Climate-smart landscapes

14 Pages·2013·0.59 MB·English

MINI REVIEW
Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for
integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture
CeliaA.Harvey1,MarioChaco´n1,CamilaI.Donatti1,EvaGaren1,2,LeeHannah1,AngelaAndrade3,
LucioBede4,DouglasBrown5,AliciaCalle2,JulianChara´6,ChristopherClement7,8,ElizabethGray9,
MinhHaHoang10,PeterMinang10,AnaMar´ıaRodr´ıguez1,ChristinaSeeberg-Elverfeldt11,12,BambiSemroc13,
SethShames14,SeanSmukler15,EduardoSomarriba16,EmmanuelTorquebiau17,JacobvanEtten18,
&EvaWollenberg7,8
1TheBettyandGordonMooreCenterforScienceandOceans,ConservationInternational,2011CrystalDriveSuite500,Arlington,VA22202,USA
2TheEnvironmentalLeadership&TrainingInitiative(ELTI),YaleUniversity,195ProspectSt.,NewHaven,CT06511,USA
3ConservationInternational—Colombia,ColombiaCarrera13No.71–41Bogota´,Colombia
4ConservationInternational—Brazil,R.TenenteRenatoCe´sar78,30380–110BeloHorizonte,MG,Brazil
5WorldVisionInternational,1WorldDrive,Mississuaga,OntarioL5T2Y4,Canada
6CentreforResearchonSustainableAgriculturalProductionSystems(CIPAV),Carrera25No6–62,Cali,Colombia
7UniversityofVermontGundInstitute,617MainStreet,Burlington,VT05405,USA
8ClimateChange,AgricultureandFoodSecurityResearchProgram(CCAFS), CGIAR62,Cali,Colombia
9AfricaProgram,TheNatureConservancy,1917FirstAvenue,Seattle,WA98101,USA
10WorldAgroforestryCenter(ICRAF),P.O.Box30677,GPO00100,Nairobi,Kenya
11FAO,Climate,EnergyandTenureDivision(NRC),VialedelleTermediCarcalla,Rome00153,Italy
12FederalGermanMinistryofEconomicDevelopmentandCooperation(BMZ),Dahlmannstrasse4,Bonn53113,Germany
13TheCenterforEnvironmentalLeadershipinBusiness(CELB),ConservationInternational,2011CrystalDriveSuite500,Arlington,VA22202,USA
14EcoAgriculturePartners,110017thSt.NW,Suite600,Washington,DC20036,USA
15FacultyofLandandFoodSystems,TheUniversityofBritishColumbia,MCML123,2357MainMallVancouver,BCV6T1Z4,Canada
16CATIE,TheTropicalAgriculturalResearchandHigherEducationCenter,Apdo7170,Turrialba,CostaRica
17FrenchAgriculturalResearchCenterforInternationalDevelopment(CIRAD),UR102,AvenueAgropolis,Montpellier34398,France
18BioversityInternational,RegionalOfficefortheAmericas,RectaCali-Palmirakm17,Palmira,Colombia
Keywords Abstract
Adaptation;agriculturallandscapes;agricultural
Addressingtheglobal challengesofclimatechange,foodsecurity,andpoverty
managementpractices;climate-smart
agriculture;integratedlandscapemanagement; alleviation requires enhancing the adaptive capacity and mitigation potential
mitigation;REDD+;sustainableagriculture; ofagriculturallandscapesacrossthetropics.However,adaptationandmitiga-
synergies;tradeoffs. tion activities tend to be approached separately due to a variety of technical,
political,financial,andsocioeconomicconstraints.Here,wedemonstratethat
Correspondence
manytropicalagriculturalsystemscanprovidebothmitigationandadaptation
CeliaA.Harvey,theBettyandGordonMoore
benefitsiftheyaredesignedandmanagedappropriatelyandifthelargerland-
CenterforScienceandOceans,Conservation
scapecontextisconsidered.Manyoftheactivitiesneededforadaptationand
International,2011CrystalDriveSuite500,
Arlington,VA22202,USA.Tel:[phone]; mitigationintropicalagriculturallandscapesarethesameneededforsustain-
fax:[phone]. able agriculture more generally, but thinking at the landscape scale opens a
E-mail:[email protected] new dimension for achieving synergies. Intentional integration of adaptation
and mitigation activities in agricultural landscapes offers significant benefits
Received
thatgobeyondthescopeofclimatechangetofoodsecurity,biodiversitycon-
9May2013
servation, and poverty alleviation. However, achieving these objectives will
Accepted
requiretransformativechangesincurrentpolicies,institutionalarrangements,
17September2013
and funding mechanisms to foster broad-scale adoption of climate-smart ap-
Editor proachesinagriculturallandscapes.
DavidLindenmayer
doi:10.1111/conl.12066
ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc. 1
ThisisanopenaccessarticleunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivsLicense,whichpermitsuseanddistributioninanymedium,
providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited,theuseisnon-commercialandnomodificationsoradaptationsaremade.
