The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

Land&Climate
The Role of Sustainable Land Management
for Climate Change Adaptation
and Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa
I S S U E P A P E R
A TerrAfrica Partnership Publication

The Role of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
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) – John Pender, Claudia Ringler, and Marilia Magalhaes - and the World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF) - Frank Place - 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, Steve Danyo 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 individuals 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 Bwalya, 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 ...................................................................... 4
2.2 The Impact of Climate Change on Sub-Saharan Africa................................................... 5
2.3 The Role of Extreme Events ............................................................................................ 5
2.4 Land Use Change and Climate Change............................................................................ 6
2.5 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....................................................................... 11
3.2 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 ............................. 27
4.2. Opportunities and Constraints to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change through SLM.. 43
4.3. Options to Address Opportunities and Constraints to Climate Mitigation and Adaptation
through SLM in SSA................................................................................................................. 64
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................75
References....................................................................................................................................102!

List of Tables
Table 2-1. Regional averages of temperature increases in Africa from a set of 21 global
models............................................................................................................................................81
Table 2-2. Projected mean temperature increases in African countries........................................82
Table 2-3. Regional averages of change in rainfall in Africa from a set of 21 global models .....83
Table 2-4. Transition matrix of changes in environmental constraints to crop agriculture of
land in sub-Saharan Africa.............................................................................................................83
Table 2-5. Severe environmental constraints for rain-fed crop production ..................................84
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 ..........84
Table 3-1. The extent of land degradation and its effects in sub-Saharan Africa.........................85
Table 3-2. Importance of causes of degraded lands by continent.................................................86
Table 3-3. Examples of sustainable land management practices for climate change
adaptation and mitigation...............................................................................................................87
Table 3-4. Mitigation potential of alternative land management practices on soil carbon...........89
Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volumes, and values ..........................................................................90
Table 4-2. Estimated economic mitigation potential by agricultural and land management
practices in Africa..........................................................................................................................90
Table 4-3. Estimated economic mitigation potential by agricultural and land management
practices in Africa..........................................................................................................................91
Table 4-4. Summary of progress during 2007 in Phase 2 TerrAfrica countries............................92
!
!

List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Number of flood events per decade, by continent......................................................93
Figure 2-2. Total Number of People Affected by Droughts in Africa. 1964-2005 .......................93
Figure 2-3. Projected increases in rainfall from 1961-90 to 2070-99 ...........................................94
Figure 2-4. Changes in sub-Saharan land with no or slight environmental constraints . ..............94
Figure 2-5. Probabilistic projections of production impacts in 2030 from climate change ..........95
Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates of land degradation in sub-saharan Africa in 2003 ...............96
Figure 3-2. Effect of improved land management and climate change on crop yields ................97
Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emission sources by location ...........................................................98
Figure 4-1. Potential size of REDD payments..............................................................................99
Figure 4-2. Potential savings by 2030 from mitigation options in agriculture ...........................100
Figure 4-3. Income potential from REDD payments vs. governance indices ............................101
!
!

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AEZ
AFOLU
AGRA
A/R
BSAP
CAADP
CBD
CCX
CDCF
CDM
CEEPA
CER
CGIAR
CIF
CILSS
CSIF
CSIRO
CTF
DfID
DNA
DOE
EAP
EC
ERU
EU
FCPF
FIP
GCCA
GDP
GEF
GFDRR
GGAS
GHG
GLASOD
Agro-ecological zone
Agriculture, forestry and other land uses
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
Afforestation or reforestation
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program
Convention on Biological Diversity
Chicago Climate Exchange
Community Development Carbon Fund
Clean Development Mechanism
Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa
Certified Emissions Reductions
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
Climate Investment Funds
Institute of the Sahel of the Interstate Committee of the Sahelian
Countries
Country Strategic Investment Framework
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research Organization
Clean Technology Fund
Department for International Development
Designated National Authority
Designated Operational Entity
Environment Action Plan
European Community
Emission Reduction Unit
European Union
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
Forest Investment Program
Global Climate Change Alliance
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
Greenhouse Gases
Global Land Assessment of Degradation
!
!

