.S. participation in the global carbon market include the political

challenge of achieving ratification of a post-Kyoto treaty; concerns about the

effectiveness and risks of emissions reductions purchased from developing countries; and

possible opposition by U.S. lobby groups to offset payments to foreign land users.

Challenges to REDD payments include the technical difficulties and costs of defining

baselines and assuring additionality; concerns about leakages; potential adverse

incentives caused by such payments; concerns about the fairness of paying countries with

a poor record of protecting forests and not paying those that have protected their forests;

possible negative impacts on poor people, especially where they have insecure land and

forest tenure; and concerns about flooding the carbon market with cheap offsets.

45

Many of the same challenges will affect payments for AFOLU activities. Many of these

concerns are likely to be less problematic than for REDD payments, except the size of

transaction costs relative to the value of payments per hectare. Given the low payments

per hectare possible for many AFOLU activities, projects will need to focus on promoting

profitable AFOLU activities by addressing other constraints to adoption, such as lack of

technical, financial and organizational capacity.

4.2.1. Opportunities

There are many opportunities to both mitigate and adapt to climate change in SSA through

sustainable land use and management approaches, such as those discussed in previous sections.

In the present environment, the major funding opportunities include

increased use of the CDM to finance afforestation, reforestation and other projects that

promote sustainable land management10 and meet the criteria of the CDM;

increased use of voluntary carbon markets and the various carbon mitigation funds to test

and demonstrate project methodologies for a wider range of AFOLU activities in SSA,

such as agroforestry, conservation tillage, improved rangeland management, and REDD;

increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities that have been prioritized in

African countries’ NAPAs;

increased funding for SLM activities supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation

in SSA through the TerrAfrica partnership, UNCCD, CAADP, AGRA, and other publicly

and privately funded programs promoting sustainable land and water management in

SSA; and

increased integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation activities, including

SLM investments, into the broader development and poverty reduction strategies and

programs of African governments and in multilateral and bilateral ODA. The

commitment of governments and development partners to substantially increase funding

for agricultural research and development in Africa, as advocated in the 2008 World

10 For example, CDM rural energy projects could potentially contribute to SLM by reducing demand for fuelwood, thus reducing degradation of forests and woodlands caused by tree cutting for fuelwood. However, a review of the CDM project pipeline and approved methodologies did not identify any projects or methodologies that would clearly have this impact (UNEP Risoe 2009). The only approved methodologies for projects to improve household energy efficiency are related to distribution of energy efficient light bulbs or manufacture of energy efficient refrigerators, while projects and methodologies for improving the efficiency of energy supply are oriented towards industrial uses.

46

Development Report and in line with the Maputo Declaration and the CAADP agenda,

represents a particularly important opportunity for achieving increased SLM investment

for climate change mitigation and adaptation, if these activities are fully integrated into

the agricultural development strategies of African countries and development partners.

In pursuing these opportunities, it will be essential to continue to build on the

momentum that has been established by partnerships and coalitions such as TerrAfrica,

strengthening the linkages among organizations traditionally focused more on climate

change, biodiversity or other environmental issues; those traditionally focused more on

land degradation and sustainable land management issues; and those traditionally focused

more on agricultural productivity issues. Success will depend greatly upon the ability of

governments, donors, civil society organizations, the private sector and land users to

work together to achieve the synergies that are possible among the objectives of

mitigating and adapting to climate change and variability, promoting sustainable

management of land and other natural resources, ensuring biodiversity conservation,

increasing agricultural productivity, and reducing poverty in SSA.

In the future, many new opportunities to expand these efforts may become available.

Particularly important are opportunities that may result from the post-Kyoto treaty on climate

change. Among the exciting new opportunities are the potential development of a cap and trade

system in the United States, and inclusion of REDD and AFOLU projects in the post-Kyoto

CDM framework. We discuss each of these opportunities briefly.

Involvement of the United States in climate mitigation

With the election of President Barack Obama and Democratic majorities to both houses of

Congress in November, 2008, the prospects for the United States to ratify a post-Kyoto treaty on

climate change appear to have significantly improved. President Obama has announced that one

of the top priorities of his administration will be addressing U.S. energy security and global

climate change by establishing a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. The president’s

proposal envisions reducing GHG emissions by selected industries (representing about 80

percent of estimated U.S. emissions) by 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent

lower by 2050. Under the plan, the government would auction GHG emission permits to these

47

industries. According to one estimate, the price of these allowances would average about $14

per tCO2e allowance in the first year of implementation (2012) and would increase to about

$16.50 per allowance by 2020 (http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/usa/carbon-costs-under-

obama-cap-and-trade-4953.htm), although there is of course great uncertainty about what

impacts the proposal would have on carbon market prices.

A U.S. cap and trade system would likely allow offsets from a broader set of

AFOLU activities than are allowed under the CDM. The United States has historically

favored inclusion of such activities in carbon compliance markets, and leading bills that

have been proposed in the U.S. Congress would include such activities. For example, the

Boxer-Lieberman-Warner climate security bill in the Senate directs that several AFOLU

activities should be considered for emission offsets, including altered tillage practices;

winter cover cropping, continuous cropping and other means to increase the biomass

returned to the soil instead of winter fallowing; and conversion of cropland to rangeland.

The implications of a U.S. cap and trade system for developing countries are not

yet clear, however, as it will depend on whether offsets from projects in developing

countries through the CDM or another mechanism would be allowed. If they are

allowed, one estimate is that this could result in trade of 1 billion of offsets (tCO2e) per

year with developing countries (larger than the total volume of CDM exchanges in 2007),

worth about $10 billion (http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/indian-firms-may-

capitalise-on-obamas-clean-energy-drive/). Based on analysis of the two cap and trade

bills that had advanced the furthest in the last Congress (Lieberman – Warner and

Bingaman – Specter) and their provisions for international offsets, Capoor and Ambrosi

(2008) estimate that the potential increased demand for offsets in the global carbon

market from U.S. enactment of such proposals could be in the range of 400 – 900 Mt

CO2e by 2020. This is of the same order of magnitude as the total volume of the CDM

market in 2007 (Table 4.1).

Such a large increase in demand for emission offsets obviously could have large impacts

on the global carbon market. However, the prices initially predicted by some observers for these

allowances and offsets are within the range of prices currently observed for CERs under the

CDM. It may be that transactions costs and uncertainties affecting the CDM market will

continue to keep prices for CERs low in the future and hence limit farmers’ incentives to

48

participate, although prices are likely to be higher with official U.S. participation in the carbon

market than without it (as long as offsets from other countries are allowed). Furthermore, U.S.

cap and trade legislation may restrict the prices allowable for emission offsets to no more than a

maximum amount (e.g., $20 per tCO2e). With limited increase in carbon market prices, and

given the very small number of projects related to SLM in SSA under the current CDM, even a

substantial expansion of the CDM market may have small impacts on such activities in SSA,

unless other changes to the CDM are enacted in the post-Kyoto treaty.

Beyond the impacts on the volume and prices of trades in the global carbon

market, U.S. leadership in climate change mitigation and adaptation activities could mean

substantially greater commitments of U.S. foreign assistance to support such activities in

SSA and other developing regions. This might prove to have larger impacts on support

for SLM activities related to climate change in SSA in the near to medium term than the

global market impact of U.S. ratification of a post-Kyoto treaty.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

The 2007 Bali Action Plan, which was adopted at 13th session of the Conference of Parties

(COP) of the UNFCCC in Bali, Indonesia, established a process for developing the post-Kyoto

treaty and specifically proposed consideration of payments for reducing emissions from

deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).11 The potential magnitude of such payments is

very large. According to one estimate, global REDD markets could be as large as $46 billion,

assuming a carbon price of $30 per tCO2 and that annual deforestation rates are reduced by 50%

(Figure 4-1). With more conservative (and probably more realistic) assumptions about

reductions in deforestation rates and carbon prices the size of this market would be smaller, but

still could be very substantial. For example, with a carbon price of $10 per tCO2 and assuming a

10 percent reduction in the annual rate of deforestation, the REDD market would still be about

$3 billion.

SSA has a large potential to contribute to reduced GHG emissions through

REDD. According to Nabuurs, et (2007), Africa’s potential for GHG mitigation through

reduced deforestation is 1,160 Mt CO2 per year in 2030 (at costs of $100 per t CO2 or 11 Among other actions to mitigate GHG emissions, the Bali Action Plan urged consideration of “Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”.

49

less), representing 29% of the global total; while reduced forest degradation resulting

from improve forest management could reduce emissions by 100 Mt CO2 per year. If

half of these potential emissions reductions were achieved, this could result in payments

of more than $6 billion per year, assuming a carbon price of $10 per tCO2. Most of the

potential for REDD is in humid forest areas, where carbon losses from deforestation and

forest degradation are greatest. Probably less than 10% of the potential REDD market is

in drylands (Ecosecurities and Global Mechanism 2008).

REDD payments could have many beneficial impacts on ecosystem services in

SSA resulting from reducing deforestation and forest degradation, such as preserving

biodiversity, protecting watersheds, and reducing soil erosion, sedimentation of

watercourses and threats of floods. They may also be used to help to preserve and

improve the livelihoods of forest dependent people, and they provide potentially large

new funding sources to help finance rural development investments. However, there are

also many potential challenges and constraints that may limit how well such benefits are

achieved, and whether they reach poor people. These are discussed in a subsequent

subsection.

Many design issues will need to be decided in designing a REDD payment

system. Among these are questions about the scope of the system (what resources,

activities and countries are eligible), the baseline that reduced deforestation will be

measured against (how it will be measured, over what time period and spatial scale), how

the payments will be distributed (where and to whom, what assets will be rewarded, at

what scale), and how the payments will be financed (whether by a market, a fund, or a

combination of mechanisms) (Parker, et al. 2008). The impacts of whatever system is

adopted (if any) will of course depend on how these issues are resolved. For example, if

payments are made for sub-national level projects, the ease of monitoring and verifying

reductions may be greater and the developmental impacts easier to assure, but problems

of leakage (shifting of deforestation to nearby sub-national areas) may be greater. If a

market mechanism is used to finance payments (as with the CDM), this may harness

greater financial resources than if financing depends on a fund established by donor

governments and multilateral organizations; but the initial costs of capacity strengthening

50

and project development may prove difficult for project developers in developing

countries to finance if only a market mechanism is in place.

Many proposals for REDD payment systems have already been developed by

governments and by non-governmental organizations, with differing propositions on

these issues. Almost all propose that REDD systems should include payments for both

reduced deforestation and reduced forest degradation, while a few propose going further

to also include carbon enhancement activities (Ibid.). Most propose that reductions

should be measured at the national level, while some propose measuring reductions at a

sub-national level (combined with national level measurement) or at a more global level.

Most propose that reductions should be measured relative to deforestation rates during an

historical period, while some advocate measuring relative to projected future

deforestation and degradation, and one advocates measuring relative to current levels.

Many of those that advocate measuring relative to historic rates propose allowing for

adjustments for expected development, which brings those closer to the proposals to use

projected rates (Ibid.). With regard to the distribution of payments, most proposals do not

specify an explicit distributional mechanism, which implies that payments would be

distributed solely on the basis of emission reductions. Some proposals argue for some

explicit distribution of payments to countries who would not benefit much from a REDD

payment scheme, such as low emitting developing countries. With regard to funding

mechanisms, most proposals advocate multiple mechanisms, with special funds used to

finance capacity strengthening and project development costs and markets providing

payments once projects are established.

Agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU)

As with REDD, AFOLU activities have large potential to impact GHG levels in the atmosphere.

Smith, et al. (2008) estimate that GHG reductions of more than 5 billion t CO2e per year by 2030

are possible globally through improved agricultural and land management practices, assuming

carbon prices of up to $100 per t CO2e (Figure 4-2). Most of these reductions are from soil and

biomass carbon sequestration activities, including restoration of organic/peaty soils, improved

cropland management, improved grazing land management, and restoration of degraded lands,

which together account for more than three-fourths of the total reduction from agriculture and

51

land management. The technical potential for mitigation through such activities in Africa is

estimated to be about one-fifth of the global total – 970 Mt CO2e per year by 2030 – while the

economic potential (assuming carbon prices of up to $20 per t CO2e) in Africa is estimated to be

265 Mt CO2e (Smith 2008). This is nearly four times the level of emissions reductions expected

in 2012 from all CDM projects (including projects in the pipeline) in SSA, and one third of total

emission reductions purchased under the CDM globally in 2007. Almost all of this economic

potential for reductions in Africa is from agricultural and land management options in sub-

Saharan Africa (Table 4-2). The potential flow of funds to SSA for such activities is thus more

than $5 billion per year, assuming a price of $20 per t CO2e for soil carbon sequestration. With

lower carbon prices, this potential would be less, but still appears likely to be on the order of at

least $2 billion per year.