Climate-smartlandscapes C.A.Harveyetal.
isolation from each other. Pursuing these activities sep-
Introduction
arately, however, limits the potential to take advantage
Agriculture lies at the crossroads of climate-change mit- ofsynergiesandtominimizetradeoffsacrossactionsde-
igation and adaptation efforts. The agricultural sec- signedforeitheradaptationormitigationbenefits.Italso
tor is currently responsible for an estimated 13.7% of leadstopotentialinefficienciesintheuseoffunding,and
global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Tubiello et al. prevents an integrated management approach to agri-
2013) and is also a key driver of deforestation which cultural landscapes which could both address climate is-
contributes an additional 7–14% of global emissions sues and ensure the provision of food, water, and other
(Harris et al. 2012; Hosonuma et al. 2012). At the same ecosystemservices(Scherretal.2012;Sayeretal.2013).
time, climate change will have significant negative im- Inthisarticlewehighlighttheopportunitiesforobtain-
pacts on many agricultural communities, particularly ing synergies between adaptation and mitigation activi-
smallholders and poor farmers who have limited capac- ties in tropical agricultural landscapes and explore how
itytoadapttoadverseshocks,furtherexacerbatingglobal agriculturalsystemsandlandscapescanbedesignedand
povertyandfoodinsecurity(Howdenetal.2007;Morton managed to achieve these synergies. We also identify
2007).Thus,bothmitigationeffortstoreduceGHGemis- some of the key scientific, policy, institutional, funding,
sionsandadaptationmeasurestomaintaincropyieldsare andsocioeconomicbarrierstoachievingthesesynergies,
ofglobalsignificance. and provide preliminary insights into how these barri-
Achieving significant progress on both mitigation and ers can be overcome. We focus our discussion on tropi-
adaptation in the agricultural sector will contribute to calagriculturalsystemsbecausethesehaveahighermit-
the success of several multiple international policy ini- igation potential than temperate systems (Smith et al.
tiatives.Mitigationiscriticalformeetingtheoverallgoal 2008;Hillieretal.2012),arehighlyvulnerabletoclimate
of the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli- change,andarecrucialforglobaleffortstoimprovefood
mateChange(UNFCCC)tostabilizegreenhousegascon- security and alleviate poverty (FAO 2010; Wollenberg
centrations in the atmosphere (United Nations 1992) etal.2012a).
and, in particular, for reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions from deforestation and degradation (i.e., through
REDD+; Wollenberg et al. 2011). Adaptation in agri-
Climate-changeadaptation,mitigation,
culture is necessary for meeting the Millennium De-
andpotentialtradeoffs
velopment Goals established by the United Nations
(http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/), especially those A growing body of literatureaddresses the management
on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (Sanchez & practices that can be used to enhance the adaptive ca-
Swaminathan 2005). The Aichi Targets of the Conven- pacityormitigationpotentialoftropicalagriculturalsys-
tion on Biological Diversity (a set of targets developed tems (e.g., FAO 2010, 2013; Wollenberg et al. 2012b).
for reducing the loss of biodiversity at the global level; Adaptationoptionsincludeawidesetofapproachesde-
CBD2011)alsoacknowledgetheimportanceofsustain- signedtoreducethevulnerabilityandenhancetheadap-
able management of agriculture (Target 7) and climate- tive capacity of agricultural systems to climate change.
changemitigationandadaptationefforts(Target15).Asa These options include engineering solutions that deal
result,significantattentionisnowbeingpaidto“climate- withclimate-relatedrisks,breedingfordifferentenviron-
smart agriculture” which seeks to ensure the food se- mental stresses, developing early warning systems, and
curity of a rapidly growing population while adapt- establishing crop insurance systems. They also include a
ing to a changing climate and reducing GHG emissions rangeoffarmmanagementpractices(suchassoilandwa-
(McCarthy et al. 2011; FAO 2013), as evidenced by re- ter conservation practices, crop diversification, and im-
cent policy conferences on Agriculture, Food Security, proved tillage practices) that make agricultural systems
andClimateChangeintheNetherlands(2010)andViet- more resilient to climate change, diversify farmer liveli-
nam(2012),theCommissiononSustainableAgriculture hoodsandensurethecontinuedsupplyofecosystemser-
and Climate Change (Beddington et al. 2011), and new vices(Howdenetal.2007).
globalinitiativesonClimateSmartAgriculture(e.g.,FAO Mitigationoptionsforagriculture,incontrast,aregen-
2010;WorldBank2011;Vermeulenetal.2012). erally divided into three broad categories of practices:
Despitethegrowingrecognitionoftheneedtopursue (1) activities that increase carbon stocks above and be-
mitigation and adaptation goals in agricultural systems low ground; (2) actions that reduce direct agricultural
and the current high profile of agriculture and climate emissions(carbondioxide,methane,nitrousoxides)any-
change in international policy discussions, most adapta- whereinthelifecycleofagriculturalproduction;and(3)
tionandmitigationeffortscontinuetobeapproachedin actionsthatpreventthedeforestationanddegradationof
2 ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc.