ICRISAT
IGAD
IPCC
ISDR
JI
lCER
LDCF
LULUCF
LGP
MEA
NAP
NAPA
NARS
NCAR
NDVI
NEPAD
NGO
NSW
ODA
OTC
PoA
PPCR
RAP
REC
REDD
SCCR
SCF
SLM
SLWM
SIP
SRAP
SRE
SRES
SSA
tCER
UNCCD
UNCED
UNCTAD
International Crop Research Institute of the Semi-Arid Tropics
Intergovernmental Authority for Development
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Joint Implementation
Long-term Certified Emissions Reductions
Least Developed Countries Fund
Land use, land use change and Forestry
Length of growing period
Multilateral Environmental Agreement
National Action Programme of the UNCCD
National Adaptation Programme of Action of the UNFCCC
National agricultural research system
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Normalized Difference Vegetative index
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Non-governmental organization
New South Wales
Official Development Assistance
Over the counter
Programme of Activities
Pilot Program for Climate Resilience
Regional Action Programme
Regional Economic Communities
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
Special Climate Change Fund
Strategic Climate Fund
Sustainable land management
Sustainable land and water management
Strategic Investment Program
Sub-regional Action Programmes
Scaling up Renewable Energy
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
Sub-Saharan Africa
Temporary Certified Emissions Reductions
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
!
!

UNDP
UNEP
UNFCCC
USD
VCS
WRI
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United States Dollar
Voluntary Carbon Standard
World Resources Institute
!
!

!
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 subregions
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
!
"!

!
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 CO 2 e per year by 2030 (at opportunity costs of up to $20 per tCO 2 e).
Afforestation in Africa could sequester 665 Mt CO 2 per year, while reduced deforestation and
forest degradation (REDD) in Africa could reduce emissions by 1,260 Mt CO 2 e in 2030 (at
opportunity costs of up to $100 per tCO 2 ). 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
!
""!

!
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 MtCO 2 e were offset through other voluntary transactions
involving land management in SSA in 2007.
!
"""!

!
• 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
!
"#!

!
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
!
#!

!
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).
!
#"!

!
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.
!
#""!

!
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
!
$!

!
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.
!
%!

!
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.
!
&!

!
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.).
!
'!

!
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 climate 1 . 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 2.5 o C 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 o C by the end of the 21 st 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) .
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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$ !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).!
!
(!

!
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 km 2 of land is
threatened by irreversible degradation in that region.
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 km 2
of land facing severe constraints under the reference climate, only 80,000 km 2 are expected to
improve with climate change while more than 650,000 km 2 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 shows that land suitability for rainfed agriculture in
sub-Saharan Africa decreases with the increase of atmospheric CO 2 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 CO 2 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)
(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 strategy 2 .
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 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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
% !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. !
!
!
,!

!
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.
!
$-!

!
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 CO 2 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
!
$$!

!
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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 A land unit was classified as agriculture if more than 50% of the area was agriculture – with clearly demarcated
crop or pasture fields. !
!
$%!

!
widespread in all regions and remains a major constraint to 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
• 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 overexploitation
(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
fuelwood is converted to charcoal, requiring the clearance of some 430 km 2 of woodland every
year to produce more than 100,000 tonnes of charcoal (Chenje 2000). In 2000, over 175 million
m 3 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
to be widely used, e.g. in semi-arid Tanzania (Hatibu et al 2001). 4 Various other conservation
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
' !It should be noted that adoption rates of relatively recently developed technologies are often bolstered by
significant investment in dissemination.!!!
!
$(!

!
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.
!
$)!

!
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.
analyses.
Each of these relationships is discussed in turn, drawing on both conceptual and empirical
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
!
$*!

!
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 2 o C increase in temperature coupled
with a 10 percent decline in rainfall, 1.6 million km 2 of sub-humid areas in Africa will become
semi-arid and 1.1 million km 2 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.
!
$+!

