Landscape Approaches to Climate Change in Forestry and AgricultureFlorence Bernard, Peter Minang, Meine van Noordwijk (ASB Partnership, Nairobi, Kenya; A.Minang@cgiar.org)

Key messages1. Compared to schemes currently under discussion for forest based

emissions mitigation, whole–landscape approaches to reducing emissions, using the full accounting scheme for Agriculture,

Balancing the roles of agriculture and forestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation, food security andpoverty alleviation is a key condition for any initiative in developing countries.

emissions, using the full accounting scheme for Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use (AFOLU), will be challenging but at the same time more effective, efficient and equitable

2. Trees outside forest, woody vegetation outside of institutionally defined “forest” and peatlands contain large amounts of carbon stocks that are excluded from current mitigation discussions within the UNFCCC

3. The whole landscape approach could potentially enhance both 3. The whole landscape approach could potentially enhance both adaptation and mitigation, especially for small holder farmers.

4. Landscape approaches provide a platform for jointly implementing both adaption and mitigation and hence benefiting from dual finance to help meet multiple objectives

Most tropical and sub-humid tropics lands are mosaics of interacting land uses that are difficult to separate and are best considered as whole-landscapes.

REDD+ compared to a landscape approach through AFOLUEvolution of the scope of REDD since 2005

• RED: Reducing emissions from (gross) deforestation; onlychanges from ‘forest’ to ‘non-forest’ land cover types areincluded, and details depend very much on the operationaldefinition of ‘forest’

• REDD: RED and (forest) degradation, or the shifts to lowercarbon stock densities within the forest; details depend very

Case Study: Implications of the varied scope of REDD on effectiveness in emissions reductions in IndonesiaApplying a range of RED (D) (++) rules to actual land use change data for 3 provinces in Indonesia yields results that depend on both the rules set and the definitions. Some combinations will ‘see’ only 20% of the total net emissions while, for other combinations, the gross emission counts exceed the net emissions of a whole landscape C accounting.

Emission estimates for three provinces with different RED(D)(++) rules and different forest definitions; (ton CO2-eq/(ha y))carbon stock densities within the forest; details depend very

much on the operational definition of ‘forest’.

• REDD+: REDD and restocking within and towards ‘forest’ (asspecified in the Bali Action Plan); in some versions REDD+ willalso include peatlands, regardless of their forest status; detailsstill depend on the operational definition of ‘forest’.

• REDD++ = REALU: We propose a definition that includesREDD+ and all transitions in land cover that affect carbon

Lampung

RED (gross emissions, only from forest to non-forest)

REDD (gross emissions, from forest to lower C-stock forest or non-forest )

REDD+ (net emissions, from forest to any land cover)

REALU (net emissions, all changes)

definition A 2.55 3.14 3.143.08definition B 3.14 3.14 3.14

definition C 0.65 3.47 3.15Jambi

definition A 1.60 4.95 4.95

The way forward

REDD+ and all transitions in land cover that affect carbonstorage, whether peatland or mineral soil, trees-outside-forest,agroforests, plantations or natural forest. It does not dependon the operational definition of ‘forest’.

definition A 1.60 4.95 4.956.58definition B 4.95 4.95 4.95

definition C 6.17 6.57 6.56E.Kalimantan

definition A 7.71 11.83 11.8311.79definition B 6.67 11.83 11.83

definition C 6.78 11.96 11.96Forests definitions: A. Only undisturbed forest; B. Natural forest (undisturbed and logged-over forests); C. Natural forest and agroforest (mixed tree-based systems)

Land use is a significant (20-30%) contributor of globalemissions. REDD as just a partial accounting of land use ischallenged by cross-scale issues such as additionality,leakage, and permanence. The way forward

1. Promoting high carbon stock land uses and reducing emissions from all land uses in a comprehensive manner remains the best way to achieve global climate goals and sustainable development in developing countries.

2. Whole landscape approaches and accounting (AFOLU) is needed as a way of minimizing leakage and definition / eligibility questions that may hamper the implementation of

Trees on farmsIntermediate land uses such as Tree-based agricultural systemscan mitigate climate change, enhance resilience to climatevariability and improve food security and livelihoods.

leakage, and permanence.

eligibility questions that may hamper the implementation of REDD+, CDM and other mitigation options.

3. Targeting intermediate land uses such as agroforestry that address both climate change, food security and biodiversity is needed.

4. Cross-sectoral approaches are needed to enable landscape approaches