Lalisa A Duguma of World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) & ASB Partnership for the Tropical discussed Forest-based mitigation in tropical landscapes. Mitigation and adaptation as interdependent practices.

1. Mitigation-adaptation interdependence in
tropical landscapes: rethinking our
approach
Lalisa A Duguma
World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) &
ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins

2. Forest-based mitigation in tropical
landscapes
• REDD+
• Afforestation
• Reforestation
• Sustainable forest management
• Soil carbon management
• ….

3. Drivers of changes in forested landscapes
 Livelihood related activities
 Infrastructure
 Market forces
 Incidents like flooding, landslides, fire, etc..
Drivers
Mitigation
efforts
Adaptation
needs

4. Mitigation and adaptation as
interdependent practices
Improved
livelihood [A]
Land resources
management
Soil and water
conservation [A +M]
Improved adaptive
capacity of the society
[A]
Improved agricultural
productivity [A]
Avoidance of soil
carbon stock loss [M]
Enhances carbon
sinks [M]
Agroforestry
[M + A]
Afforestation and
reforestation [M]
Enhanced ecosystem
services provision [A+M]
Biodiversity
conservation [A]
Reduced deforestation and
forest degradation [M]
Less GHG
emission [M]
Sustainable forest
management [M + A]

5. A practical example: Northern Tanzania
regional restoration programme
The reference state The degradation phase The restoration phase
Sustainable agropastoral
1930 1986
livelihood system
Ngitili (fodder bank
system)
Indigenous Miombo
and acacia woodlands
Tse tse fly eradication
(clearing of woodlands)
Cash crops expansion
Overstocking
Increasing wood
demand
Deforestation for
villagization
Ngitili
Onfarm tree
conservation
Improved fallows
Rotational woodlots
Community
empowerment
Long-term investment
from NORAD and ICRAF
Insecure
tenure rights

6. Practice 1:
Ngitili [M+A]
Practice 4:
Agroforestry [A+M]
Improved honey
production
Practice 6: Fodder
banks [M+A]
Practice 7: Livestock
rearing [A-M]
Abundant livestock feed
and thus enhanced
productivity
Income from grazing contracts
and carbon money from pilot
REDD+ projects
Edible wild fruits, edible
insects, herbal traditional
medicines
Household consumables
and livestock products
increased [A]
Less dependence on Practice 2 (Cotton
farming) and Practice 3 (maize and
sorghum farming) [A-M]
Better vegetation cover in the
area due to reduced forest
clearance [M+A]
Sufficient wood for
energy and construction
Improved ecosystem
services provision
[A+M]
Enhanced water availability
both for household use and
livestock [A]
Better habitat for
wildlife [A]
Reduced land degradation
through control of wind and
water erosion [A+M]
Enhanced carbon
storage [M]

7. Social, environmental, livelihood benefits
…
Carbon sequestration
1986 - 611 ha (27428 t
C)
2005 - 377756 ha
(16,957,467 t C)
Economic values (Monela et al. 2005)
Per capita economic value : 168 USD
/year
Rural per capita expenditure : 102 USD
/year
Other ES benefits
Hydrological
functions: Dam
construction and
water management
(“Water markets”)
Soil management:
Erosion control
SOM build-up

8. Some insights
 In the context of tropical landscapes, mitigation may not
be successful if adaptation is not taken into account.
 To minimize the long-term adaptation costs, there is a
strong need to mitigate factors contributing to CC
To address mitigation effectively at a landscape scale,
 REALU concept
 Mitigation and adaptation should be seen as
interdependent components rather than viewing them as
mutually exclusive.
 Mitigation should not have significant leakage effects e.g.
activity shifts to locations outside the landscape.

9. Thank
You!