!
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-
2 o C (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 CO 2 , 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.
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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( !The prospects for promoting SLM through carbon markets, REDD payments, and other policy approaches are
discussed further in section 4 of the paper.!
!
%-!

!
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 crosssectional
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
!
%$!

!
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 3 o C 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
!
%%!

!
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.
!
%&!

!
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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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
!
%'!

!
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 CO 2 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
!
%(!

!
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.).
!
%)!

!
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
MtCO 2 e 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.
!
%*!

!
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 subregional
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.
!
%+!

!
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 Protocol 6 , 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 CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) in emission allowances worth
$50 billion traded in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2007, accounting for more than twothirds
of the entire carbon market (Table 4.1). The CDM is the second largest market,
accounting for CERs of nearly 800 million tons of CO 2 e 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 GHG emissions through improved
manure management, reduction of enteric fermentation in livestock (e.g., through improved
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
) !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.!
!
%,!

!
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
tCO 2 e 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 MtCO 2 e 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 CO 2 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
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.).
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 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 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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* !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).!
!
&&!

!
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 tCO 2 e,
while prices for CERs under the CDM ranged between 8 and 13 Euros per tCO 2 e and prices on
the CCX were in the $1 to $4 (1 to 3 Euros) per tCO 2 e 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 MtCO 2 e were offset through land use projects in the OTC market (Hamilton, et al. 2008).
Although this is a tiny fraction of the entire CDM market (nearly 800 MtCO 2 e in 2007), it is
much larger than the CDM market for land use projects (0.2 MtCO 2 e 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 MtCO 2 e) 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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+ !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).!
!
&'!

!
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 tCO 2 per acre per year (0.5 to 1.5
tCO 2 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
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
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 subregional
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 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/strategicpartnerships/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.
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
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 crosscutting
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 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:
• 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.
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
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;
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.
• 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 management 10 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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.!
!
'(!

!
• 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
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
industries. According to one estimate, the price of these allowances would average about $14
per tCO 2 e 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-underobama-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 (tCO 2 e) 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-cleanenergy-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 CO 2 e 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
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 tCO 2 e). 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 13 th 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 tCO 2 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 tCO 2 and assuming a
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$$ !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”. !
!
'+!

!
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 CO 2 per year in 2030 (at costs of $100 per t CO 2 or less), representing
29% of the global total; while reduced forest degradation resulting from improve forest
management could reduce emissions by 100 Mt CO 2 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 tCO 2 . 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 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 CO 2 e per year by 2030
are possible globally through improved agricultural and land management practices, assuming
carbon prices of up to $100 per t CO 2 e (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
!
(-!

!
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 CO 2 e per year by 2030 – while the
economic potential (assuming carbon prices of up to $20 per t CO 2 e) in Africa is estimated to be
265 Mt CO 2 e (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 CO 2 e 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 CO 2 in 2030 (at
opportunity costs of up to $100 per tCO 2 ) (Nabuurs, et al. 2007). If half of this potential were
achieved at payments of $10 per tCO 2 , 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 tCO 2 e in 2030. This is equivalent to
6.5% of total GHG emissions in 2000 (33.7 billion tCO 2 e (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 $10 billion per year for these activities in Africa (assuming only 50% of
the potential reductions are achieved) appear possible.
Unfortunately, consideration of including a broader set AFOLU activities in the post-
Kyoto treaty appears to be less far advanced than consideration of REDD payments. The Bali
Action Plan made no mention of AFOLU activities among activities to consider for climate
change mitigation or adaptation. This oversight may reflect scientific uncertainties about the
level of carbon sequestered by agricultural and land management practices or concerns about the
ability to monitor and verify emissions reductions at low enough cost, contributing to skepticism
among the COP of the UNFCCC about the potential and feasibility of payments for AFOLU
!
($!

!
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 nonmarketable
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).
!
(%!