These impacts are in addition to the potential impacts of afforestation or

reforestation efforts in Africa, which are estimated by the IPCC to be able to sequester

665 Mt CO2 in 2030 (at opportunity costs of up to $100 per tCO2) (Nabuurs, et al. 2007).

If half of this potential were achieved at payments of $10 per tCO2, this would result in

payments of more than $3 billion per year.

Combining the potential for REDD and AFOLU activities in Africa, the total

emissions reduction potential is estimated to be nearly 2.2 billion tCO2e in 2030. This is

equivalent to 6.5% of total GHG emissions in 2000 (33.7 billion tCO2e (Baumert, Herzog

and Pershing 2005)); a considerable impact even if this will not solve GHG emissions by

itself. Considering the potential payments for REDD and for improved agricultural land

management practices discussed above, together with the potential for afforestation and

reforestation payments, total payments of more than $10 billion per year for these

activities in Africa (assuming only 50% of the potential reductions are achieved) appear

possible.

Unfortunately, consideration of including a broader set AFOLU activities in the post-

Kyoto treaty appears to be less far advanced than consideration of REDD payments. The Bali

Action Plan made no mention of AFOLU activities among activities to consider for climate

change mitigation or adaptation. This oversight may reflect scientific uncertainties about the

level of carbon sequestered by agricultural and land management practices or concerns about the

ability to monitor and verify emissions reductions at low enough cost, contributing to skepticism

52

among the COP of the UNFCCC about the potential and feasibility of payments for AFOLU

activities (these challenges are discussed in the next subsection). However, the large technical

and economic potential estimated by the IPCC for AFOLU activities and demonstration of the

feasibility of contracts for AFOLU projects by the Chicago Climate Exchange can help to

counter such skepticism. Another reason for the lack of mention of this option may simply be a

lack of sufficient involvement in earlier UNFCCC meetings of persons and organizations

focusing on the potentials of SLM to help mitigate and adapt to climate change. This can be

addressed in the current UNFCCC Copenhagen process by involvement of the UNCCD,

coalitions such as TerrAfrica and NEPAD, and representatives of African and other developing

countries supportive of recognizing and building on the synergies between SLM and climate

change mitigation and adaptation.

4.2.2. Challenges and constraints

There are many challenges and constraints to achieving the potential of these opportunities. We

consider first the constraints applicable under the current Kyoto protocol, and then constraints to

expanded realization of the potentials under a new post-Kyoto climate change regime.

Constraints to expansion of afforestation/reforestation CDM projects in SSA

The restriction of CDM eligibility of AFOLU activities to include only afforestation or

reforestation (A/R) projects is of course a major barrier. But there are many other challenges and

constraints limiting development and implementation of A/R CDM projects. These include the

transaction costs of registering, verifying and certifying projects relative to carbon prices; the

temporary nature of CERs awarded for A/R projects and requirements that apply only to A/R

CDM projects; uncertainty about the benefits of projects and the future of the CDM; the length

of time required before CERs can be awarded for A/R projects; the “sunk” (unrecoverable)

nature of costs of many of the investments involved (e.g., costs for investments in non-

marketable assets such as communal land), which tends to inhibit investments in the face of

uncertainty; and insecurity of property rights, which can undermine the ability of land based

investments such as reforestation, or lead to negative impacts on poor households and

communities (Baalman and Schlamadinger 2008; Bryan, et al. 2008; Jindal, et al. 2008).

53

Transaction costs can prohibit the viability of many projects, especially small

ones. Most project developers responding to a recent study of the cost of AFOLU

mitigation projects indicated that the cost of registering carbon units with the CDM were

greater than $200,000, roughly twice the cost of certification in voluntary markets

(Baalman and Schlamadinger 2008). According to the project developers interviewed,

the high costs of CDM registration are due largely to the need to use expensive specialists

to develop methodologies and project design documents, because of the complexity of

the issues and procedures involved (Ibid.). Among the complex issues that must be

addressed are the needs to show “additionality” of the investment (i.e., that it increases

carbon sequestration relative to what would have occurred in absence of the project) and

that “leakages” (shifting of carbon emissions to other locations as a result of the project)

are avoided. Simplified procedures are allowed for addressing these issues for small

scale projects (i.e., use of default values or assumptions to address them), but even so, the

main methodology used for small scale A/R CDM projects typically requires completion

of a 30 page document, comparable to large scale methodologies in other sectors (Ibid.).

Besides the costs of complying with such requirements, lack of availability of qualified

experts to assist with developing project methodologies and plans, or to validate and

verify project plans and implementation, can also be a major constraint, especially in

SSA.

Because many of these transaction costs are relatively independent of project size,

they result in higher average costs per unit of emission reduction in smaller projects.

According to one study, transaction costs of CDM projects range from $1.48 per tCO2e

for large projects to as high as $14.78 per tCO2 for small projects (Michaelowa and Jotzo

2005). With prices for CERs falling below 10 Euros ($12.70) in late February, 2009

(http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1472), it is clear that such

high transaction costs make many potential CDM projects non-viable. As a result, few

new CDM projects are being considered in the present depressed price environment

(Ibid.).

The problem of high transaction costs relative to CER prices is worse for A/R

projects because A/R projects do not qualify for regular CERs, due to the impermanence

of the emission reductions achieved (since planted trees may be cut or destroyed by

54

fires). Two separate types of CERs are applied to A/R projects, either a temporary CER

(tCER) or a long-term CER (lCER). Current tCERs expire at the end of the current

commitment period in 2012, while lCERs expire at the end of the project crediting period

(e.g., 30 years) (Jindal, et al. 2008). Neither type of CER can be carried over to

subsequent commitment periods, and a buyer who retires an lCER credit bears the

responsibility for CER replacement in the event of subsequent removals of planted trees

or other violations of the agreement (Baalman and Schlamadinger 2008). As a result, the

prices of tCERs and lCERs are substantially lower than regular CERs, with both typically

valued at only about 25% of standard CERs (Ibid.). Contributing to these low prices is

the fact that emission reductions from CDM A/R projects in developing countries are not

accepted by the EU Emission Trading Scheme.

Long time lags and uncertainty about receiving certification also inhibit

development of CDM projects. Because of the time required for trees to become

established, A/R projects typically require at least 5 years before they are eligible for

certification. CDM verification requirements at subsequent five-year intervals can

further delay creation of CER credits (Ibid.). Risks can also be very substantial for such

projects, especially when effective collective action is required to assure adequate

management of the project (e.g., to establish and protect tree plantations to ensure tree

survival), and local capacities for such collective management may be limited. Such

risks are compounded by uncertainties about the future of the CDM after the Kyoto

agreement expires and about future prices of CERs in the global market. Combining

these concerns with the sunk costs involved in financing such investments, the shortage

of financial capital and technical expertise in countries of SSA, and insecurity of property

rights in many areas of SSA, it is easy to understand why the number of CDM projects

related to land management is so small. We discuss options to address these constraints

in a later sub-section.

All of these challenges and constraints do not imply that investing in A/R CDM is

hopeless, particularly if there is financial and technical support from development

partners to help overcome them. A/R projects can earn high private and social rates of

return in Africa, despite these costs and barriers. For example, a recent evaluation of

impacts of SLM project investments in Niger estimated that community tree plantations

55

promoted by projects earn an average internal rate of return of at least 28 percent (Pender

and Ndjeunga 2008). However, they estimated that including the value of carbon

payments for such plantations would only increase the rate of return by a few percentage

points (assuming a payment of $4.20 per tCO2 eq based on the rate offered by the World

Bank’s BioCarbon Fund for an afforestation project in Niger). The additionality of such

project-promoted tree plantations is clear in Niger, given that very few communities have

a plantation without a project.12 Thus, even though projects may contribute little to the

profitability of an A/R project, the involvement of the project may be essential in

providing technical expertise, finance, and access to essential inputs such as seedlings, or

by facilitating effective collective action. The potential for scaling up A/R or other SLM

investments in Africa through the CDM (or otherwise) will depend on identifying such

potentially profitable investments and helping to provide such essential inputs.

Constraints to increased AFOLU investments through voluntary carbon markets

Many of the constraints that apply to CDM investments also apply to the prospect of increasing

AFOLU investments supported other compliance markets or by voluntary carbon markets,

although to a different degree. For example, the transaction costs of obtaining certification of

third party standards are still an important constraint, although the costs may not be as high as for

CDM certification. Limited technical capacity of potential project developers and limited

availability of qualified experts to validate proposals and certify projects also constrain the

ability to develop and implement projects and certify compliance with voluntary standards in

SSA.

Some of the constraints imposed by the CDM regime are being addressed through

voluntary market development. As noted earlier, voluntary markets are not limited to only A/R

projects, and have been used to support projects related to other AFOLU activities such as

conservation tillage and grassland management, and for REDD activities. Time lags and the

need for initial finance are being addressed through financing provided by carbon mitigation

funds. The need for future verification of project emission reductions does not prevent

marketing of emissions reductions in the near term, although buffer reserves of non-tradable

credits are required to insure against future uncertainties and possible reversals. For example, 12 The same is not true of farmer-managed natural regeneration of trees, which is a widespread traditional practice in Niger (Larwanou, et al. 2006; Pender and Ndjeunga 2008).

56

the VCS applies a buffer incorporating a longevity component, which is the same across projects

and declines over time, and a project specific risk component based on assessments by auditors

during each verification (Baalman and Schlamadinger 2008). The longevity buffer requirement

can be as large as 30% in the first year of the project while risk buffers can be as large as 60%

(Ibid.).

However, the limited extent of such projects in SSA suggests that transaction

costs and limited technical and financial capacities in SSA, combined with even lower

carbon prices on the voluntary market than in the CDM market, continue to be major

barriers to expansion of these projects in SSA. As a result of limited technical and

financial capacities as well as limited experience with such projects in SSA, the perceived

risks for such projects are likely higher in SSA than in developed countries, further

reducing the demand and potential price for such offsets in the voluntary market. These

perceived risks can be reduced over time as a result of investments in increasing the

technical and financial capacities of project developers and intermediaries in SSA, and as

experience with such projects increases.

Constraints to expanding funding for adaptation

The limited size of available adaptation funds compared to the need is the most important

constraint. Besides lack of funds, many other constraints also inhibit implementation of the

NAPAs, as identified by many of these documents themselves. These include in many cases the

complex and difficult procedures required to obtain funds from the available funding sources;

lack of awareness of the problems and adaptation options among policy makers and the general

population; lack of political will and support of policy makers; lack of coordination among key

government ministries involved in promoting adaptation; the need for involvement of key

ministries such as finance ministries; lack of scientific and technological capacity to identify,

monitor and learn from actions taken to facilitate adaptation; lack of human capacity to

implement adaptation activities at all levels, including government, the private sector, civil

society and local communities; failure to sufficiently involve local communities and farmers in

planning actions to address climate change; and the constraints underlying many of these

problems in SSA, including poverty, low levels of education, poor infrastructure, governance

problems and others.

57

These challenges and constraints can and are being addressed by efforts of governments

in SSA, their development partners, civil society, local communities and the private sector to

develop their technical and financial capacities to identify, plan and implement programs and

projects for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to integrate such programs and

projects with the broader development strategies and policies being pursued in these countries.

Partnerships such as TerrAfrica and NEPAD/CAADP are playing a critical role in this process

by facilitating development of Country Strategy Investment Frameworks for SLM that are

integrated with African countries’ development, and supporting the development of financial and

technical capacities to implement these frameworks. This is a long term process, and success is

likely to be incremental, although substantial progress is already occurring in many countries.

Many of these constraints, as well as additional challenges and constraints, may

inhibit realization of the large potential new opportunities for the post-Kyoto period that

were discussed above. We consider these next.

Challenges to United States participation in climate markets

The political feasibility of U.S. ratification of a post-Kyoto climate treaty is by no means certain,

although the chances of success have improved. In the last Congress, the Warner – Lieberman

cap and trade bill received only 48 yes votes in the Senate, far short of the 60 votes needed to

allow passage of a bill in the Senate and the two-thirds (67) votes required to ratify a treaty.

Especially in the current deep economic recession, any proposal that increases the cost of energy

will be seen by many as a new “tax” and will face strong opposition.

Arguments on the merits and difficulties of a cap and trade scheme may

undermine support for participation in a post-Kyoto treaty or for continuing or expanding

the CDM as a part of a treaty, even among some advocates of measures to address

climate change. For example, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

recently released a critical report on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the CDM

that, although acknowledging the positive impacts that these regulatory schemes have had

in promoting development of the carbon market, argues that the impacts of these schemes

on emission reductions and economic development are unclear, because of problems such

as high transaction costs, difficulty of demonstrating additionality of CDM projects, and

58

the short term nature of the CDM (GAO 2008). Such arguments may be persuasive with

many members of the U.S. Congress. Hence, even if a treaty or law is passed

establishing a cap and trade system in the United States, such concerns may limit the

extent to which emissions offsets purchased from developing countries will be allowed.