C.A.Harveyetal. Climate-smartlandscapes
high-carbonecosystemstoestablishnewagriculturalar- in farms through agroforestrysystems increases soil car-
eas(Smithetal.2007;Wollenbergetal.2012b). bon stocks and above-ground biomass, while provid-
Whenadaptationandmitigationgoalsarepursuedsep- ing shade for protection from rising temperatures, di-
aratelyinagriculturalsystems,asisoftenthecase,trade- versifying farmer income and reducing financial risk
offs may occur over different temporal or spatial scales (e.g., Verchot et al. 2007; Matocha et al. 2012). Most of
(e.g., Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007; Verchot et al. 2007; these “climate-smart” practices that address both adap-
Smith & Olesen 2010). For example, efforts to promote tation and mitigation goals are already well known and
agriculturalproductivityofindividualfarmsbyincreasing promoted under the banners of Conservation Agricul-
theuseofagrochemicalscouldmaintaincropyieldsinthe ture, Agroforestry, Sustainable Agriculture, Evergreen
faceofclimatechange,butresultingreateroverallGHG Agriculture,silvopastoralsystems,sustainablelandman-
emissions (Kandji et al. 2006). Conversely, the promo- agement, EcoAgriculture, or best-management practices
tion of fast-growing tree monocultures or biofuel crops (McNeely & Scherr 2003; Hobbs 2007; FAO 2010;
for mitigation purposes may enhance carbon stocks, but Garrityetal.2010),butwideradoptionofthesepractices
potentiallyreducewateravailabilitydownstreamandde- isneeded.
creasethelandavailableforagriculture(Huettner2012). Inmanycases,itispossibletoenhanceboththeadap-
Theconsiderationoftradeoffsacrossmultipletemporal tive capacity and mitigation potential of different agri-
andspatialscalesiscriticalsincesometradeoffswillman- cultural systems and landscapes by changing the suite
ifest themselves immediately, while others may show a of management practices used. In annual cropping sys-
time lag. For example, the use of conservation agricul- tems, changes from conventional tillage practices and
ture(whichconsistsofpracticesthatminimizesoildistur- highagrochemicalinputtosoilconservationpracticescan
bance,maintainpermanentsoilcover,anddiversifycrop convert the system from one that either provides only
rotation; Hobbs 2007) often reduces agricultural yields adaptationormitigationbenefitsorneithertypesofben-
over the short term (3–5 years) but results in greater efits, to one that provides both adaptation and mitiga-
productivityandcarbonsequestrationoverthelong-term tion benefits, for instance if more water is captured or
(Rusinamhodzietal.2011). if a permanent soil cover increases soil organic matter
Potential tradeoffs between adaptation and mitigation (Figure 1a). For example, the adoption of conservation
activities can often be minimized, and sometimes even agriculture can lead to significant increases in yields of
avoided,throughintegratedlandscapelevelplanning,an maize,sorghum,wheat,andothercrops(upto20–120%
approach that considers adaptation and mitigation goals higher than those in conventional agriculture; Kassam
alongwithotherdimensionssuchasfoodsecurity,biodi- et al. 2009), due to increased soil fertility, nutrient
versity conservation, and poverty alleviation (Biesbroek availability, and water availability. In addition, these
et al. 2009; Sayer et al. 2013; Scherr et al. 2012). For systems have been shown to have a higher adaptive ca-
example, projects that aim to sequester carbon in for- pacitytoclimatechange(particularlyreducedvulnerabil-
estplantationscanpotentiallyminimizepotentialimpacts ity to drought) than conventional systems because their
onwaterandbiodiversitybyestablishingdiverse,multi- soils have higher infiltration rates and greater moisture-
species plantations of native species, minimizing the use holdingcapacity;Kassametal.2009).Thesesystemscan
of heavy machinery and pesticides in plantation estab- alsoincreasecarbonsequestrationatsoils,albeitataslow
lishment and management, and locating plantations on rateandnotinallsituations:Bakeretal.(2007)estimated
degraded lands (Brockenhoff et al. 2008; Stickler et al. thatcroprotationsystemsinconservationagricultureac-
2009). cumulated11tonsofcarbonperhectareafter9years.
In perennial cropping systems, such as coffee or co-
coa, the inclusion of a diverse, well-managed shade
Integratingadaptationandmitigation
canopy and appropriate soil management practices can
intropicalagriculture
similarly confer both adaptation and mitigation benefits
Several management strategies hold particular promise (Figure1b).Maintainingadiverseshadecanopyofmul-
for simultaneously achieving adaptation and mitigation tifunctionaltreesincocoasystemshelpsmaintainsoilor-
benefits at the plot and farm scale (Table 1). For ex- ganic matter and soil fertility, improves the stability of
ample, soil conservation practices and the use of con- cocoa production, diversifies farmer livelihoods by pro-
servation agriculture, such as the incorporation of crop vidingsourcesoftimber,fruitsandothernontimberprod-
residues, use of composts, and minimum tillage, can in- ucts, and provides ecosystem services at the landscape
creaseorganiccarboninsoils,improvesoilmoisture,and level (Tscharntke et al. 2010; Somarriba & Beer 2011;
reduce erosion during extreme weather events (Hobbs Somarriba et al. 2013). Cocoa agroforestry systems also
2007; Delgado et al. 2011). The incorporation of trees maintain high levels of plant biomass and soil carbon
ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc. 3
Climate-smartlandscapes C.A.Harveyetal.