!
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 tCO 2 e for large projects to as
high as $14.78 per tCO 2 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.aspxarticleID=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 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 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 tCO 2 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,
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.).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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).!
!
((!

!
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.
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 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
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
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.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.!
!
(,!

!
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.
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 CO 2 e reduction through REDD could be set to equal 0.5 ton
!
)-!

!
of CO 2 e 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 CO 2 e per hectare) and
a carbon price of $5 to $10 per t CO 2 e. With this range of credits and price of carbon, farmers
could earn between $2.50 and $15 per hectare for adopting conservation tillage. This may well
be worth it in terms of the farmers’ opportunity costs, since in many cases conservation tillage is
more profitable than conventional tillage. Nevertheless, the transaction costs of participating in a
payment scheme could easily swamp the value of the payment, especially for small farmers with
only a few hectares of land.
For small farmers in Africa (and elsewhere) to benefit substantially from AFOLU
payments, the transaction costs per farmer must be very small. This means that expensive
measurements for verification, such as soil and biomass samples to measure carbon sequestration
levels on individual farms, are not likely to be feasible. A less costly approach, if measurement
is desired, would be to have community or farmer organizations participate in a payment scheme,
and use a sampling approach within these organizations to measure and verify carbon
sequestration. Even less costly would be to establish norms for soil carbon sequestration
achieved by particular types of land management practices, such as used by the CCX and the
!
)$!

!
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.
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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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).!
!
)%!

!
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
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.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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).!
!
)&!

!
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.
• 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
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
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 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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
!
*'!

!
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 CO 2
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.
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
MtCO 2 e 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
!
*)!

!
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.
!
**!

!
• 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
!
*+!

!
(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.
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.
!
+-!

!
Table 2-1. Regional averages of temperature increases in Africa from a set of 21 global
models. Comparisons between 1980-90 and 2080-99
West Africa
Season
Region DJF MAM JJA SON Annual
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 3.6
Source: Christensen et al. (2007)
!
+$!

!
Table 2-2. Projected mean temperature increases in African countries
Countries
1961-90
o C
Temperature
2070-99
o C
0 C 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 4.36
Source: 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
West Africa
Season
Region DJF MAM JJA SON Annual
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 -6
Source: 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 km 2 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 15,702
Source: Fischer et al. (2002)
!
+&!

!
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 %
African
Region
Total
extent
10 6 ha
Total with
constraints Too cold Too dry Too wet Too steep Poor soils
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 20.5
Source: 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
Severe constraints % of total land Slight or no constraints % of total land
African
Region 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 11.1
Maximum 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)
!
+'!

!
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-reclaimable 16 . 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 years 19 .
• 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 TERRASTAT!
17 Dregne 1991, Dreschel et al 2001. !
18 Oldemann, 1998!
19 World Bank, 2007b!
20 CAADP, 2002!
!
+(!

!
Table 3-2. Importance of Causes of Degraded Lands by Continent
Source: UNEP (1997)
!
!
Cause
Africa Asia Oceania Europe
(million ha)
North
America
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
South
America
!
+)!