There is also a risk that farm advocacy groups in the United States (and other developed

countries) will seek to have all offset payments made domestically, to increase the benefits for

their own farmers, even if this increases the cost of achieving emissions reductions. If there are

doubts about the verifiability and permanence of carbon offsets in developing countries,

environmental groups may also prefer to restrict offsets to domestic sources, which may be seen

as more easily verified.

Challenges to REDD payments

There are many challenges to the effective use of REDD payments to mitigate climate change

and benefit countries and poor people in SSA. There will be serious technical difficulties and

costs of defining baselines and measuring and verifying reduced deforestation and forest

degradation. Measurement of changes in forest degradation, as opposed to deforestation (which

can be measured using remote sensing techniques), is likely to be especially difficult.

A particularly thorny problem is the issue of additionality, which hinges on the question

of what level of deforestation would have occurred without the payments. Addressing this issue

is important not only to assure the effectiveness of the payments in reducing GHG emissions, but

also because this determines the level of payments to be made. If a country with a high rate of

past deforestation is paid to reduce future deforestation rates below that level, large payments

could be paid even though no actual reduction in emissions occurred as a result, if the rate of

deforestation would have declined anyway (for example, because of a halt in road building in

forested areas that was planned even without the payments). The hypothetical nature of the

counterfactual situation (what would deforestation have been without the payments) may make

REDD payments seem to be arbitrary and ineffective to many observers.

A related issue is the potential for adverse incentives to be caused by REDD payments.

If payments are made based on changes relative to current or recent deforestation rates (at the

time of treaty implementation), this could create incentives for countries to promote or allow

increased deforestation until the post-Kyoto treaty is ratified and begins to be implemented. This

59

problem could be addressed by advocating and using a historical baseline that is before the

current date, so that decisions related to deforestation made from now until the new treaty begins

implementation could not affect future REDD payments. However, the longer the time period

between the historical reference period and whenever the future treaty begins to be implemented,

the less likely it is that the reference period will adequately represent what future deforestation

would have been without the payments, especially in rapidly developing (or economically

declining) countries. This problem could be addressed to some extent by predicting future

deforestation rates based on some kind of model, although how well this will represent the

counterfactual will not be observable, so concerns about arbitrariness of the payments and their

impacts will remain.

Another political and moral concern relates to the fairness of the distribution of REDD

payments. Countries that have made efforts to reduce their deforestation rates in the past may

see little benefit from a REDD payment scheme, while countries that have caused high

deforestation rates through poor or uncaring policies may receive high payments.13 Many may

regard such a scheme as unfair, even if the adverse incentives problem can be avoided. This

concern is why several of the proposals made to date for REDD payment schemes incorporate

some kind of distributional mechanism. Such distributional payments, while helping to assure

the political feasibility of a scheme, do nothing to reduce emissions and hence reduce the cost

effectiveness of the scheme.

The possibility of leakages is another serious challenge, especially if payments are made

for projects in sub-national regions or in small countries. Payments to reduce deforestation and

degradation in one location may result in shifting the location of deforestation and degradation to

another location, whether it is elsewhere in the same country or in other countries. To help

address this problem, it may work better to make payments for REDD in larger geographical

units, whether nations or even supra-national units, especially among small neighboring forested

countries (for example, in Central America). However, making REDD payments to larger

geographical and political units may undermine the goal of using such payments to help improve

the livelihoods of poor people (more on this below). Furthermore, leakages can still occur even

between countries or continents that are distant from each other. To the extent that such

payments are effective in increasing the prices of forest products or other products that are 13 Of course, this criticism also can be applied to payments for emissions reductions through other types of projects, such as energy projects; i.e., countries that have polluted more in the past qualify for larger payments.

60

promoted by deforestation (for example, cattle in Latin America), market level effects may cause

leakages even to areas far away from where REDD payments are applied. For example, if

REDD payments cause the price of Brazilian cattle to increase as a result of reduced forest land

available for ranching, cattle ranching for export markets may shift to other countries or

continents, possibly contributing to increased deforestation in those locations.

REDD payments also could have negative impacts on poor people in developing

countries. The prospects of receiving large payments may encourage governments or powerful

private interests to forcibly evict land users from forests and forest margin areas, with severe

negative impacts on their well being. Such problems are particularly likely to arise where

communities and households do not have secure tenure to their land, and where corruption is a

serious problem, both of which are common in forest areas of many developing countries. Such

negative impacts could be offset or even outweighed by investments in improving the livelihoods

of poor rural people, especially those who depend on forests. Whether such investments will

actually take place and be effective in helping poor people depends greatly on the real (as

opposed to the stated) objectives of policy makers or other elite groups (that is, whether

benefiting the rural poor is a real objective supported by political will), on the extent of

corruption, on the capacity of governments to identify and implement policies and investments

that will benefit the affected rural poor, and on the costs of carrying out such policies and

investments. Unfortunately, the developing countries that have the most to gain from a REDD

payment scheme also tend to have greater problems of corruption and weak capacity (Figure 4-

3).

A final concern with REDD payments is that they may substantially increase the

supply of available offsets, flooding the market and crowding out other emissions

reductions (Ecosecurities and Global Mechanism 2008). This is not necessarily a

problem if the emissions reductions from REDD are real and additive, if the objective is

to obtain the most emissions reductions at the lowest cost (which is the main economic

rationale for allowing emissions trading). But, as noted above, assuring the additionality

of emissions reductions purchased through REDD payments will be difficult. This may

undermine the effectiveness of emissions reduction efforts globally (if the reductions are

not additive) and hence may erode support for the entire cap and trade system if the

targeted global reductions in GHG emissions are not achieved as a result.

61

Solutions to this problem could be to keep the REDD market separate from other

carbon markets (that is, not allow REDD payments to offset other emissions reductions),

support REDD payments through a separate fund rather than carbon markets, or discount

the value of REDD emissions reductions relative to other emissions reductions

considered to be more certain and verifiable (for example, one ton of CO2e reduction

through REDD could be set to equal 0.5 ton of CO2e reduction in the EU ETS or CDM).

The first two options have the advantage of limiting the potential negative impacts of

REDD payments on other carbon markets, but will greatly reduce the total amount of

potential payments. The last option could maintain a large market for REDD emissions

reductions, albeit at an arbitrarily set discount, and would reduce but not eliminate the

risk to other carbon markets. A sequence of the first and third options could also be used,

with the first (segmented market) option used to allow price discovery in the REDD

market, which could be used to establish a market-based discount factor to apply in the

third option. Alternatively, the price for REDD payments in voluntary markets, where

trades based on REDD projects are allowed, could be used to establish a discount factor.

Challenges to payments for AFOLU activities

Incorporating payments for AFOLU activities such as conservation tillage, agroforestry, and

rangeland management into a post-Kyoto regime and successfully reaching small scale farmers

in SSA would also face many challenges and constraints. The transactions costs of establishing

projects, monitoring and verifying emissions reductions could be prohibitive relative to the

potential payments that farmers might receive. For example, consider the range of emissions

reductions credit offered by the CCX for conservation tillage (0.5 to 1.5 t CO2e per hectare) and

a carbon price of $5 to $10 per t CO2e. With this range of credits and price of carbon, farmers

could earn between $2.50 and $15 per hectare for adopting conservation tillage. This may well

be worth it in terms of the farmers’ opportunity costs, since in many cases conservation tillage is

more profitable than conventional tillage. Nevertheless, the transaction costs of participating in a

payment scheme could easily swamp the value of the payment, especially for small farmers with

only a few hectares of land.

For small farmers in Africa (and elsewhere) to benefit substantially from AFOLU

payments, the transaction costs per farmer must be very small. This means that

62

expensive measurements for verification, such as soil and biomass samples to measure

carbon sequestration levels on individual farms, are not likely to be feasible. A less

costly approach, if measurement is desired, would be to have community or farmer

organizations participate in a payment scheme, and use a sampling approach within these

organizations to measure and verify carbon sequestration. Even less costly would be to

establish norms for soil carbon sequestration achieved by particular types of land

management practices, such as used by the CCX and the VCS, rather than trying to

measure soil and biomass carbon levels. Given that carbon sequestration depends on

many factors besides the land management practice (for example, the type of soil and the

local climate), it would be important to establish norms for emissions reductions due to

particular practices under different biophysical conditions, drawing upon existing and, as

needed, new research. There will still be monitoring and verification costs required, but

these could focus on monitoring changes in land management practices and assessing the

applicable biophysical context, to establish the appropriate emission reduction norm to

apply. Efforts to develop such a monitoring approach for soil carbon are underway, and

these offer promise of achieving a cost effective approach to enable small farmers in

developing countries to benefit from AFOLU payments.14

Given the importance of managing such payments through farmer or community

organizations to minimize transaction costs per farmer, an important constraint for implementing

these will be the presence and effectiveness of such organizations, and how well they serve the

interests of the rural poor. In most of SSA, farmer and community organizations are not well

developed, and in some cases have been undermined by policies that politicized or manipulated

such organizations. Developing the capacity of and people’s confidence in such organizations is

a long term need that is important in general for achieving rural development in SSA, and not

only for implementing payments for climate mitigation or adaptation. But where such

organizations exist and are effective, or could become effective with moderate support for

capacity strengthening, payment schemes for AFOLU activities (as well as REDD and other

climate mitigation activities) could provide valuable new opportunities for these organizations to

provide benefits to their members while promoting broader social and environmental benefits.

14 For example, a workshop on Reduced Emissions and Adaptation in Landscapes (REAL) held at the World Bank in January 2009 reviewed methodologies for measuring and monitoring soil carbon and proposed a practical approach to monitoring soil carbon, along the lines suggested here (Sara Scherr, personal communication).

63

Many of the challenges and constraints affecting REDD payments and other payment

schemes under the CDM would also apply to AFOLU payments. For example, concerns about

additionality and leakages of the impacts of such payments must be addressed. Assuring

additionality appears easier in this case than in the case of REDD payments, since it is mainly a

matter of showing that farmers begin to use practices that they weren’t using before the payment

scheme (such as minimum tillage), rather than trying to project how much deforestation would

have occurred without the payments. Of course, there is still the problem that the counterfactual

is not known. For example, even if farmers did not use minimum tillage before a payment

scheme, it doesn’t prove that they wouldn’t have started using it even without the payments,

especially if the practice is profitable without the payments.

Indeed, given the small value of payments per hectare that are likely to be

available for most AFOLU activities and the transaction costs required to obtain them,

AFOLU payments are likely to have at best a marginal impact on the profitability of such

practices.15 For widescale adoption to occur, AFOLU projects therefore will need to

focus on promoting practices that are already profitable. Assuring additionality in this

case will require emphasizing promotion of practices that are limited by other constraints

than low profitability, such as farmers’ lack of awareness of the practices or their lack of

technical, financial or organizational capacity to use them effectively. Hence, rather than

making payments directly to farmers, AFOLU payment schemes are more likely to be

effective (and to limit transaction costs) if the payments are used to support development

of effective agricultural extension or credit mechanisms or farmer organizations that can

overcome such constraints.

Potential problems of leakages resulting from AFOLU payments also appear to be less of

a concern than leakages potentially caused by REDD payments. If a group of farmers begins to

use conservation tillage or some other sustainable land management practice on their own land, it

does not seem likely that this would cause other farmers to start using less sustainable land

management practices. One exception to this could be if the new management practice causes

farmers to obtain lower yields, which might require them to farm more extensively, potentially

causing land degradation as cultivation expands into rangelands or forest areas. Another source 15 Agroforestry, especially in more humid areas, is an exception because of large above ground biomass potential. For example, the farmers participating in the Nhambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique receive a cash payment of $243 per ha over seven years; averaging $34.70 per household per year and representing a significant increase in cash incomes for most households (Jindal, et al. 2008).

64

of leakage could be if the new SLM practice involves restricting access to some resource (for

example, controlled access to grazing areas), which could cause livestock herders to shift to other

areas, potentially causing degradation of other grazing areas. Such potential negative impacts of

promoting particular land management practices need to be carefully considered within the

context in which the payment scheme is used. Applied research and knowledge management

would be needed to better understand how and in what contexts such impacts are likely to occur,

and the lessons incorporated into the design of payment schemes.

Applied research and knowledge management would also be needed to assess

impacts of AFOLU payments on the rural poor in different contexts, to help ensure that

unintended negative impacts do not arise, and that any negative impacts that do arise are

mitigated. For example, payments that support restricting access to grazing land could

have negative impacts on livestock herders. It will be important to use an inclusive

process when negotiating agreements for such schemes, to ensure that all affected groups

have a voice and can find ways to avoid or compensate for costs imposed on particular

groups.