Table1 Examplesofagriculturalpracticesandactionsthatcanconferadaptationand/ormitigationbenefitsattheplot,farmand/orlandscapescale
Practicesthatprimarilyconferadaptation PracticesthatprovideBOTHadaptationand Practicesthatprimarilyconfer
Scale benefits mitigationbenefits mitigationbenefits
PLOT •Useofnewcropvarietiesorlivestock •Integratedsoilandwaterconservation •Reducedormoreefficient
breedsthataredrought-tolerant,orbred efforts useoffertilizersand
forspecificenvironmentalstresses •Incorporationoforganicfertilizersand pesticides
•Adjustmentsinirrigationpracticesand covercrops •Adjustmentsinthetypeof
systems •Reducedorzerotillage feedprovidedtocattle
•Changesintimingofplanting,pruningor •Maintenanceofcropresidues •Reducedfrequencyor
harvesting •Breedingcropvarietiesforshadetolerance extentoffires
•Adjustmentsincroppingsequenceand •Useofagroforestry •Reducedormoreefficient
timingofirrigationorapplicationof useofmachineryandfossil
fertilizersandpesticides fuels
•Changesintiming,duration,andlocationof •Improvedmanagementof
animalgrazing cultivatedwetlandrice
•Conservationofcropandlivestockgenetic areastoreducemethane
diversity emissions
FARM •Changesinrotationorproductionsystems •Diversificationofcropsandlivestock •Reducedormoreefficient
•Improvedwaterharvestingandretention systemsonthefarm useofagrochemicals
throughponds,dams,etc. •Soilconservationpractices,including •Plantingofbiofuelsand
•Increasedwateruseefficiencythrough terracingandlandcontouring treesforfuelwood
improvedirrigationpractices •Improvedresiduemanagementanduseof •Plantingoffast-growingtree
•Conservationofagrobiodiversity covercrops plantations
•Useofseasonalandmultiyearforecasting •Integratednutrientmanagement •Reduceduseofmachinery
•Farminsuranceorcroporlivestock •Useofagroforestry andfossilfuels
insurance •Useofsilvopastoralsystems(e.g.,treesin •Generationofbiogasfrom
pastures,livefences,fodderbanks) manure
•Appropriateanimalrotationpractices •Useofimprovedfeeding
•Useofconservationagriculture(i.e.,minimal practicesforlivestock
soildisturbance,maintenanceofmulches,
useofcroprotationsandintercropping,
integratedpestmanagement)
•Useofmulticropping,intercropping,and
croprotations
LANDSCAPE •Maintenanceofhabitatconnectivityto •Land-useplanningatthelandscapelevelfor •Plantingofbiofuelfeedstock
ensurepollinationandpestcontrol multipleobjectives •Carefulmanagementoffires
•Developmentofwatercollectorsystems, •Maintenanceoflandscape
irrigationinfrastructureandother diversity—includingamosaicof
engineeringsolutionstoreducerisksof agriculturallandandnaturalhabitat
floods,waterscarcity,andother •Conservationandrestorationofriparian
climate-relatedrisks areaswithintheagriculturallandscape
•Targetedlocationofintensivelivestock •Conservationandrestorationofremaining
productionwithinthelandscapetoreduce foresthabitatinthesurrounding
watercontamination landscape—includingformalandinformal
•Diversificationoffarmerincomeoptions protectedareas
•Establishmentofagroforestryand
silvopastoralsystems
•Sustainableintensificationoflivestock
productionandcropproductioninsome
areas,toreducepressureonfragileareas
•Increasesinthedurationoffallowperiodsin
shiftandburncultivation
•Restorationofdegradedorfragilelands
•Conservationandrestorationofwetlands
andpeatlands
•Reducedexpansionofcroplandinto
remainingnaturalhabitat
4 ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc.
C.A.Harveyetal. Climate-smartlandscapes
Figure 1 Diagramsshowinghowcroporlivestockproductionsystemscanbemanagedtoachievesynergiesbetweenadaptationandmitigation
outcomes.Ineachdiagram,thelowerleftquadrantindicatesasystemthatprovidesminimalmitigationbenefitandisnotadaptedtoclimatechange.The
upperleftquadrantshowsasystemthathaspotentiallyhighmitigationpotentialbutlittleadaptivecapacity,whereasthelowerrightquadrantshows
asystemthatisadaptedtoclimatechangebutreleasessignfiicantgreenhousegasesorhaslowcarbonstocks.Theupperrightquadrantindicates
systemswherebothadaptationandmitigationbenefitsareachieved.Arrowsilllustratehowchangesinmanagementcanmovethesystemfromone
statetoanother.
ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc. 5
Climate-smartlandscapes C.A.Harveyetal.
Figure1 Continued
storage, providing mitigation benefits. For example, tra- Synergiesatthelandscapelevel
ditional cocoa agroforestry systems in Central America
The landscape scale also has many important opportu-
have 117 ± 47 Mg/ha of total carbon in the soil and
nities for synergies between adaptation and mitigation
above-groundbiomass,andaccumulatebetween1.3and
efforts (Scherr et al. 2012). Landscape-level interven-
2.6 of Mg C/ha/year in above-ground biomass annually
tions such as the conservation and restoration of ripar-
(Somarribaetal.2013).
ian areas or wetlands can help regulate water flows to
In livestock production systems, degraded pastures
agriculture, while storing carbon in peat and sediments
can be gradually converted to diverse silvopastoral sys-
(e.g., Schultz et al. 2004). Similarly, the conservation
tems, with fodder trees and timber trees interspersed
and management of tree cover (e.g., hedgerows, wood-
withinpasturesofshade-tolerantgrasses,whichimprove
lots, riparian forests, forest fragments), both within the
the overall adaptive capacity of the system, while also
farm and in the surrounding landscape, improves land-
greatly enhancing carbon stocks (Murgueitio etal. 2011;
scapeconnectivity,conservesbiodiversity,maintainscrit-
Calle et al. 2013; Figure 1c). For example, in Colom-
icalcarbonstocks,andensurestheprovisionofecosystem
bia, the adoption of intensive silvopastoril systems (sys-
services (e.g., pollination, pest control, and water regu-
tems that include the high-density cultivation of fodder
lation) that support agriculture (Tscharnkte et al. 2005;
plants [>10,000 plants/ha], timber trees and improved
Schroth&McNeely2011;Sayeretal.2013).