!
Table 3-3. Examples of sustainable land management practices for climate change
adaptation and mitigation
!
Practice Adaptation aspects Mitigation aspects
Improved
crop/plant/livestock
management
Crop rotations
Agoforestry systems
mixed with crops /
pastures
IPM
Use of more resource
efficient crops, livestock
and trees
Exclosures
Improved grazing systems
Pasture/rangeland
enrichment
Fire protection of
vegetation
Improved soil management
Cover cropping
Use of mulch and compost
Can reduce competition from
weeds and pest impacts and
possibly reduce mining of
specific nutrients
Increases water infiltration,
slows soil drying and can
provide nutrients through
leaves.
Reduces losses from pests
Increases water use or nutrient
use efficiency under current or
future climate shifts
Enables regeneration of
vegetation cover, useful plants,
and possibly spring recovery
Protection and regeneration of
vegetation cover, reduced soil
compaction
Promotion of vegetation cover
and soil carbon build up
Preservation of vegetation and
important species
Helps to reduce soil erosion,
reduce weed growth, and
contributes to soil carbon
buildup
Reduces soil erosion and helps
to maintain/improve soil
moisture, nutrients, and organic
matter
Woody biomass
Reduces need for nutrients and
possible N2O emission
reductions
Some above ground carbon
storage, soil carbon improvement
Soil carbon improvement
Prevention of GHG emissions
Soil carbon improvement
Manuring Enhances soil organic matter Soil carbon improvement
Crop residue incorporation Adds nutrient and soil organic Soil carbon improvement
matter into soils
Intercropping with
legumes
Helps to improve infiltration,
soil carbon, and soil nutrients
Soil improving
agroforestry
Vegetative strips
Terracing/bunding
(through nitrogen fixation)
Helps to reduce weed growth,
improve infiltration, soil
carbon, and soil nutrients
(through nitrogen fixation)
Prevents soil erosion
Prevents soil erosion
Enhances soil carbon but
possible NO2 emission increases
Some soil carbon impacts but
also provides woody biomass;
possible N2O emission increases
with legumes
!
+*!

!
Practice Adaptation aspects Mitigation aspects
Minimum tillage
Increases soil moisture and Soil carbon improvement
builds soil carbon
Windbreaks and
shelterbelts
Reduces erosion due to high
winds and rains
Improved above ground carbon
storage with trees
Improved water
management
Rainwater 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 Soil carbon improvement
minimises loss of valuable
rainwater and erosive runoff
Localised improvement of soil
structure through activity of soil
organisms
Tied ridges/ zai
In-situ entrapment of rainwater
minimises loss of valuable
rainwater and erosive runoff
Localised improvement of soil
structure through activity of soil
Soil carbon improvement
Contour ridging / planting
Formal irrigation systems
Watershed management
Adapted from World Bank (2008)
organisms
Evenly distributes water on
sloping areas and enables
infiltration
Reduces runoff
Offsets effects of drought
periods
Also can prevent fields from
accumulating excess water
Effective management of
rainwater, surface, and ground
waters need to be implemented
at scales above the household
Soil carbon improvement in
selected niches
Landscape level improvement in
soil carbon and possibly in
woody vegetation
!
++!

!
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 0.98
Nutrient management 0.26 0.33 0.55 0.62
Tillage and residue 0.33 0.35 0.70 0.72
management
Water management 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14
Set aside 1.61 3.93 3.04 5.36
Agroforestry 0.33 0.35 0.70 0.72
Pasture management 0.11 0.11 0.81 0.81
Restoration of organic 73.33 70.18 73.33 70.18
soils
Restoration of degraded 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
land
Manure application 1.54 1.54 2.79 2.79
Source: Smith and Martino (2007) !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
+,!

!
Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volumes, and values
Scheme
Allowances
EU Emissions Trading
Scheme
New South Wales
Greenhouse Gas
Abatement Scheme
Chicago Climate
Exchange
UK Emissions Trading
System
Volume
(MtCO2e)
2005 2006 2007
Value Volume Value Volume
(MUS$) (MtCO2e) (MUS$) (MtCO2e)
Value
(MUS$)
324 8,204 1,104 24,436 2,061 50,097
6 59 20 225 25 224
1 3 10 38 23 72
0 1 NA NA NA NA
Subtotal 332 8,268 1,134 24,699 2,109 50,394
Project-based transactions
Clean Development
Mechanism
359 2,651 562 6,249 791 12,877
Joint Implementation 21 101 16 141 41 499
Other compliance and 5 37 33 146 42 265
voluntary transactions
- Voluntary “over the
14 59 42 259
counter” (OTC) market 21
Subtotal 384 2,789 611 6,536 874 13,641
TOTAL 717 11,057 1,745 31,235 2,983 64,035
Sources: Capoor and Ambrosi (2007) and (2008)
Note: MtCO2e = million tons of carbon dioxide or equivalent
MUS$ = million U.S. dollars
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21 Source: Hamilton, et al. (2008)!
!
,-!