4.3. Options to Address Opportunities and Constraints to Climate Mitigation and Adaptation through SLM in SSA

Key messages

Several options appear promising to exploit the opportunities and address the constraints to

increasing climate mitigation and adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa through SLM activities:

Advocate improvements in the post-Kyoto agreement that address these opportunities and

constraints. Particular improvements to consider advocating include

o Expanding eligibility in the CDM to include all activities that sequester carbon or

reduce emissions of GHGs, including REDD and AFOLU activities;

o Agreeing to national targets for GHG levels of developing countries, and use a

full GHG national accounting approach to credit reductions relative to baselines;

and

o Increasing funding for adaptation measures.

65

Simplify and improve the procedures to access funds under the CDM, adaptation funds

and other relevant funds.

Explore existing opportunities to increase participation in voluntary markets such as the

CCX and VCS.

Expand knowledge generation and outreach efforts on the problems of climate variability

and change, land degradation, their linkages, and options for solution.

Engage local community leaders, farmers and other land users in planning and rule

making processes.

Promote increased coordination of efforts to address climate variability, climate change,

and land degradation and integration with key government strategies and processes,

including agricultural and environmental strategies.

Expand investment in strengthening technical, organizational and human capacity

relevant to climate and land management issues in SSA.

Address specific policy, institutional and other constraints to SLM and climate change

mitigation and adaptation at national and local level in the context of country strategic

investment frameworks (CSIFs).

4.3.1. Advocate improvements in the post-Kyoto agreement

In the post-Kyoto agreement, there are opportunities to substantially increase funding for SLM

activities related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, but realizing these opportunities

will require effective advocacy by stakeholders most concerned about achieving this. Ensuring

the continuation of the CDM will be essential, including improvements to expand its scope and

improve its accessibility to Africans. Three particularly important opportunities for this are to i)

expand eligibility for the CDM to include all include all activities that sequester carbon or reduce

emissions of GHGs, including REDD and AFOLU activities; ii) agree to national targets for

GHG levels of all countries, including developing countries, and use a full GHG national

accounting approach to credit reductions relative to baselines; and iii) increase funding for

adaptation measures.

Expand eligibility for the CDM to include REDD and AFOLU activities

66

Making all activities that sequester carbon or reduce GHG emissions eligible for

the CDM, including REDD and AFOLU activities, would dramatically increase the

potential of the CDM to help promote SLM for climate change mitigation and adaptation

in Africa and other developing regions. There has already been substantial progress

towards developing a scheme for REDD payments, with many proposals already

circulated and being discussed by major stakeholders. It is critical that the many

challenges and constraints that could undermine the effectiveness of such payments or

cause unintended negative consequences are adequately considered and addressed, and

not allowed to undermine the potential of the approach. Potential problems of leakages

and negative impacts on poor and vulnerable populations are particularly important to

address, so that the ultimate impacts on sustainable natural resource management and

poverty reduction are as positive as possible. Given that they have comparable potential

to REDD to help mitigate climate change, and probably greater potential to help improve

rural livelihoods and facilitate adaptation, it is unfortunate and somewhat surprising that

AFOLU activities have not received the same support in the UNFCCC process as REDD

or other activities. Although there are difficult challenges and constraints that would

affect the feasibility of payments for AFOLU activities, the previous discussion illustrates

that these challenges are not likely to be any more difficult to address than those that face

a REDD payment scheme (and in many cases may be easier to address).

Active advocacy by African governments and other stakeholders concerned about

SLM in SSA, including the UNCCD, CAADP, and TerrAfrica partners, will be essential

to raise the profile of AFOLU payments so that they receive serious consideration. To

the extent that such a coalition contributes to acceptance of REDD payments, it may also

receive greater cooperation and support from other stakeholders that are more focused on

promoting forestry activities but haven’t yet supported including AFOLU payments in

the post-Kyoto agreement. If these overlapping but somewhat distinct groups of

stakeholders join forces to effectively advocate both REDD and AFOLU payments, the

chances of success for both initiatives are likely be greater.

Agree to national GHG targets for developing countries and use national GHG accounting

67

One major way to increase the contribution to climate change mitigation of farmers and other

resource users in Africa and other developing regions would be for all countries, including

developing countries, to agree to national GHG emission targets that are used as the basis for

crediting emissions reductions. Such an approach is of course already applied to Annex I

countries under the Kyoto protocol. Including targets for developing countries in a post-Kyoto

agreement does not imply that developing countries would have to accept binding commitments

to reduce GHG emissions that could retard their development and would be unfair (considering

much higher GHG emissions per capita in developed countries). Targets could be based on

projected increases in GHG emissions needed to achieve sustainable development, considering

population and economic growth and available technologies and capacities of each country. A

“no lose” approach could be used in which developing countries are credited if they achieve

reductions in emissions below their target, but are not penalized if they fail to do so. A full

national carbon or GHG accounting approach would be used to monitor and verify emissions

reductions below the targets. Suggestions of this nature have been proposed by a few groups

(e.g., Trines, et al. 2006; The Terrestrial Carbon Group 2008).

This approach would have the advantage of being comprehensive, including all

GHG sources and sinks, including AFOLU, REDD and others. If offsets across different

sources and sinks within and across countries are allowed, this would promote use of the

most cost effective ways of reducing GHG emissions. By using national level accounting

and including all countries in the system, problems of leakages of emissions within and

across countries would be reduced. To the extent that baseline emission targets are well

justified and reductions relative to those baselines real and verifiable, additionality of

payments would be assured.

However, there would be substantial challenges to overcome in order to enact and

implement such an approach. Reaching agreement on country-specific GHG targets

would be a major political challenge. Compounding this would be the technical

difficulties of reliably measuring or estimating current and projected future GHG

emissions, and political and administrative difficulties of achieving real emission

reductions in ways that benefit poor people and avoid negative environmental tradeoffs.

Assuring the additionality of payments for reductions below target GHG emissions levels

would be difficult, especially where the technical and administrative difficulties are major

68

hurdles. Absence of solid scientific data and consensus on the GHG emission impacts of

various AFOLU practices or other activities in different contexts also could undermine

confidence in the approach. These difficulties are likely to be especially challenging in

the least developed countries where data, technical and administrative capacities are very

limited.

Given the challenges as well as potential of such an approach, it would be

advisable to assess the potential of this approach in more detail, considering different

options for its use. For example, considerations of political and technical feasibility may

argue for limiting the application of this approach, at least initially, to certain countries

and certain activities. If the feasibility of the approach could be established on such a

pilot basis, it could subsequently be expanded to more countries and activities as

warranted by the methods and capacities available.

Increase adaptation funds

As shown earlier in this report, the level of funding available to support adaptation activities in

developing countries is woefully inadequate compared to the need. This has important

implications for the potential to finance SLM activities in SSA, since such activities have been

identified as high priority in most of the NAPAs prepared by African countries. Although the

funds available in the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund are projected to increase with the size of the

CDM, these funds are still quite limited because of the limited scope of the CDM and the low

2% rate of assessment on CDM projects. Expanding the scope of CDM to include REDD and

AFOLU activities potentially will substantially increase the amount of funds available for

adaptation, and hence for SLM activities that are priority for adaptation (as well as other

adaptation activities). This illustrates an additional synergy between climate change mitigation

and adaptation, in which increased mitigation activities related to SLM contribute to additional

funds for adaptation, some of which also will be used to promote SLM. Beyond expanding the

scope of CDM, increasing the level of the levy on CDM projects for the Adaptation Fund could

also be considered as an option to increase the size of this fund.

4.3.2. Simplify and improve procedures to access funds for climate mitigation and adaptation

69

A common criticism of the CDM is the complexity, high transactions costs and uncertainty of

procedures for registering these projects. Some complexity, transaction costs and uncertainty are

of course unavoidable in any program that seeks to achieve additional and verifiable emission

reductions or GHG sequestration. But it may be possible to reduce some of these burdens

without greatly sacrificing these objectives though some improvements in procedures.

An example of a change going in this direction is the option allowing

Programmes of Activities (PoA) to act as umbrellas for groups of similar activities, thus

helping to reduce transaction costs per activity. The requirements for PoA were approved

by the Executive Board of the CDM at the end of 2007, so there is limited experience

with these so far. As of January, 2009, only 16 PoA had been initiated, with all still in

the validation stage, and none related to A/R activities (UNEP Risoe 2009). A recent

survey of project developers found some who felt PoAs could help to streamline the

process and make some projects feasible, while others felt that this does not solve the

main problems with the CDM and that its impacts would be negligible (Baalman and

Schlamadinger 2008). Nearly all developers interviewed were reticent about being a

“pioneer” in pursuing a PoA, since it involves additional processes of unknown cost and

complexity (Ibid.). One way a PoA could help with A/R projects could be by enabling

developers to avoid having to specify fixed boundaries of the project (as they do under

normal procedures), which can limit participation in the project since the set of interested

potential participants may not be known during the design stage. However, it could be

simpler if the CDM were to allow flexible boundaries in A/R projects, in which

additional planting areas could be added to the project without new proposal

requirements as long as the same project methodology were used and participants were

involved (Ibid.). Such a flexible approach is allowed by the New South Wales

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) in Australia.

Another change in the CDM that could increase its attractiveness to A/R project

developers in SSA would be to replace the non-fungible tCERs and lCERs for these

activities by permanent CERs, as issued for other CDM projects (Ibid.). Risks of non-

permanence of emission reductions could be addressed by requiring a risk buffer similar

to that used under the VCS. This would address the problem caused by expiring credits

while still addressing the risks of non-permanence.

70

Supporting the development and demonstration of simplified methodologies for

establishing baselines and verifying emissions reductions would likely be helpful,

especially for areas where there has been little CDM activity to date (like A/R projects)

or new areas (like REDD and AFOLU activities) and for smaller projects. Acceptance of

standardized simple methodologies, supported by sufficient research and tailored to local

contexts, to estimate emissions reductions based on readily observed indicators could

greatly reduce the complexity, costs and uncertainties associated with CDM projects.

The CDM could draw lessons from the experience of the Chicago Climate Exchange and

other compliance and voluntary markets that have developed simple standardized

contracts and norms for emissions reductions from various AFOLU activities. Costs and

delays associated with verifying compliance could also be reduced by following

examples from other schemes. For example, the GGAS uses an approach that allows a

proportion of certified units to be credited on the basis of previous verification reports

and satisfactory annual on-site monitoring reports, with full on-site verifications

occurring at no more than 5 year intervals (Ibid.).

Other changes in the CDM that could increase participation of A/R projects would

be to remove or relax restrictions on the amount of CERs from such projects that can be

retired by any Party; change the threshold for small-scale A/R projects to be equivalent to

the threshold for non-A/R projects (a lower threshold presently is used for A/R projects);

and provide support for capacity building of designated national authorities (DNAs) and

host party project participants (Ibid.).

With regard to accessing adaptation funds, part of the concern of developing country

stakeholders may be the large amount of effort that was required to prepare NAPAs, without any

assurance of what funds would be available or clear procedures on how to access those funds.

The preparation of NAPAs in most cases followed the preparation of other strategies and action

plans, such as the NAPs required under the UNCCD, the BSAPs required under the CBD, etc.

Stakeholders may be concerned about the numerous planning exercises that often take place

without sufficient commitment of funds to implement the plans. Thus, the more important issue

may be assuring sufficient funds are available to support adaptation, rather than the procedures to

access them. Nevertheless, simplifications in such procedures may also be possible and helpful,

71

such as clarifying what activities are eligible for funds, what criteria are used to allocate funds

and how they are applied.

4.3.3. Explore existing opportunities to increase participation in voluntary carbon markets

As noted previously, African participation in voluntary markets for AFOLU activities is very

limited, due to transaction costs of obtaining third party certification, limited technical capacity

of project developers, limited availability of qualified designated operational entities (DOEs) to

validate projects and certified emissions reductions, and the high perceived risks of projects in

Africa. Support for developing the capacity of project developers and increasing the availability

of qualified DOEs in SSA will therefore be particularly important to be able to increase access to

the opportunities available. As these capacities are developed and experience with implementing

such activities in SSA increases, the transaction costs and perceived risks of these projects

should decline, contributing to further development of new opportunities.

4.3.4. Expand knowledge generation and outreach efforts related to climate and SLM

One of the important constraints to addressing climate variability and change through SLM (and

other means) is lack of full awareness of the problems, and especially lack of knowledge of

effective responses that are suitable in different contexts. In the absence of such awareness and

knowledge (especially on the part of policy makers), responses are often insufficient, ineffective,

or in some cases, can make the problems worse. Top-down promotion of “one-size-fits-all”

approaches to land management or climate mitigation activities in contexts where these are not

suited, can result in increased land degradation and opposition by local people. An example of

this problem occurred in the Ethiopian highlands during the former Marxist Derg regime, when

farmers were forced to construct terraces, even though this reduced crop production in some

places because of loss of land on steep slopes, increased waterlogging, pests, and other problems.

Because of these problems, farmers sometimes did not adequately maintain the terraces,

contributing to problems of gully formation.