grasses for cattle production) at the landscape scale has
In some cases, adaptation and mitigation benefits will
been shown to increase cattle stocking rates (from <1
only be possible if action is taken across an entire land-
animal ha−1 to 3 ha−1), increase net per hectare in-
scape. For example, efforts to control flooding down-
comefarmerproductivity(by132%),enhancebiodiver-
streamdependontheadoptionofsustainablelandman-
sity levels, reduce the use of herbicides and fossil fuels
agementpractices(suchastheuseofterraces,permanent
(by 43%), release areas for biodiversity protection and
soil cover, and conservation of riparian forests) that im-
sequester additional carbon above-ground (World Bank
prove the water holding capacity and infiltration by up-
2008;Murgeitioetal.2011;Calleetal.2013).
land farmers (Brauman et al. 2007). A nice example of
6 ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc.
C.A.Harveyetal. Climate-smartlandscapes
the potential for adaptation and mitigation synergies at dicates that policies focused on adaptation alone can
thelandscapelevelisthewidespreaduseofFarmerMan- have significant mitigation cobenefits. More analyses
aged Natural Regeneration (FMNR) in Ethiopia, Niger, are needed to demonstrate when and where pursu-
and elsewhere in Africa (Brown et al. 2009; Garrity et ing adaptation and mitigation simultaneously is more
al.2010).Asof2008,approximately4.8millionhectares beneficial and cost-effective than implementing them
of Faidherbia-dominated farmlands had been generated separately.Itisalsoimportanttodevelop,pilot,andim-
in Niger through FMNR (Reij et al. 2009). In this ap- plement landscape-level indicators (e.g., of agricultural
proach, farmers encourage the systematic regeneration production and resiliency, adaptive capacity, mitigation
of existing vegetation by regrowing and managing trees potential,ecosystemservices,andhumanwellbeing)that
and shrubs from felled stumps, sprouting root systems, can track the suite of synergies or tradeoffs that result
or self-sown seeds. The adaptation benefits for farm- fromdifferentagriculturaldevelopmentscenariosandbe
ersincludeincomediversification,waterregulation(im- usedtoinformdecision-making(Sachsetal.2010).
proved infiltration), possible protection from landslides, Multiple policy and institutional barriers also impede
and increased fodder and fuel wood supply, while miti- theintegrationofadaptationandmitigationgoalswithin
gationbenefitsincludeenhancedstorageofcarbonabove agricultural landscapes. At both the international and
andbelow-ground(Garrityetal.2010).Forexample,the national levels, adaptation and mitigation are addressed
HumboCommunity-BasedNaturalRegenerationProject through different processes, discussed in parallel pol-
inEthiopia,whichinvolvestheregenerationof2,728ha icy debates that are rarely linked, led by distinct min-
ofdegradednativeforeststhroughFMNR,isexpectedto istries or institutions, and involve different constituen-
sequesterintheorderof60tCO ha−1 overtheinitial10 cies and funding sources (Verchot et al. 2007; Locatelli
2
yearsoftheproject(Brownetal.2009). et al. 2008, 2011). For example, mitigation is primar-
Synergiescanalsoariseatthelandscapelevelthrough ily driven by international agreements (e.g., the Kyoto
theintentionalplanningoflandscapestructureandcom- Protocol of the UNFCCC) and ensuing national public
position(Biesbroeketal.2009).Forexample,thestrategic policies (and to a lesser degree by unilateral or volun-
location of windbreaks across an agricultural landscape taryaction),whereasmostadaptationisfocusedonlocal
can help protect crops and livestock from wind stress ornationalactionsdesignedtominimizeclimate-change
during the dry season, while also reducing carbon loss impacts on local communities (Klein et al. 2007; Bies-
fromsoilerosion(Jindaletal.2008).Diversificationofthe broeketal.2009).Inaddition,existinginternationalpol-
agricultural landscape (e.g., through the use of different icy mechanisms address either mitigation or adaptation,
crops, crop rotations, fallows, agroforestry, and mosaics but not both (e.g., the Clean Development Mechanism
of crop land and tree cover) is key for pursuing adapta- does not consider adaptation, while the Cancun Adap-
tion since it reduces the risks related to climate impacts tation Framework does not explicitly mention the link-
on particular agricultural systems, enhances the provi- ages between adaptation and mitigation; Locatelli et al.
sion of ecosystem services, and can potentially increase 2011). Within a given country, climate-change policy is
landscapecarbonstocksifitincludestheconservationor rarelyconsistentwithothersectoralpolices:forexample,
establishment of high-biomass systems (Tscharntkeetal. inIndonesia,policiesthatpromotetheexpansionofpalm
2005;Kremen&Miles2012;FAO2013). oil (both for food and biofuel production) into new ar-
eas often conflict with climate-change policies designed
to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation
Barrierstointegratingadaptationand
(Pacheco et al. 2012). Meanwhile, policies that support
mitigationactivitiesinagriculturallandscapes
conventionalagriculture(withhighuseoffossilfueland
Despite the high potential for synergies between adap- synthetic inputs) often prevail over those that support
tation and mitigation activities, many barriers still pre- sustainableandclimate-smartpractices(Mattison&Nor-
vent the widespread adoption of climate-smart land- ris2005).Inaddition,developmentpolicyplanningoften
scapes (Table 2). A primary technical barrier is the isshort-term(typicallyin5–10yearcycles),whereasthe
lack of quantitative evidence on how different man- integration of adaptation and mitigation goals requires
agement practices, systems, and landscape configura- longertermplanninghorizons(Biesbroeketal.2009).