!
Table 4-2. Estimated economic mitigation potential by agricultural and land management
practices in Africa
Economic mitigation potential by 2030 at carbon prices of up to $20/t of CO22e
(MtCO2e/yr)
Region Cropland Grazing Restoration of Restoration of Other
mgmt land mgmt organic soils degraded land practices Total
East Africa 28 27 25 13 15 109
Central
Africa 13 12 11 6 7 49
North Africa 6 6 6 3 3 25
South Africa 6 5 5 3 3 22
West Africa 16 15 14 7 8 60
Total 69 (26%) 65 (25%) 61 (23%) 33 (12%) 37 (14%) 265
Source: Smith, et al. (2008).
!
,$!

!
Table 4-3. Summary of Progress during 2007 in Phase 2 TerrAfrica countries
Country
Burkina
Faso
Ethiopia
Ghana
Lead
Government
body
Lead
partner
agency
Status of Country
SLM Investment
Framework (CSIF)
preparation
CONEDD UNDP The alignment of
CPP with TerrAfrica
is under discussion;
a preliminary CSIF
is under preparation
with support from
TerrAfrica partners. It
is expected that a full
CSIF will be prepared
during the time frame
of CCP Phase 1 which
will then guide the
development of a CPP
phase 2.
MoARD:
National
SLM Platform
MOFEP
and
MLGRDE:
SLM
Taskforce
Analytical work and
SLM mainstreaming
to support decision
making
As part of the
preparatory
activities of the five
CPP sub-projects,
analytical
and diagnostic
activities have been
undertaken - Public
Expenditure Review
and a Gap/Institutional
Analysis done in 2007
WB Under preparation Economic Sector
Work on Poverty and
Land Degradation
(published in 2007)
WB
Draft Terms of
Reference
prepared and
agreed with
Government
as an outcome of
the 19-29 March 2007
FAO/WB mission.
Final
draft endorsed in May
2007
Uganda MAAIF WB Under discussion with
Government.
Alignment
and integration
with the broader
CAADP
implementation
process being
pursued
!Source: TerrAfrica (2007)
Country Environmental
Analysis endorsed
by Government in
February 2007 (being
published)
Public Expenditure
Review for SLM being
finalized
Investment
development,
mobilization
and harmonization
Within the CPP four
targeted investment
projects cover four key
ecological areas of BF.
Donor and national
co-financing has been
mobilized to support
the implementation of
these projects.
Wide range of ongoing
and planned
investments
to be coordinated
under the country
program
GEF-SIP funding to be
blended and
harmonized
with ongoing
budget support and
sector wide programs
(i.e. NREGP, FABS,
and AgDPL)
SLM Country Program
supported by blended
IDA/GEF funding
under a Natural
Resource Management
SWAp. UNDP is
preparing an operation
targeting the Cattle
Corridor.
!
!
,%!

!
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)
!
,&!

!
Figure 2-3. Projected increases in rainfall from 1961-90 to 2070-99 (%)
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)
!
,'!

!
!
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. !
!
!
,(!

!
Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates of land degradation in sub-saharan Africa in 2003!
!
Source: Vlek et al (2008)!
!
!
,)!

!
Figure 3-2. Effect of improved land management and climate change on crop yields
!
!
Source: Cooper et al (2009)
!
!
!
!
,*!

!
Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emission sources by location
!
!
!
Source: World Bank (2007)
!
!
,+!

!
Figure 4-1. Potential size of REDD payments, under various levels of emission reduction
and carbon price
!
Source: Ecosecurities and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (2008)
!
!
,,!

!
Figure 4-2. Potential savings by 2030 from mitigation options in agriculture for carbon
prices of up to US$100 per t CO 2 or equivalent
Source: Smith, et al. (2008)
!
$--!

!
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)
!
$-$!

!
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.climatestrategies.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.
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 rainfed
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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 CO 2 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,,content
MDK: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.
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.
!
$$-!