It is important that efforts to promote SLM for climate mitigation and adaptation be

adequately informed about the potential and actual impacts of interventions in different contexts.

Applied research, technology development and knowledge generation and dissemination about

“what works where when and why” in land management can help ensure that these efforts are as

72

effective and pro-poor in their impacts as possible. This research and knowledge dissemination

can and should draw upon a considerable base of indigenous knowledge on these issues, as well

as upon scientific research and rigorous evaluations of program interventions.

4.3.5. Improve coordination of efforts to address climate and land degradation, and

integration with key government strategies and processes

Substantial efforts are taking place to coordinate programs addressing climate change within the

context of the UNFCCC, while programs to address land degradation in Africa are being

coordinated by the UNCCD, NEPAD and TerrAfrica. However, coordination between these

focal areas can still be improved, although significant steps have begun in this direction. The

processes of developing and implementing strategies and plans related to these areas are largely

separate. For example, it is not clear how and to what extent many of the NAPAs developed

under the UNFCCC build upon or are linked to the NAPs developed under the UNCCD.

Involvement of key stakeholders from the SLM community in the current UNFCCC processes is

very useful in addressing this need. It would also be useful to increase the involvement of

stakeholders from the climate change community in the processes to develop SLM strategies and

plans, such as the development of CSIFs.

Even more important is effective integration of strategies and plans related to both

climate change and SLM with the overarching strategies and policy processes in African

countries, including national poverty reduction strategies, rural development strategies,

agricultural and environmental strategies, among others. Although references are often made to

particular strategy documents or policies in national level plans on climate change adaptation or

combating land degradation, actual integration of these plans with government strategies,

financial planning and budgetary processes is usually less clear. Thus, the level of actual

commitment of governments to supporting these plans, in terms of financial and human

resources, often remains ambiguous. TerrAfrica and NEPAD/CAADP are seeking to address

this shortcoming through the process of developing CSIFs. Development of broad programmatic

rather than project approaches to promote SLM under the CSIF’s by TerrAfrica and

NEPAD/CAADP will help to facilitate integration of SLM activities with the broader strategies

of governments. TerrAfrica is also supporting analytical work to estimate public expenditures on

73

SLM activities in several countries, information which will support the process of CSIF

development.

4.3.6. Expand investments in technical, organizational and human capacity relevant to climate

and SLM issues

As noted in many of the NAPs, NAPAs, and other documents, inadequate scientific, technical,

organizational and human capacity is a major constraint to implementation of strategies and

plans to mitigate and adapt to climate change and combat land degradation. A high level of

scientific and technical capacity is required to identify the nature and extent of climate change

and vulnerability and land degradation in particular contexts; diagnose the main causes; prescribe

and implement options to address these problems; and monitor, evaluate and synthesize lessons

from these experiences. Achieving such capacity will require substantial investments in national

agricultural research systems (NARS), investments that have been lacking in recent decades but

which African governments have committed to increasing within the framework of NEPAD.

Donor governments and multilateral organizations are also increasingly recognizing the need to

increase their investments in these systems, as articulated by the World Bank in its 2008 World

Development Report.

Probably even more important than development of scientific and technical capacity is

investment in development of organizational and human capacity at all levels. Government

organizations that are responsible for implementing action plans related to climate and land

management will require increased capacity to provide advisory and other services to large

numbers of people in dispersed locations. Local governments in particular need to strengthen

their capacity to identify and respond to local problems and needs related to climate and land

degradation (as well as in many other areas), especially in the context of decentralization policies

being carried out in many countries. Governments and project developers need to strengthen

their capacities to identify funding opportunities for climate mitigation and adaptation, develop

proposals, link to existing sources and scale up funding. Training of private or public sector

actors is needed to increase the availability of qualified Designated Operational Entities (DOEs)

to validate mitigation project proposals and verify emissions reductions. Development of

effective civil society organizations such as farmer and community organizations will be

essential for small farmers and herders to be able to benefit from the opportunities offered by

74

carbon markets and adaptation programs. Community and organizational leaders, farmers,

herders and other resource users need investments in their human capacity to diagnose problems

related to climate and land management and identify and implement the most effective

responses. Private sector actors, such as agricultural input dealers and advisory service providers

(where private providers are used) also need training on how their products and services can help

farmers and herders to respond to problems caused by climate variability and change and land

degradation.

International private sector actors, such as agribusinesses and foreign investors, can be very

important in contributing to capacity development in African countries, and can also have a large

impact by incorporating SLM approaches into their investments strategies. Effective

engagement of these actors can therefore be very helpful.

4.3.7. Engage civil society, farmers and other resource users in program and project

development

Top-down approaches to promoting SLM for climate change mitigation and adaptation are

unlikely to be successful. As has been shown by a large body of empirical research and practical

experience with community driven natural resource management and development programs,

farmers, pastoralists, and other land resource users, as well as leaders of communities and civil

society organizations, are more likely to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation

efforts if they are actively engaged in defining the problem, identifying and assessing options,

and developing programs and projects to implement their preferred options. Government

agencies and development partners can promote this approach by promoting the use of best

practices in community driven development by project and program developers. Provision of

best practice guidelines and investments to strengthen the capacity of such agents in assessing

local needs, facilitating local groups and other relevant skills can be helpful in this regard.

4.3.8. Address specific constraints to SLM for climate change mitigation and adaptation at

national and local levels through CSIFs

The specific priorities for policy changes and investments to support SLM activities are being

identified at the national and local levels in several African countries through the TerrAfrica

process of developing Country Strategic Investment Frameworks (CSIFs) for SLM. This process

75

often identifies key policy changes, such as changes in land tenure policies or implementation of

such policies that are needed, as well as specific investment priorities to promote SLM. Such

priorities usually include many of the needs highlighted above, such as investments in

strengthening technical, organizational and human capacity, improving knowledge generation

and management, and others. By incorporating climate issues and key stakeholders concerned

about these issues into the process of developing CSIFs, this process can help to integrate

approaches to jointly address climate change, land degradation and other environmental

concerns, and economic development and poverty.

76

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this report, we have reviewed available evidence on climate variability and change and land

degradation in SSA; assessed the potential for SLM approaches to help mitigate and adapt to

these problems; reviewed the policies and strategies being used to promote climate mitigation

and adaptation; identified key opportunities and constraints to improve mitigation and adaptation

through SLM; and identified options to achieve the opportunities and overcome the constraints.

Several key messages emerge from the review:

Climate change and variability in SSA

SSA is highly vulnerable to climate variability and change.

o The impacts of climate variability have increased in SSA in recent decades, and

are expected to continue to do so as a result of climate change.

o The impacts of climate change on future land use, agriculture and food security

are predicted to be negative throughout much of Africa, as a result of rising

temperatures everywhere, and declining and more variable rainfall in many

locations.

These impacts will exacerbate and be exacerbated by widespread land degradation in

SSA.

Linkages between land degradation, SLM and climate change in SSA

Land degradation is widespread in SSA, especially in drylands and forest margin areas,

caused mainly by conversion of forests, woodlands and rangelands to crop production;

overgrazing of rangelands; and unsustainable agricultural practices on croplands.

Climate variability and change can contribute to land degradation by making current land

use practices unsustainable and inducing more rapid conversion of land to unsustainable

uses.

However, climate change also can offer new opportunities for sustainable land

management, by increasing temperature and rainfall in some environments, through CO2

fertilization effects, or through the development of markets for mitigating greenhouse gas

emissions.

77

Land degradation increases the vulnerability of rural people in SSA to climate variability

and change, while SLM can reduce it.

SLM also provides major opportunities to mitigate climate change by sequestering

carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Policies and strategies affecting climate change mitigation and adaptation through SLM

There are many policy frameworks, strategies, institutions and programs affecting

opportunities and constraints to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation

through SLM in SSA. Among the most potentially important are the CDM, the voluntary

carbon market, climate mitigation and adaptation funds, the UNCCD, NEPAD/CAADP,

TerrAfrica and regional, sub-regional and national policy processes linked to these. SLM

can provide an integrative framework for the various policy conventions and available

financing mechanisms.

The current use of these mechanisms to support SLM projects in SSA is very limited:

o Only 10 afforestation or reforestation projects in SSA are in the CDM pipeline.

o No offsets are supplied to the CCX by SLM projects in SSA, and only about 0.2

MtCO2e were offset through other voluntary transactions involving land

management in SSA in 2007 (less than 0.5% of global voluntary transactions).

o Many carbon mitigation have been established, but most do not support AFOLU

activities in SSA.

o Several adaptation funds have been established, but they are small compared to

the total need, and access to these funds in SSA has been very limited so far.

o Implementation of National Action Programmes of the UNCCD has been limited

by funding constraints and other factors.

NEPAD’s CAADP and TerrAfrica are working in partnership to promote up-scaling of

SLM in Africa, with increasing focus on climate change mitigation and adaption.

o TerrAfrica has mobilized $150 million in funds that are expected to leverage an

additional $1 billion to support this goal.

o CAADP and TerrAfrica are working with African governments to develop and

support CSIFs for SLM. Integrating strategies and programs to promote SLM and

address climate change with each other and with national development strategies

78

and policies is a major challenge. Addressing this challenge is a major emphasis

of the CSIFs.

Opportunities and constraints to increase SLM investment for climate mitigation and

adaptation

The major current opportunities to increase funding for climate mitigation and adaptation

through SLM include

o increased use of the CDM to finance afforestation and reforestation (A/R)

projects;

o increased use of voluntary carbon markets and carbon mitigation funds to test and

demonstrate methodologies for a wider range of AFOLU activities;

o increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities that have been

prioritized by countries’ NAPAs;

o increased funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation through programs

promoting SLM in Africa; and

o increased integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation activities,

including SLM, into development strategies of African governments and donors.

Major new opportunities to support climate change mitigation and adaptation through

SLM may arise as a result of development of a cap and trade system in the United States,

and inclusion of REDD and AFOLU projects in the post-Kyoto CDM framework. Total

annual payments for such activities in Africa could exceed $10 billion per year if these

opportunities are realized. The prospects for these opportunities are uncertain, however.

The main constraints to expanded use of the CDM to support SLM in the present

framework include CDM eligibility restrictions; high transactions costs of registering and

certifying CDM projects; low prices for certified emissions reductions (CERs), especially

for A/R projects; long time lags in achieving CERs; uncertainty about the benefits of

projects and the future of the CDM; and land tenure insecurity in many African contexts.

These constraints are exacerbated by the limited technical, financial and organizational

capacities of key actors in SSA.

Many of the same constraints apply to supporting AFOLU investments through voluntary

and other compliance carbon markets, although to a lesser degree in some cases.

79

Constraints to increased use of adaptation funds to support SLM activities for climate

adaptation include the limited size of these funds; lack of coordination among key

government ministries; lack of technical and human capacity to implement adaptation

activities; and others.

Challenges to U.S. participation in the global carbon market include the political

challenge of achieving ratification of a post-Kyoto treaty; concerns about the

effectiveness and risks of emissions reductions purchased from developing countries; and

possible opposition by U.S. lobby groups to offset payments to foreign land users.

Challenges to REDD payments include the technical difficulties and costs of defining

baselines and assuring additionality; concerns about leakages; potential adverse

incentives caused by such payments; concerns about the fairness of paying countries with

a poor record of protecting forests and not paying those that have protected their forests;

possible negative impacts on poor people, especially where they have insecure land and

forest tenure; and concerns about flooding the carbon market with cheap offsets.

Many of the same challenges will affect payments for AFOLU activities. Many of these

concerns are likely to be less problematic than for REDD payments, except the size of

transaction costs relative to the value of payments per hectare. Given the low payments

per hectare possible for many AFOLU activities, projects will need to focus on promoting

profitable AFOLU activities by addressing other constraints to adoption, such as lack of

technical, financial and organizational capacity.

Options to increase use of SLM to mitigate and adapt to climate change in SSA

Based on this review, we have identified eight options to help take advantage of

the opportunities and overcome the constraints to increased use of SLM in SSA to

mitigate and adapt to climate change. These include:

1. Advocate improvements in the post-Kyoto agreement that address these opportunities and

constraints, including

o Expanding eligibility in the CDM to include all activities that sequester carbon or

reduce emissions of GHGs, including REDD and AFOLU activities;

o Agreeing to national targets for GHG levels of developing countries, and use a

full GHG national accounting approach to credit reductions relative to baselines

80

(approach could be pilot tested in a few countries and for a specific set of

activities first); and

o Increasing funding for adaptation measures.

2. Simplify and improve the procedures to access funds under the CDM, adaptation funds

and other relevant funds.

3. Explore existing opportunities to increase participation in voluntary carbon markets.

4. Expand knowledge generation and outreach efforts on the problems of climate variability

and change, land degradation, their linkages, and options for solution.

5. Improve coordination of efforts to address climate and land degradation and integration

with key government strategies and processes.

6. Expand investment in strengthening technical, organizational and human capacity

relevant to climate and land management issues in SSA.