tions affect mitigation and adaptive benefits, as well The persistence of separate, uncoordinated funding
as agricultural yields, food security, biodiversity con- streamsforadaptationandmitigationisanotherkeycon-
servation, and ecosystem services. For example, Lobell straint(Buchneretal.2012;FAO2013).Climatefinance
et al. (2013) demonstrated that adaptive measures to comprises a variety of sources including the UNFCCC,
maintain agricultural productivity by 2050 could result UNorganizationsorprograms,multilateraldevelopment
in landscapes that save about 15 GT CO e, which in- banks,bilateralpublicfundingchannels,complianceand
2
ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc. 7
Climate-smartlandscapes C.A.Harveyetal.
Table2 Barrierstoandpotentialsolutionsforintegratingadaptationandmitigationgoalsandactivities
Barriers Solutions
•Policiesand •Adaptationandmitigationagendasaddressedthrough •DevelopNAPAs,NAMASandREDD+strategiesthataresynergistica
Institutions differentpolicies,discussedinpolicydebatesrarely •Securehigh-levelcommitmentstosupportconservation
linkedorcoordinated,ledbydistinctministriesand agriculture,agroforestry,andotherclimate-smartpractices
participatedinbydifferentconstituencies •Promotemultistakeholderplanningacrosslocal,regional,national,
•Policiessupportingconventionalagriculturepractices andbusinessinterests
dominantoverthosesupportingclimate-smart •Raiseawarenessamongpolicymakersandotherdecisionmakers
agriculturalstrategies aboutagriculturalsystemsthatmeetadaptationandmitigation
•Policyplanningisshort-term,whereastheintegration goals
ofadaptationandmitigationgoalsrequireslong-term •Promotelandscapegovernanceandresourcetenurereformsthat
planning facilitateandincentivizeplanningforlandscapemanagement
•Strengthenlocalinstitutionsandextensionservices
•Clarifyagriculture’srolewithinthecontextofREDD+
Funding •Adaptationandmitigationfundstypicallycomefrom •Developmorediversefundingapproaches–ecocertification
differentsourcesandarenotcoordinated schemes,PaymentsforEcosystemServices,philanthropic
•Competitionforfundingbetweenmitigationand investments,governmentfunding,privatefunding—tosupport
adaptationactivities climate-smartagriculture,andmodifythedesignofthese
•Difficultiesinaccesstocapitalandtechnicalinformation instrumentstoensureintegration
byfarmers,particularlysmallholders,toadoptnew •Ensurecarbonfinanceinitiativespromotetheadoptionofbest
practicesanddiversifyagriculturallandscapes practicesthatintegratemitigationandadaptationgoals
•Encouragedonors(bilateralandmultilateralorganizations,private
sector,foundations)tofinanceinvestmentsinagriculturalsystems
withadaptationandmitigationgoals
•Promotestrategiesthatincludeadaptationasapreconditionfor
obtainingcarbonfinanceformitigationprojects(e.g.,intheFCPF,
UNREDD,CDMorprivatesector)b,andviceversaforadaptation
projects
•Ensurethatagricultureiseligibleforsupportfrombothexistingand
futureclimatechangefundingmechanisms
Research, •Declineinfinancialsupportforagriculturalresearch, •Developtoolsforpolicymakersandotherdecision-makersto
Training& extensionservices,anduniversityprogramslimitof visualizethepotentialoutcomesofdifferentagriculturalstrategies
Technical transitiontoclimate-smartpractices onmitigationandadaptation,foodproduction,energy,income,
Capacity •Limitedquantitativeevidenceonpotentialcobenefits andotherrelatedobjectives
andtradeoffsofadaptationactionsonmitigationand •Promoteadditionalresearchanddevelopmentonclimate-smart
viceversa agriculturebyuniversities,stateandfederalresearch,and
extensionservices
•Provideevidenceofwhereandwhenlinkingadaptationand
mitigationismorebeneficialandcost-effectivethandoingeach
oneseparately
•Developindicatorstomeasuretheadaptivecapacityoffarming
systemsandtheimpactsofdifferentmanagementpracticeson
productivity,farmsustainability,foodsecurity,income,
biodiversityconservation,andecosystemserviceprovision
Socioeconomic •Poverty,culture,incomelevels,education,institutional •Promotenational-levelpolicyandinstitutionalchangestoensure
capacity,andlandtenureimpacttheeffectiveadoption thatfarmershavetheresourcesandtechnicalcapacitytoadopt
ofdifferentagriculturalpracticesandland-use climate-smartagriculturalpractices
decisionsbyfarmers •Encourageandsupportlandscape-levelgovernancesystemsand
•Farmsubsidiesandnationallevelpoliciesdonot resourcetenurearrangementsatthefarmandcommunitylevels
incentivizefarmerstoadoptconservationagriculture thatenabletheintegrationofadaptationandmitigationstrategies
andintegratedlandscapemanagement •Encouragedonorstosupportlocal-levelefforts,especiallyfarmer
•Highinvestment,risksforfoodsecurityandhousehold ledinitiatives,thatintegrateadaptationandmitigationefforts
well-being,andthelackofknowledgeandtechnical
supportlimitfarmerstoparticipateinconservation
agriculture
aNAPAsareNationalAdaptationProgrammesofAction,NAMASareNationallyAppropriateMitigationActions.
bFCPFistheForestCarbonPartnershipFacility,UNREDDistheUnitedNationsCollaborativeProgrammeonReducingEmissionsfromForestDegradation
inDevelopingCounties,CDMistheCleanDevelopmentMechanism.
