• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Restricted close
• Open Source close
• 11. Sustainability close
• Agritrop close

Tropical reforestation (TR) has been highlighted as an important intervention for climate change mitigation because of its carbon storage potential. TR can also play other frequently overlooked, but significant, roles in helping society and ecosystems adapt to climate variability and change. For example, reforestation can ameliorate climate‐associated impacts of altered hydrological cycles in watersheds, protect coastal areas from increased storms, and provide habitat to reduce the probability of species' extinctions under a changing climate. Consequently, reforestation should be managed with both adaptation and mitigation objectives in mind, so as to maximize synergies among these diverse roles, and to avoid trade‐offs in which the achievement of one goal is detrimental to another. Management of increased forest cover must also incorporate measures for reducing the direct and indirect impacts of changing climate on reforestation itself. Here we advocate a focus on “climate‐smart reforestation,” defined as reforesting for climate change mitigation and adaptation, while ensuring that the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on reforestation are anticipated and minimized.

The vulnerability of rural communities to climate variability and change in developing countries is widely recognized. However, the question of what factors drive their vulnerability remains subject to different interpretations. This study explored the perceptions of local key informants on the factors influencing the vulnerability of forest communities to droughts and excessive rains in five contrasting socio-ecological zones of the Congo Basin forest. Results from the local level were discussed by national stakeholders. The analysis showed that people agreed on the positive effect of most community assets (physical, natural, human, social and financial) on vulnerability reduction. Diverging views arose with regard to the effects of population density and institutions on vulnerability, as well as to whether the dependence of communities on forest products increased vulnerability. The perceptions of local respondents depended on local contexts and the roles of the respondents in communities. The divergent...

International climate negotiations have stressed the importance of considering emissions from forest degradation under the planned REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation + enhancing forest carbon stocks) mechanism. However, most research, pilot-REDD+ projects and carbon certification agencies have focused on deforestation and there appears to be a gap in knowledge on complex mosaic landscapes containing degraded forests, smallholder agriculture, agroforestry and plantations. In this paper we therefore review current research on how avoided forest degradation may affect emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and expected co-benefits in terms of biodiversity and livelihoods. There are still high uncertainties in measuring and monitoring emissions of carbon and other GHG from mosaic landscapes with forest degradation since most research has focused on binary analyses of forest vs. deforested land. Studies on the impacts of forest degradation on biodiversity contain mixed results and there is little empirical evidence on the influence of REDD+ on local livelihoods and tenure security, partly due to the lack of actual payment schemes. Governance structures are also more complex in landscapes with degraded forests as there are often multiple owners and types of rights to land and trees. Recent technological advances in remote sensing have improved estimation of carbon stock changes but establishment of historic reference levels is still challenged by the availability of sensor systems and ground measurements during the reference period. The inclusion of forest degradation in REDD+ calls for a range of new research efforts to enhance our knowledge of how to assess the impacts of avoided forest degradation. A first step will be to ensure that complex mosaic landscapes can be recognised under REDD+ on their own merits.

Agricultural activities are important sources of nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). They contribute approximately 10% of the total emitted greenhouse gases (GhG) in the European Union. We search for evaluating GhG emissions at the farm level and designing mitigation options. As emissions occur at many stages within the farm operation, it is crucial to consider nutrient cycling and farm working. Our proposal comprises three characteristics: an integrated farm approach which combines empirical and mechanistic modelling through describing C and N fluxes through two coupled models of land use: a farmers’ practices description; and system boundaries limited to the farm gate, but including also pre- and post-chain effects. We used a case study located in semi-continental conditions (Mirecourt – North-Eastern France). The simulated farming system is a mixed dairy and crops system so as to account for a rather generic farming system.

African mixed crop–livestock systems are vulnerable to climate change and need to adapt in order to improve productivity and sustain people’s livelihoods. These smallholder systems are characterized by high greenhouse gas emission rates, but could play a role in their mitigation. Although the impact of climate change is projected to be large, many uncertainties persist, in particular with respect to impacts on livestock and grazing components, whole-farm dynamics and heterogeneous farm populations. We summarize the current understanding on impacts and vulnerability and highlight key knowledge gaps for the separate system components and the mixed farming systems as a whole. Numerous adaptation and mitigation options exist for crop–livestock systems. We provide an overview by distinguishing risk management, diversification and sustainable intensification strategies, and by focusing on the contribution to the three pillars of climate-smart agriculture. Despite the potential solutions, smallholders face major constraints at various scales, including small farm sizes, the lack of response to the proposed measures and the multi-functionality of the livestock herd. Major institutional barriers include poor access to markets and relevant knowledge, land tenure insecurity and the common property status of most grazing resources. These limit the adoption potential and hence the potential impact on resilience and mitigation. In order to effectively inform decision-making, we therefore call for integrated, system-oriented impact assessments and a realistic consideration of the adoption constraints in smallholder systems. Building on agricultural system model development, integrated impact assessments and scenario analyses can inform the co-design and implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies.F

AbstractIn the twenty-first century, modern bioenergy could become one of the largest sources of energy, partially replacing fossil fuels and contributing to climate change mitigation. Agricultural and forestry biomass residues form an inexpensive bioenergy feedstock with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, if harvested sustainably. We analysed quantities of biomass residues supplied for energy and their sensitivities in harmonised bioenergy demand scenarios across eight integrated assessment models (IAMs) and compared them with literature-estimated residue availability. IAM results vary substantially, at both global and regional scales, but suggest that residues could meet 7–50% of bioenergy demand towards 2050, and 2–30% towards 2100, in a scenario with 300 EJ/year of exogenous bioenergy demand towards 2100. When considering mean literature-estimated availability, residues could provide around 55 EJ/year by 2050. Inter-model differences primarily arise from model structure, assumptions, and the representation of agriculture and forestry. Despite these differences, drivers of residues supplied and underlying cost dynamics are largely similar across models. Higher bioenergy demand or biomass prices increase the quantity of residues supplied for energy, though their effects level off as residues become depleted. GHG emission pricing and land protection can increase the costs of using land for lignocellulosic bioenergy crop cultivation, which increases residue use at the expense of lignocellulosic bioenergy crops. In most IAMs and scenarios, supplied residues in 2050 are within literature-estimated residue availability, but outliers and sustainability concerns warrant further exploration. We conclude that residues can cost-competitively play an important role in the twenty-first century bioenergy supply, though uncertainties remain concerning (regional) forestry and agricultural production and resulting residue supply potentials.