7. Engage community leaders, farmers and other resource users in program and project

development.

8. Address specific policy, institutional and other constraints to SLM and climate change

mitigation and adaptation at national and local level in the context of country strategic

investment frameworks (CSIFs).

The first and second of these options are specifically related to the UNFCCC

process for negotiating the post-Kyoto agreement on climate change (although the second

option to simplify CDM procedures could also be pursued immediately in the context of

the Kyoto Protocol). For the first option, it will be quite important for stakeholders

concerned about SLM issues in SSA, including African governments, the UNCCD,

NEPAD, the TerrAfrica partnership, and civil society organizations to be actively

involved in advocating a continuation of the CDM, inclusion of AFOLU and REDD

projects in the CDM, and expansion of adaptation funds. The third option can be

addressed outside of the UNFCCC process (although developments in voluntary markets

can help inform improvements in the CDM and the post-Kyoto treaty), and involves

investments in improving technical, financial and organizational capacities in SSA to

reduce transaction costs and risks of mitigation projects related to SLM.

81

The remaining five options address perennial concerns and are not closely bound to the

UNFCCC process. In SSA, these can be addressed within the context of the NEPAD/CAADP

and TerrAfrica process to develop CSIFs for SLM in each country. To achieve effective

linkages to climate change issues in these processes, it will be important to involve key

stakeholders from the climate change community in these processes, where they are not yet

involved.

82

Table 2-1. Regional averages of temperature increases in Africa from a set of 21 global models. Comparisons between 1980-90 and 2080-99

Region

Season

DJF MAM JJA SON Annual

West Africa          

Temperature Response(oC) 3 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.3

East Africa          

Temperature Response(oC) 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.2

South Africa          

Temperature Response(oC) 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.4

Sahara          

Temperature Response(oC) 3.2 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.6Source: Christensen et al. (2007)

83

Table 2-2. Projected mean temperature increases in African countries

Countries

Temperature1961-90oC

2070-99oC 0C increase

Angola 21.52 25.53 4.01

Burkina Faso 28.16 32.38 4.22

Cameroon 24.6 28.16 3.56

Democratic Republic of Congo 23.95 27.93 3.98

Ethiopia 23.08 26.92 3.84

Ghana 27.15 30.87 3.72

Ivory Coast 26.19 29.79 3.60

Kenya 24.33 27.83 3.50

Madagascar 22.28 25.53 3.25

Malawi 21.79 25.72 3.93

Mozambique 23.44 27.28 3.84

Niger 27.13 31.53 4.40

Nigeria 26.73 30.46 3.73

Other Equatorial Africa 24.81 28.46 3.65

Other Horn of Africa 26.79 30.35 3.56

Other Southern Africa 20.57 24.91 4.34

Other West Africa 25.77 29.29 3.52

Senegal 27.8 31.51 3.71

South Africa 17.72 21.89 4.17

Sudan 26.7 30.87 4.17

Tanzania 22.25 26.01 3.76

Uganda 22.36 26.04 3.68

Zimbabwe 21.03 25.39 4.36Source: Cline (2007)

Table 2-3. Regional averages of change in rainfall in Africa from a set of 21 global models. Comparisons between 1980-90 and 2080-99

84

Region

Season

DJF MAM JJA SON Annual

West Africa          

Precipitation Response (%) 6 -3 2 1 2

East Africa          

Precipitation Response (%) 13 6 4 7 7

South Africa          

Precipitation Response (%) 0 0 -23 -13 -4

Sahara          

Precipitation Response (%) -18 -18 -4 6 -6Source: Christensen et al. (2007)

Table 2-4. Transition matrix of changes in environmental constraints to crop agriculture of land in sub-Saharan Africa (scenario HadCM3-A1F1, 2080s)

   Area HadCM3-A1F1, 2080s

Reference climate 1,000 km2 No constraint Slight Moderate Severe

No constraint 535 457 66 6 6

Slight 2,704 11 2,395 262 36

Moderate 6,061 3 67 5,379 612

Severe 15,128 0 0 80 15,048

Total 471 2,528 5,727 15,702Source: Fischer et al. (2002)

85

Table 2-5. Severe environmental constraints for rain-fed crop production (reference climate, 1961-1990 and scenario HadCM3-A1F1 in 2080s)

 

Land with severe constraints for rain-fed cultivation of crops %

Total with constraints Too cold Too dry Too wet Too steep Poor soils

African Region

Total extent 106ha

1961-1990 2080

1961-1991 2080

1961-1992 2080

1961-1993 2080

1961-1994 2080

1961-1995 2080

Eastern 888 52.1 52.5 0 0 27.0 27.3 0 0 3.1 3.1 22 22

Middle 657 58.9 60.3 0 0 12.9 14.4 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 45.3 44.8

Northern 547 91.3 96.8 0 0 88.0 95.4 0 0 2.2 1.2 1 0.2

Southern 266 75.3 88.4 0 0 58.7 78.8 0 0 6.5 5.7 10.1 4

Western 632 73.3 74.8 0 0 50.6 54.3 0 0 0.1 0.1 22.7 20.5Source: Fischer et al. (2002)

Table 2-6. Percentage of land with severe versus slight or no constraints for reference climate (1961-1990) and maximum and minimum values occurring in four GCM climate projections for the 2080s based on SRES A2 emission scenario

African Region

Severe constraints % of total land Slight or no constraints % of total land

Ref Min Max Ref Min Max

Eastern 52.1 50.5 54.5 18.9 16.7 18.9

Middle 58.9 58.8 60.1 12.2 11.3 11.8

Northern 91.3 93.2 94.7 1.8 0.4 0.9

Southern 75.3 74.6 86.2 1.6 0.1 0.6

Western 73.3 72.6 75 11.3 9.7 11.1Maximum and minimum values across constraints do generally not add up to 100 percent, since values are not necessarily from the same scenario

Source: Fischer et al. (2002)

86

Table 3-1. The extent of land degradation and its effects in sub-Saharan Africa

State of Land Degradation Land degradation affects roughly 20 percent of the total land area of the region. Degradation affects land

productivity on 17 percent of the continent. Between 4-7 percent of the land area of SSA is already so severely degraded that it is believed to be largely

non-reclaimable16. This is the highest proportion of any region in the world. Erosion rates in Africa range from 5-100 tonnes per hectare per year. Soil erosion and high rates of run off have dramatically reduced the water held in the soil. Some 86 percent

of African soils are under soil moisture stress. There is a negative nutrient balance in SSA’s croplands with at least 4 million tons of nutrients removed in

harvested products compared to the 1 million tons returned in the form of manure and fertilizer. Illustrative Impacts

Economic Estimates vary between under 1% and 9% of GDP lost from land degradation; a related estimate is that

over three percent of Africa’s agricultural GDP is lost annually - equivalent to US$ 9 billion per year - as a direct result of soil and nutrient loss.17

The productivity loss in Africa from soil degradation since 1945 has been estimated at 25 percent for cropland and 8 to 14 percent for cropland and pasture together.18

In the decade 1990-2000, cereal availability per capita in SSA decreased from 136 to 118  kg/year. African cereal yields have stagnated over the last 60 years19.

Africa spent US$18.7 billion on food imports in the year 2000 alone. Current food imports are expected to double by 2030.

Environmental African countries represent some of the highest deforestation rates in the world Degradation of water resources due to sediment loads and pollution severely impact aquatic ecosystems. Increased surface runoff has decreased groundwater recharge – water tables have dropped, many former

perennial rivers, streams and springs have been reduced to an intermittent flow, and many wells and boreholes have dried up.

Up to 70 percent (in many countries) of energy comes from fuel wood and charcoal, and newer technologies using cellulosic sources of biofuel will result in even greater demands on woody resources

Social In 2001, 28 million people in Africa faced food emergencies due to droughts, floods and strife, with 25

million needing emergency food and agricultural assistance. In sub-Saharan Africa, 15 percent of the population or 183 million people will still be undernourished by

2030 – by far the highest total for any region and only 11 million less than in 1997-99. Malnutrition is expected to increase by an average of 32 percent.20

Conflicts (between settled farmers, herders and forest dwellers) over access to land resources have increased as households and communities search for productive land for their crops and/or livestock.

Hunger and malnutrition in SSA and degradation of water resources has increased susceptibility to life threatening diseases.

Source: World Bank (2008)

16 Data from GLASOD and TERRASTAT17 Dregne 1991, Dreschel et al 2001. 18 Oldemann, 199819 World Bank, 2007b20 CAADP, 2002

87

Table 3-2. Importance of Causes of Degraded Lands by Continent

Cause Africa Asia Oceania Europe North America

South America

(million ha)Deforestation 18.60 115.5 4.20 38.90 4.30 32.20 Overgrazing 184.6 118.8 78.50 41.30 27.70 26.20 Agricultural 62.20 96.70 4.80 18.30 41.40 11.60 Over exploitation 54.00 42.30 2.00 2.00 6.10 9.10 Bio-industrial 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 Total degraded 319.4 370.3 87.50 99.40 79.50 79.10 Total 1286 1671.8 663.3 299.6 732.4 513.0

Source: UNEP (1997)

88

Table 3-3. Examples of sustainable land management practices for climate change adaptation and mitigation

Practice Adaptation aspects Mitigation aspectsImproved crop/plant/livestock managementCrop rotations Can reduce competition from

weeds and pest impacts and possibly reduce mining of specific nutrients

Agoforestry systems mixed with crops / pastures

Increases water infiltration, slows soil drying and can provide nutrients through leaves.

Woody biomass

IPM Reduces losses from pestsUse of more resource efficient crops, livestock and trees

Increases water use or nutrient use efficiency under current or future climate shifts

Reduces need for nutrients and possible N2O emission reductions

Exclosures Enables regeneration of vegetation cover, useful plants, and possibly spring recovery

Some above ground carbon storage, soil carbon improvement

Improved grazing systems Protection and regeneration of vegetation cover, reduced soil compaction

Pasture/rangeland enrichment

Promotion of vegetation cover and soil carbon build up

Soil carbon improvement

Fire protection of vegetation

Preservation of vegetation and important species

Prevention of GHG emissions

Improved soil managementCover cropping Helps to reduce soil erosion,

reduce weed growth, and contributes to soil carbon buildup

Use of mulch and compost Reduces soil erosion and helps to maintain/improve soil moisture, nutrients, and organic matter

Soil carbon improvement

Manuring Enhances soil organic matter Soil carbon improvementCrop residue incorporation Adds nutrient and soil organic

matter into soilsSoil carbon improvement

Intercropping with legumes

Helps to improve infiltration, soil carbon, and soil nutrients (through nitrogen fixation)

Enhances soil carbon but possible NO2 emission increases

Soil improving agroforestry

Helps to reduce weed growth, improve infiltration, soil carbon, and soil nutrients (through nitrogen fixation)

Some soil carbon impacts but also provides woody biomass; possible N2O emission increases with legumes

Vegetative strips Prevents soil erosion Terracing/bunding Prevents soil erosion

89

Practice Adaptation aspects Mitigation aspectsMinimum tillage Increases soil moisture and

builds soil carbonSoil carbon improvement

Windbreaks and shelterbelts

Reduces erosion due to high winds and rains

Improved above ground carbon storage with trees

Improved water managementRainwater harvesting Storage of water from rooftop

or ground into tanks/ponds – offset prolonged droughts on high value enterprises

Earth catchments In-situ entrapment of rainwater minimises loss of valuable rainwater and erosive runoffLocalised improvement of soil structure through activity of soil organisms

Soil carbon improvement

Tied ridges/ zai In-situ entrapment of rainwater minimises loss of valuable rainwater and erosive runoffLocalised improvement of soil structure through activity of soil organisms

Soil carbon improvement

Contour ridging / planting Evenly distributes water on sloping areas and enables infiltrationReduces runoff

Soil carbon improvement in selected niches

Formal irrigation systems Offsets effects of drought periodsAlso can prevent fields from accumulating excess water

Watershed management Effective management of rainwater, surface, and ground waters need to be implemented at scales above the household

Landscape level improvement in soil carbon and possibly in woody vegetation

Adapted from World Bank (2008)

90

Table 3-4. Mitigation potential of alternative land management practices on soil carbon

SLM Warm – dry Areas

Warm – moist Areas

Practice tCO2/ha/yr All GHG tco2~eq/ha/yr

tCO2/ha/yr All GHG tco2~eq/ha/yr

Agronomic practices 0.29 0.39 0.88 0.98Nutrient management 0.26 0.33 0.55 0.62Tillage and residue management

0.33 0.35 0.70 0.72

Water management 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14Set aside 1.61 3.93 3.04 5.36Agroforestry 0.33 0.35 0.70 0.72Pasture management 0.11 0.11 0.81 0.81Restoration of organic soils

73.33 70.18 73.33 70.18

Restoration of degraded land

3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45

Manure application 1.54 1.54 2.79 2.79

Source: Smith and Martino (2007)

91

Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volumes, and values

Scheme2005 2006 2007

Volume(MtCO2e)

Value(MUS$

)

Volume(MtCO2e)

Value(MUS$

)

Volume(MtCO2e)

Value(MUS$)

AllowancesEU Emissions TradingScheme

324 8,204 1,104 24,436 2,061 50,097

New South WalesGreenhouse GasAbatement Scheme

6 59 20 225 25 224

Chicago Climate Exchange

1 3 10 38 23 72

UK Emissions TradingSystem

0 1 NA NA NA NA

Subtotal 332 8,268 1,134 24,699 2,109 50,394Project-based transactionsClean DevelopmentMechanism

359 2,651 562 6,249 791 12,877

Joint Implementation 21 101 16 141 41 499Other compliance andvoluntary transactions

5 37 33 146 42 265

- Voluntary “over the counter” (OTC) market21

14 59 42 259

Subtotal 384 2,789 611 6,536 874 13,641TOTAL 717 11,057 1,745 31,235 2,983 64,035Sources: Capoor and Ambrosi (2007) and (2008)

Note: MtCO2e = million tons of carbon dioxide or equivalentMUS$ = million U.S. dollars

21 Source: Hamilton, et al. (2008)

92

Table 4-2. Estimated economic mitigation potential by agricultural and land management practices in Africa

Region  

Economic mitigation potential by 2030 at carbon prices of up to $20/t of CO22e(MtCO2e/yr)Cropland

mgmtGrazing

land mgmtRestoration of organic soils

Restoration of degraded land

Other practices Total

East Africa 28 27 25 13 15 109Central Africa 13 12 11 6 7 49North Africa 6 6 6 3 3 25South Africa 6 5 5 3 3 22West Africa 16 15 14 7 8 60Total 69 (26%) 65 (25%) 61 (23%) 33 (12%) 37 (14%) 265

Source: Smith, et al. (2008).