8 ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc.
C.A.Harveyetal. Climate-smartlandscapes
voluntarycarbonmarkets,privatesectorinvestment,and for land use and management (Scherr etal. 2012; Sayer
philanthropy (FAO 2013), with the private sector being et al. 2013). Strong institutions that have the appropri-
the greatest single source (accounting for approximately ate technical, administrative, and financial capacity and
74%ofglobalclimatefinance;Buchneretal.2012).Miti- use an integrated, participatory approach to landscape
gationactivitiesaretypicallyfundedbytheprivatesector management are needed to both develop and manage
and carbon finance, whereas adaptation measures tend theseprocesses(Hauswirthetal.2012).
to be supported by public funds, NGO’s and donors in-
terested in poverty alleviation, food security, or disaster
relief (Schalatek etal. 2012; Lobell etal. 2013). This tra-
Recommendationsforhowtoovercome
ditional separation of funding sources (and funding eli-
thesebarriers
gibility criteria) has created silos in the implementation
of adaptation and mitigation measures on the ground While the current barriers to integrating adaptation
(Schalateketal.2012),andhinderedtheadoptionofin- and mitigation efforts in agricultural landscapes are sig-
tegrated landscape-level approaches (FAO 2013). In ad- nificant, these barriers could potentially be overcome
dition,climatefinancehasdisproportionatelyfocusedon through a combination of targeted scientific research,
mitigation and only a small portion of climate finance policy and institutional reforms, and changes in fund-
has gone toward agriculture, forests, or land use (e.g., ing modalities. The appropriate set of opportunities for
of the 343–385 billion dollars of global climate finance overcoming existing constraints to climate-smart land-
in 2010/2011, only an estimated 11.8 billion went to scapes in a given location will depend on the political,
REDD+;Buchneretal.2012).Althoughfundersarestart- socioeconomic,andagroecologicalcontext,sothefollow-
ing to recognize the importance of combining adapta- ing overview should be considered a menu of potential
tion and mitigation activities (e.g., GEF 2012), funding opportunities,ratherthanauniversalapproach.
for climate-smart agriculture approaches currently falls One opportunity for fostering greater adoption of
far below what is needed (FAO 2013). A related con- climate-smart landscapes is to ensure that there is a
straintistheongoingdeclineinfinancialsupportforagri- strong scientific evidence and sufficient technical guid-
culturalresearch,extensionservices,anduniversitypro- ance to identify the best options for changes in agricul-
grams,whichmeansthatthecapacityandfundsneeded tural systems and landscapes (Scherr et al. 2012). Inno-
topromotethetransitionto“climate-smart”practicesare vative,newtools(includingmapping,scenarioanalyses,
oftenlacking(FAO2010,2013;McCarthyetal.2011). andsimulationmodels)areneededtoassessandvisualize
Socioeconomicfactorsalsolimitthewidespreadimple- thepotentialimpactsofalternativeagriculturaldevelop-
mentationofclimate-smartagriculture,evenwherepol- ment pathways (e.g., different systems, spatial arrange-
icy is appropriate and funding is sufficient. Poverty, cul- ments, and management strategies) on adaptation, mit-
tural factors, income, education, access to markets and igation, and other goals, clarify potential synergies and
credit, investment costs, institutional capacity, and lack tradeoffs over different temporal and spatial scales, and
of land and tree tenure, among others, are all known assess related economic costs (Beddington et al. 2012;
toaffecttheeffectiveadoptionofsustainableagricultural FAO 2013). New efforts by the CGIAR (http://ccafs.org;
practices and farmer land-use decisions (McCarthy etal. Vermeulen et al 2012), the Millennium Villages Project
2011; Reid et al. 2012). In many cases, the lack of clear (Palm et al. 2010), FAO (FAO 2013) and Vital Signs
landortreetenuremakesitdifficultforfarmerstoadopt (http://vitalsigns.org/) to understand and monitor the
sustainable agricultural practices (Hauswirth et al. 2012; agronomic, social, economic, and ecological impacts of
Stringer et al. 2012). For example, the large-scale adop- differentagriculturaldevelopmentscenariosinparticular
tion of FMNR in Niger only occurred after there was an landscapesareimportantstepsinthisdirection,butmore
institutionalchangeintreetenurefromstateownership isneeded.Newglobalmonitoringsystemsthatintegrate
tolocalownership(Brownetal.2009).Farmeradoption real-timeinformationaboutagriculturalproduction,for-
ofintegratedapproachesissometimesalsolimitedbythe estcover,ecosystemservices,markets,agriculturalprices,
initial investment costs needed to implement new prac- and human wellbeing in near real-time would also
tices or systems, potential short-term risks to household be particularly useful in informing decision-making
food security, and the lack of access to technical sup- (Beddington et al. 2012). There is also a need for more
port and information (McCarthy etal. 2011; Wollenberg participatory, action-oriented research with farmers to
etal.2012b).Anotherkeyconsiderationisthatinterven- betterunderstandwhichpracticesandlandscapeconfigu-
tions at the landscape level usually require multistake- rationsgenerateresiliencyandmitigationbenefitsindif-
holder negotiations or collective actions in order to es- ferent agroecological and socioeconomic contexts (FAO
tablishacommonagendaanddevelopagreed-uponplan 2013).
ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc. 9
Climate-smartlandscapes C.A.Harveyetal.
At the policy and institutional level, governments regardingagriculture’srolewithinthecontextofREDD+
could promote greater coherence, coordination and beresolved(Kissinger2011).
integrationamongadaptationandmitigationeffortsand Governments, funding agencies, donors, and the pri-
mainstream climate-smart agriculture into broader pub- vate sector could also adjust existing financial mech-
lic policy, expenditures, and planning processes (FAO anisms to require both adaptation and mitigation
2013). For example, governments can ensure that Na- outcomes and use these metrics to track performance.
tionally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), Na- For example, the inclusion of adaptation cobenefits
tional Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA), and couldbeestablishedaspreconditionforobtainingcarbon
othernationalorstateclimatestrategiesarecomplemen- financeformitigationprojects(e.g.,FCPF,UNREDDpro-
taryandapplyanintegratedlandscapeapproachtoagri- gram,CDMorprivatesector)andconversely,adaptation
culture (FAO 2013). They could also require that vul- projects funded by UNFCCC adaptation funds (or future
nerability assessments (which are often used as a tool similar funds) could be required to demonstrate miti-
for determining adaptation priorities) consider the po- gation benefits as a requisite for funding. Certification
tential mitigation outcomes of any adaptation activities, schemesforcarbonprojects,suchastheVerifiedCarbon
and conversely that any mitigation projects take mea- Standard (VCS 2013) and the Climate, Community and
surestoensureadaptationbenefits(Locatellietal.2011). Biodiversity (CCB) Standard (CCBA 2008), could also
New agricultural investments can be screened for their be modified to require that mitigation projects provide
degree of “climate smartness” using simple tools such adaptation cobenefits. The CCB standards currently do
as those developed by the FAO (FAO 2012b). Govern- not require that forest carbon project generate adapta-
ments can also set up policy frameworks, institutional tion cobenefits, but include these cobenefits as an “op-
arrangements, and planning processes that support the tional criteria” for achieving the gold level of certifica-
integrationofadaptationandmitigationgoalsinagricul- tion(CCBA2008).Inaddition,newfundingmechanisms
turallandscapes,andremovepublicpoliciesorsubsidies ormodalitiescouldbecreatedspecificallytopromotein-
toconventionalfarmingpracticesthatcontributelittleto tegrated landscape management approaches that deliver
adaptationormitigation(FAO2012a,2013).Acentral— adaptation, mitigation, and food security goals. Climate-
and particularly difficult—challenge is for governments smartagriculturecouldalsobefundedthroughpayment
toensureclimate-smartagricultureisintegratednotonly for ecosystem services schemes that include agriculture
into climate-change policies, but also economic devel- (e.g.,Pagiolaetal.2007)ortheecocertificationofsustain-
opment strategies, food security policies, safety net pro- ably managed agricultural products or landscapes (e.g.,
grams, poverty reduction strategies, and related policies Philpottetal.2007;Ghazouletal.2009).
(Beddington et al. 2012; FAO 2013). Governments can
also help promote the broad-scale adoption of climate-
smartagriculturebyensuringfarmershavethefinancial
Conclusions
resources and technical capacity to adopt climate-smart
practices,raisinginvestmentinsustainableagriculturere- There are significant opportunities to pursue adapta-
search and development, revitalizing agricultural exten- tionandmitigationgoalssimultaneouslyintropicalagri-
sion services, and securing land rights so that long-term culture and to adopt integrated landscape approaches
investments in sustainableagriculture are possible (FAO that contribute to climate-change goals, food security,
2010;Beddingtonetal.2012). ecosystemserviceprovision,andothergoals.Whilethere
There is a similar need to mainstream climate-smart is no one general formula for capturing synergies be-
agriculture in international climate-change policy, and tween adaptation and mitigation, their joint considera-
to give more consideration to agriculture not only as a tion in landscape planning, research, technical support,
driver of deforestation, but also as a potential source of government policies, and funding mechanisms would
mitigation (Murphy & Boyle 2012). While many policy significantly help to achieve this goal. A renewed and
makers present at the climate-change negotiations in strengthened commitment to sustainable agriculture,
Doha (2012) highlighted the key role of agriculture conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and other best
in both adaptation and mitigation, and raised the pos- management practices for agriculture, as well as an
sibility of including agricultural land uses in REDD+ increased focus on integrated landscape management,
(http://blog.ecoagriculture.org/2012/12/13/redd.cop18; would help to promote tropical agricultural systems and
FAO 2012a), little progress has been made. It is critical landscapesthathaveenhancedadaptationandmitigation
that a work program on mitigation and adaptation in potential, while contributing to food security, poverty
agriculture be established within the UNFCCC process alleviation, and biodiversity conservation across the
(Beddington etal. 2012) and that the current ambiguity tropics.
10 ConservationLetters00(2013)1–14 (cid:2)C 2013TheAuthors.ConservationLetterspublishedbyWileyPeriodicals,Inc.