93

Table 4-3. Summary of Progress during 2007 in Phase 2 TerrAfrica countries

Country LeadGovernmentbody

Leadpartneragency

Status of CountrySLM InvestmentFramework (CSIF)preparation

Analytical work andSLM mainstreamingto support decisionmaking

Investment development,mobilizationand harmonization

BurkinaFaso

CONEDD UNDP The alignment ofCPP with TerrAfricais under discussion;a preliminary CSIFis under preparationwith support fromTerrAfrica partners. Itis expected that a fullCSIF will be preparedduring the time frameof CCP Phase 1 whichwill then guide thedevelopment of a CPPphase 2.

As part of the preparatoryactivities of the fiveCPP sub-projects, analyticaland diagnosticactivities have beenundertaken - PublicExpenditure Reviewand a Gap/InstitutionalAnalysis done in 2007

Within the CPP fourtargeted investmentprojects cover four keyecological areas of BF.Donor and nationalco-financing has beenmobilized to supportthe implementation ofthese projects.

Ethiopia MoARD:NationalSLM Platform

WB Under preparation Economic SectorWork on Poverty andLand Degradation(published in 2007)

Wide range of ongoingand planned investmentsto be coordinatedunder the countryprogram

Ghana MOFEPand MLGRDE:SLMTaskforce

WB Draft Terms of Referenceprepared andagreed with Governmentas an outcome ofthe 19-29 March 2007FAO/WB mission. Finaldraft endorsed in May2007

Country EnvironmentalAnalysis endorsedby Government inFebruary 2007 (beingpublished)

GEF-SIP funding to beblended and harmonizedwith ongoingbudget support andsector wide programs(i.e. NREGP, FABS,and AgDPL)

Uganda MAAIF WB Under discussion withGovernment. Alignmentand integrationwith the broaderCAADP implementationprocess beingpursued

Public ExpenditureReview for SLM beingfinalized

SLM Country Programsupported by blendedIDA/GEF fundingunder a NaturalResource ManagementSWAp. UNDP ispreparing an operationtargeting the CattleCorridor.

Source: TerrAfrica (2007)

94

Figure 2-1. Number of flood events per decade, by continent

Figure 2-2. Total Number of People Affected by Droughts in Africa. 1964-2005

Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database (Gautam 2006)

95

Figure 2-3. Projected increases in rainfall from 1961-90 to 2070-99 (%)

Cam

eroo

n

Dem

ocra

tic R

epub

lic o

f Con

go

Ethi

opia

Keny

a

Oth

er H

orn

of A

frica

Suda

n

Tanz

ania

Ugan

da

Ango

la

Mad

agas

car

Mal

awi

Moz

ambi

que

Oth

er S

outh

ern

Afric

a

Sout

h Af

rica

Zim

babw

e

Burk

ina

Faso

Ghan

a

Ivor

y Co

ast

Nige

r

Nige

ria

Oth

er W

est A

frica

Sene

gal

Central Africa

East Africa Southern Africa West Africa

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Source: Cline (2007).

Figure 2-4. Changes in sub-Saharan land with no or slight environmental constraints versus increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Source: Fischer et al. (2002)

96

Figure 2-5. Probabilistic projections of production impacts in 2030 from climate change (expressed as a percentage of 1998 to 2002 average yields).

Source: Lobell et al. (2008)

Note: WAF stands for West Africa, SAH for Sahel, CAF for Central Africa, EAF for East Africa, and SAF for Southern Africa.

97

Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates of land degradation in sub-saharan Africa in 2003

Source: Vlek et al (2008)

98

Figure 3-2. Effect of improved land management and climate change on crop yieldsA

vera

ge C

rop

Yiel

ds

Low input Practices

+Current Climate

Low input Practices

+ Climate Change

Improved Practices

+Climate Change

Improved practices

+Improved

germplasm+

Current climate

1 2 3 4 5Management and Climate Scenarios

Current Climate Yield Gap

Improved practices

+Adapted

germplasm+

Climate change

Yield Gap 1

Yield Gap 2

Source: Cooper et al (2009)

99

Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emission sources by location

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AFR OECD Developing Countries

Electricity & Heat Manufacturing & Construction TransportationOther Fuel Combustion Fugitive Emissions Industrial ProcessesWaste Agriculture Land-Use Change & Forestry

Source: World Bank (2007)

100

Figure 4-1. Potential size of REDD payments, under various levels of emission reduction and carbon price

5 10 15 20 30

5%

20%

40%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

% re

duct

ion

Value (Million USD/yr)

5%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: Ecosecurities and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (2008)

101

Figure 4-2. Potential savings by 2030 from mitigation options in agriculture for carbon prices of up to US$100 per t CO2 or equivalent

Source: Smith, et al. (2008)

102

Figure 4-3. Income potential from REDD payments (as a fraction of GDP) vs. governance indices (higher values of governance indices indicate greater governance capacity and less corruption)

Source: Ebeling and Yasue (2008)

103

References

Ambrosi, P. 2009. Note on adaptation financing gap. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Mimeo.

Baalman, P. and B. Schlamadinger. 2008. Scaling up AFOLU mitigation activities in non-Annex I countries. Working Paper, Climate Strategies, 12 June 2008. www.climate-strategies.org.

Bamwerinde, W., Bashaasha, B., Ssembajjwe, W. and F. Place. 2006. The Puzzle of Idle Land in the Densely Populated Kigezi Highlands of Southwestern Uganda. International Journal for Environment and Development 3 (1): 1-13.

Bationo, A., Mukwonye, U., Vlek, P., Koala, S., and B. Shapiro. 2003. Soil Fertility Management for Sustainable Land Use in the West African Sudano-Sahelian Zone, in Gicheru et al (eds.) Soil Fertility Management in Africa: A Regional Perspective. Academy of Science Publishers and Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT, Nairobi.

Baumert, K.A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Behnke R.H. and Scoones I. 1993. Rethinking range ecology: Implications for rangeland management in Africa. In: Behnke R.H., Scoones I. and Kerven C. (eds), Range ecology at disequilibrium: New models of natural variability and pastoral adaptation in African savannas. ODI (Overseas Development Institute), London, UK. pp. 1–30.

Benhin, J. 2006 Climate Change and South African Agriculture: Impacts and Adaptation Options, CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 21, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Benin, S. 2006. Policies and programs affecting land management practices, input use and productivity in the highlands of Amhara region, Ethiopia in Pender, Place, and Ehui (eds) Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands, World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Boko, M., I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Githeko, M. Medany, B. Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo, and P. Yanda. 2007. Africa. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed. M. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.

Bounoua, L., et al. "Sensitivity of climate to changes in NDVI." Journal of Climate 13.13 (2000): 2277-92.

Broadhead, J., Bahdon, J. & Whiteman, A. 2001. Past trends and future prospects for the utilization of wood for energy. Global Forest Products Outlook Study Working Paper 5, FAO, Rome.

104

Brooks, N. 2004. Drought in the African Sahel: long term perspectives and future prospects, Working Paper 61, Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Brown, C., R. Meeks, K. Hunu, and W. Yu. 2008. Hydroclimate Risk to Economic Growth in sub-Sahara Africa

Bryan, E., W. Akpalu, M. Yesuf, and C. Ringler. 2008. Global carbon markets: are there opportunities for sub-Saharan Africa? IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00832, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

Bwalya, M., E. Phiri, H. Mahalmoudou, and A. A. Diallo. 2009. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Sustainable Land Water Management. Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD.

Capoor, K., and F. Ambrosi. 2007. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2006: A Focus on Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

———. 2008. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008: A Focus on Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Chenje,M. (ed. 2000). State of the Environment Zambezi Basin 2000, SADC/IUCN/ ZRA/SARDC, Maseru/Lusaka/Harare.

Christensen, J. H., B. C. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, R. Jones, W. T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magana, L. Mearns, C. Menendez, J. Raisaenes, A. Rinke, R. K. Kolli, A. Starr, and P. Whetton. 2007. Regional Climate Projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed. S. Solomon, Qin.D., M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cline, W. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute.

Conway, D., A. Persechino, S. Ardoin-Bardin, H. Hamandawana, C. Dieulin, and G. Mahe. 2008. Rainfall and water resources variability in Sub-Saharan Africa during the 20th Century. Working Paper No. 119. East Anglia, UK: Tyndall Centre

Cooper, P., Rao, K.P.C., Singh, P., Dimes, J., Traore, P., Rao, K., and S. Twomlow. 2009. Farming with current and future climate risk: Advancing a ‘Hypothesis of Hope’ for rain-fed agriculture in the Semi-Arid Tropics, Draft Mimeo, ICRISAT, Nairobi, Kenya.

DeFries, R. 2002. Past and future sensitivity of primary production to human modification of the landscape. Geophysical Research Letters 29 (7)

Deininger K., S. Jin, B. Adenew et al. 2003. Tenure security and land-related investment: evidence from Ethiopia. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2991.

105

Deressa, T. 2006. Measuring the Economic Impact of Climate Change on Ethiopian Agriculture: Ricardian Approach, CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 25, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Dregne, H. and M. Kassas. 1991. A New Assessment of the World Status of Desertification. In: Desertification Control Bulletin, 20, 6-18.

Drechsel, P.; Gyiele, L.; Kunze, D.; Cofie, F. 2001. Population density, soil nutrient depletion, and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics 38(2): 251 – 258.

Easterling, W. E., P. K. Aggarwal, P. Batima, K. M. Brander, E. D. Lin, S. M. Howden, A. P. Kirilenko, J. Morton, J. Soussana, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Tubiello. 2007. Food, fibre and forest products. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed. M. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ebeling, J. and M. Yasue. 2008. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation, and human development benefits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 1917–1924.

Ecosecurities and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. 2008. The potential of REDD to combat land degradation and promote rural development. April. (Draft).

Eswaran H, Almaraz R, van den Berg E, Reich P. 1997. An assessment of the soil resources of Africa in relation to productivity. Geoderma 77:1–18.

Fischer, G., M. Shah, F. Tubiello, and H. T. Van Velthuizen. 2005. Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture: an integrated assessment, 1990-2080. Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 360: 2067-2083

Fischer, G., M. Shah, and H. T. Van Velthuizen. 2002. Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability. Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2000. Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels. Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.

FAO. 2001b. Food Supply Situation and Crop Prospects In Sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/eaf/eaftoc.htm

FAO. 2001a. Forest Resources Assessment 2000: Main Report. 2001a. FAO Forestry Paper 140. Rome.

Franzel, S., F. Place, C. Reij and G. Tembo. 2004. Strategies for sustainable natural resource management. In: S. Haggblade (ed.), Building on Successes in African Agriculture. 2020 Focus 12, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

Funk, C., M. D. Dettinger, J. C. Michaelsen, J. P. Verdin, M. E. Brown, M. Barlow, and A. Hoell. 2008. Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens eastern and southern African food

106

security but could be mitigated by agricultural development. PNAS 105 (32): 11081-11086.

Gautam, M. 2006. Managing Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policy Perspectives. Washington, DC, The World Bank.

Hamilton, K., M. Sjardin, T. Marcello, and G. Xu. Forging a frontier: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2008. Ecosystem Marketplace & New Carbon Finance, Washington, D.C. and New York, NY.

Hatibu, N., Lazaro, E., Mahoo, H., and F. Rwehumbiza. 2001. Soil and water conservation in Semi-arid Tanzania: Government Policy and farmers’ practices. In: Barrett, C.B., Place, F., Abdillahi, A., (eds), Natural Resources Management in African Agriculture: Understanding and Improving Current Practices, CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Held, I. M., T. L. Delworth, J. Lu, K. L. Findell, and T. R. Knutson. 2005. Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries. PNAS 102 (50): 17891-17896.

Henao, J. and C. Banaante. 2006. Agricultural Production and Soil Nutrient Mining in Africa Implications for Resource Conservation and Policy Development: Summary. International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Alabama.

Hiernaux, P. 1993. The Crisis of Sahelian Pastoralism: Ecological or Economic? Pastoral Development Network Series, No. 39, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Holmgren, P., Masakha, E.J. and Sjoholm, H. 1994. Not all African Land is Being Degraded: A Recent Survey of Trees on Farms in Kenya Reveals Rapidly Increasing Forest Resources.Ambio 23(7): 390-395.

Hulme, M., R. Doherty, T. Ngara, M. New, and D. Lister. 2001. African climate change: 1900-2100. Climate Research 17 (2): 145-168.

ICRISAT. 1985. Annual Report 1984. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Annual Tropics Sahelian Center, Niamey, Niger.

Jain, S. 2006. An Empirical Economic Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture In Zambia, CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 27, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Jindal, R., B. Swallow and J. Kerr. 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32: 116-130.

Kabubo-Mariara, J. and F. Karanja. 2006. The Economic Impact of Climate Change on Kenyan Crop Agriculture: A Ricardian Approach, CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 12, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Kassie, M., J. Pender, M. Yesuf, G. Kohlin, R. Bulffstone, and E. Mulugeta. 2008. Estimating returns to soil conservation adoption in the northern Ethiopian highlands. Agricultural Economics 38: 213-232.

107

Kato, E., C. Ringler, M. Yesuf and E. Bryan. 2009. Evaluation of adaptations to climate change: Analysis of the risk increasing and risk reducing effects of soil conservation technologies in low and high rainfall woredas of Ethiopia. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Mimeo.

Kruseman, G., Ruben, R. and G. Tesfay. 2006. Village stratification for policy analysis: multiple development domains in the Ethiopian highlands of Tigray in Pender, Place, and Ehui (eds) Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands, World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn. 2006. Crop Selection: Adapting to Climate Change in Africa, CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 26, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Kurukulasuriya, P. and Mendelsohn, R. 2006. Endogenous Irrigation: The Impact of Climate Change on Farmers in Africa. 4278. Policy Research Working Paper.

Larwanou, M., M. Abdoulaye, and C. Reij. 2006. Etude de la Regeneration Naturelle Assistée dans la Région de Zinder (Niger). Washington, D.C. : International Resources Group.

Lobell, D. B., M. B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M. D. Mastrandrea, W. P. Falcon, and R. L. Naylor. 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319 (5863): 607-610.

Marenya, P. 2008. Three Essays on the Effect of Ex-Ante Soil Fertility on Smallholder Fertilizer Use Behavior, Phd Dissertation, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Michaelowa, A. and F. Jotzo. 2005. Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the Clean Development Mechanism. Energy Policy 33: 511-523.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Mortimore, M., M. Tiffen, Y. Boubacar, and J. Nelson. 2001. Synthesis of Long-Term Change in Maradi Department, Niger, 1960–2000. Drylands Research Working Paper No. 39e. Crewkerne, U.K.: Drylands Research.

Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, and X. Zhang. 2007. “Forestry.” In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nandwa, S.M. and M.A. Bekunda. 1998. Research on nutrient flows and balances in East and Southern Africa: state of the art. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 71:5-18.

Nellemann, C., M. MacDevette, T. Mander, B. Eickhout, B. Svihus, A. G. Prins, and B. P. Kaltenborn. 2009. The Environmental Food Crisis. The Environment's Role in Averting

108

Future Food Crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment.  United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.

Oldeman LR. 1994. The global extent of soil degradation. In: Greenland DJ, Szaboles T, eds. Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. Wallingford: CAB International.

Oldeman, L.R., 1998. Soil Degradation: A Threat to Food Security?, Report 98/01. The Netherlands: International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen.

Otsuka, K. and F. Place. 2001. Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Paavola, J. 2004. Livelihoods, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Working Paper No. EDM 04-12. Norwich, UK: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.

Palm, C. A., Woomer, P.L., Alegre, J., Arevalo, L., Castilla, C., Cordeiro, D. G., Feigl, B., Hairiah, K., Kotto-Same, J., Mendes, A., Moukam, A., Murdiyarso, D., Njomgang, R., Parton, W. J., Ricse, A., Rodrigues, V., Sitompul, S. M., and van Noordwijk, M.: 1999, 'Carbon sequestration and trace gas emissions in slash and burn and alternative land uses in the humid tropics', ASB Climate Change Working Group Final Report, Phase II, ASB Coordination Office, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.

Parker, C., A. Mitchell, M. Trivedi and N. Mardas. 2008. The Little REDD Book: A guide to governmental and non-governmental proposals for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK.

Pender, J. 2008. The world food crisis, land degradation and sustainable land management: linkages, opportunities and constraints. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Mimeo.

Pender, J. and J. Ndjeunga. 2008. Impacts of sustainable land management programs on land management and poverty in Niger. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. World Bank. In press.

Pender, J., E. Nkonya, P. Jagger, D. Sserunkuuma, and H. Ssali. 2004. Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: evidence from Uganda. Agricultural Economics 31(2/3): 181-195.

Place, F., Masupayi, R., and K. Otsuka. 2001. Tree and Cropland Management in Malawi, in K. Otsuka and F. Place, Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Place, F., and K. Otsuka. 2002. “The Role of Tenure in the Management of Trees at the Community Level: Theoretical and Empirical Analyses from Uganda and Malawi,” in Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A., Place, F., and B. Swallow. Innovation in Natural Resource Management: The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.

109

Place, F., Barrett, C., Freeman, H., Ramisch, J., and B. Vanlauwe. 2003. Prospects for integrated soil fertility management using organic and inorganic inputs: evidence from smallholder African agricultural systems. Food Policy 28: 365-378.

Place, F., Njuki, J., Murithi, F., and F. Mugo. 2006. Agricultural Enterprise and Land management in the Highlands of Kenya, in Pender, Place, and Ehui (eds) Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands, World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Pretty, J.N., J.I.L. Morison, and R.E. Hine. 2003. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95: 217-234.

Pretty, J.N., A.D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R.E. Hine, F.W.T. Penning de Vries, and J.I.L. Morison. 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology 40(4): 1114 – 1119.

Prudencio, C. 1993. Ring management of soils and crops in the West African semi-arid tropics : the case of the mossi farming system in Burkina Faso. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, 47(3): 237-264.

Rosenzweig, C., et al. "Climate change and extreme weather events:Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests." Global Change & Human Health 2.2 (2001).

Sene, I., Diop, M. and A. Dieng. 2006. Impacts Of Climate Change On The Revenues And Adaptation Of Farmers In Senegal. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 20, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Shapiro, B. and J. Sanders 2002. Natural Resource Technologies for Semi-arid Regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, in Barrett, C.B., Place, F., Abdillahi, A., (eds), Natural Resources Management in African Agriculture: Understanding and Improving Current Practices, CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Shepherd, K. and M. Soule, 1998. Soil fertility management in west Kenya: dynamic simulation of productivity, profitability and sustainability at different resource endowment levels, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 71 (1998), pp. 131–145.

Shepherd K. and M. Walsh. 2007. Infrared spectroscopy – enabling an evidence-based diagnostic surveillance approach to agricultural and environmental management in developing countries. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy. 15, 1-19.

Smith, P. and D. Martino. 2007. Agriculture, in Climate Change 2007, Fourth IPCC Assessment Report, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O'mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, M. Howden, T. McAllister, G. Pan, V. Romanenkov, U. Schneider, S. Towprayoon, M. Wattenbach, and J. Smith 2008. Greenhouse-gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B., 363: 789-813.

110

Stige, L. C., J. Stave, K. Chan, L. Ciannelli, N. Pettorelli, M. Glantz, H. R. Herren, and N. C. Stenseth. 2006. The effect of climate variation on agro-pastoral production in Africa. PNAS 103 (9): 3049-3053.

Swift M.J., Shepherd, K.D. (Eds) 2007. Saving Africa’s Soils: Science and Technology for Improved Soil Management in Africa. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.

TerrAfrica. 2007. Promoting sustainable land management in sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica Annual Report 2007.

The Terrestrial Carbon Group. 2008. How to include terrestrial carbon in developing nations in the overall climate change solution. July 2008 (Update 1 with corrections August 2008), terrestrialcarbon.org.

Thomas, D., Twyman, C, Osbahr, H., and B. Hewitson. 2007. Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa, Climate Change 83: 301-322.

Thornton PK, Jones PG, Owiyo T, Kruska RL, Herrero M, Kristjanson P, Notenbaert A, Bekele N and Omolo A, with contributions from Orindi V, Otiende B, Ochieng A, Bhadwal S, Anantram K, Nair S, Kumar V and Kulkar U (2006). Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa. Report to the Department for International Development, ILRI, PO Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya. 171 pp.

Trines, E., N. Höhne, M. Jung, M. Skutsch, A. Petsonk, G. Silva-Chavez, P. Smith, G.-J. Nabuurs, P. Verweij, and B. Schlamadinger. 2006. Integrating agriculture, forestry and other land use in future climate regimes: methodological issues and policy options. WAB Report 500102 002, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, WAB Secretariat, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Accessed at www.mnp.nl.

Tittonell, P., Vanlauwe, B., Leffelaar, P., Rowe, E., and K. Giller. 2005. Exploring diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya: I. Heterogeneity at region and farm scale, Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, Vol. 110 (3-4): 149-165.

Tschakert, P. 2007. Views from the vulnerable: Understanding climatic and other stressors in the Sahel. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 17 (3-4): 381-396

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). 2005. A Continent Split by Climate Change: New Study Projects Stronger Drought in Southern Africa, More Rain in Sahel. Press Release. May 24, 2005. http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/hurrell.shtml

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1997. World Atlas of Desertification, 2nd edition. Edited by N. Middleton and D. Thomas. London: UNEP. 182 pp.

UNEP Risoe. 2009. CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis and Database, March 1st 2009. http://cdmpipeline.org/

111

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2008. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations, New York and Geneva.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008. Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector: technical paper.

UNFCCC. 2007. Investment and financial flows to address climate change. Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2008. International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. GAO-09-151. Washington, D.C.

Vanlauwe, B., Tittonell, P., and J. Mukalama. 2007.  Within-farm soil fertility gradients affect response of maize to fertiliser application in western Kenya, in A. Bationo, B. Waswa, J. Kihara, and J. Kimetu (eds). Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities.  Dordrecht,Netherlands:  Springer. 

Verchot, L., Place, F., Shepherd, K, and B. Jama. 2007. Science and Technological Innovations for Improving Soil Fertility and Management in Africa. Paper prepared for the Science and Technology Forum of NEPAD, World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi, Kenya.

Vlek, P., Le, Q., and L. Tamene, 2008. Land decline in land-rich Africa: a creeping disaster in the making. Rome, Italy: CGIAR Science Council Secretariat.

Vlek, P., Rodriguez-Kuhl, G., and R. Sommer. 2004. Energy Use and CO2 Production in Tropical Agriculture and Means and Strategies for Reduction or Mitigation. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6: 213-233.

Willer, H., M. Yussefi-Menzler and N. Sorensen. 2008. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2008. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Bonn, Germany, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland.

Woodfine, A. 2009. The Potential of Sustainable Land Management Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Technical Report for TerrAfrica. FAO, Rome.

World Bank. "Terrafrica: Halting Land Degradation." Feb. 9, 2009. 2004. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:20221507~menuPK:258659~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258644,00.html.

World Bank. 2007. World Bank Development Report 2008. World Bank, Washington DC.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2005. Climate and Land Degradation. WMO No. 989. Geneva, Switzerland: WMO.

112

World Resources Institute (WRI). 1994. World Resources 1994-95. Oxford University Press, New York.

Wyatt, T.J. 2002. Liquidity and Soil Management: Evidence from Madagascar and Niger, in Barrett, C.B., Place, F., Abdillahi, A., (eds), Natural Resources Management in African Agriculture: Understanding and Improving Current Practices, CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Yesuf, M., S. Di Falco, T. Deressa, C. Ringler and G. Kohlin. 2008. The impact of climate change and adaptation on food production in low-income countries: evidence from the Nile Basin, Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 828, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

113