Agroforestry and Global Climate Adaptation: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lily Guo and Version 1 by Indu K Murthy.

Agroforestry plays a defining role in offsetting greenhouse gases, providing sustainable livelihoods, localizing Sustainable Development Goals and achieving biodiversity targets. 

  • agroforestry
  • South Asia

1. Introduction

Climate change is a reality and it is well established that the planet is facing climate emergency [1]. Emissions from the agriculture sector alone emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the environment per annum [2]. Climate change impacts in certain regions have been more damaging and devastating because of the enhanced exposure to climatic hazards, already prevailing vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacity [3,4]. Climate change mitigation, food security, conservation of biodiversity, restoration of ecosystems and localizing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) are the fundamental global challenges of present times [5]. With increasing natural disasters and climate variability there is growing urgency for recognizing and supporting efforts for climate adaptation and mitigation [6]. Of these, adaptation efforts to improve land and water management related practices have been identified as central to boosting capacity for overall resilience to climate vulnerability [7].

Climate change is a reality and it is well established that the planet is facing climate emergency [1]. Emissions from the agriculture sector alone emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the environment per annum [2]. Climate change impacts in certain regions have been more damaging and devastating because of the enhanced exposure to climatic hazards, already prevailing vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacity [3][4]. Climate change mitigation, food security, conservation of biodiversity, restoration of ecosystems and localizing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) are the fundamental global challenges of present times [5]. With increasing natural disasters and climate variability there is growing urgency for recognizing and supporting efforts for climate adaptation and mitigation [6]. Of these, adaptation efforts to improve land and water management related practices have been identified as central to boosting capacity for overall resilience to climate vulnerability [7].

The South Asia region includes the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. S. Asia has huge range of human, cultural, and ecosystem diversity [8]. S. Asia’s rapid population growth, widespread poverty, large dependence on natural resources and inadequate adaptive capacity has made the region highly vulnerable to climate change. The region is home to more than one fifth of the world’s population, and is one of the most climate disaster-prone areas on earth [9,10,11]. Agriculture and pasture land in the region accounts for one third of the total land cover [2]. Fulfilling the food requirements of a fast-growing population without affecting land use is a primary challenge due to sustenance agriculture, and this has resulted in widespread food shortages [12,13]. Agriculture expansion and intensification are drivers of deforestation and biodiversity loss in the region. Due to low per capita land available for agriculture, production of food with a marginal ecological footprint becomes essential [12]. There are growing expectations on multifunctional land use systems, to fulfill mounting regional land and food demands while addressing emerging climate hazards, as they support sustenance of productive landscapes, habitats, social, economic, and also regulatory aspirations [14].

The South Asia region includes the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. S. Asia has huge range of human, cultural, and ecosystem diversity [8]. S. Asia’s rapid population growth, widespread poverty, large dependence on natural resources and inadequate adaptive capacity has made the region highly vulnerable to climate change. The region is home to more than one fifth of the world’s population, and is one of the most climate disaster-prone areas on earth [9][10][11]. Agriculture and pasture land in the region accounts for one third of the total land cover [2]. Fulfilling the food requirements of a fast-growing population without affecting land use is a primary challenge due to sustenance agriculture, and this has resulted in widespread food shortages [12][13]. Agriculture expansion and intensification are drivers of deforestation and biodiversity loss in the region. Due to low per capita land available for agriculture, production of food with a marginal ecological footprint becomes essential [12]. There are growing expectations on multifunctional land use systems, to fulfill mounting regional land and food demands while addressing emerging climate hazards, as they support sustenance of productive landscapes, habitats, social, economic, and also regulatory aspirations [14].

Adaptation is an urgent requirement under the present climate change scenario, particularly in developing and underdeveloped countries, which are anticipated to be severely impacted by climate extremes [15]. The contribution made by agriculture to achieve the SDGs will require climate adaptation followed by cropland advances that are affordable and profitable to the poor [16]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its first, second, and third assessment reports (1990, 1996 and 2001) have acknowledged the South Asian region for its capacity to incorporate adaptation and mitigation approaches that can also facilitate pro-poor development through carbon-offset arrangements such as farmer managed natural regeneration, agroforestry, and adaptive agriculture practices [17]. While synergies in adaptation and mitigation approaches need to be addressed, they should not be limited to income diversification from tree or forest-based products. Adaptation and mitigation approaches should ideally include approaches for improving soil health and biodiversity, and reducing fire risks, through restoration of natural ecosystems [18]. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) have emerged as the principal tool for benchmarking and reporting under the Paris Agreement. Likewise, removing atmospheric carbon and storing it in terrestrial vegetation is a feasible adaptation and mitigation option that contributes to the NDCs. Researchers have identified agroforestry among critical landscapes as an approach that can fulfill NDC commitments, particularly in developing countries [19,20].

Adaptation is an urgent requirement under the present climate change scenario, particularly in developing and underdeveloped countries, which are anticipated to be severely impacted by climate extremes [15]. The contribution made by agriculture to achieve the SDGs will require climate adaptation followed by cropland advances that are affordable and profitable to the poor [16]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its first, second, and third assessment reports (1990, 1996 and 2001) have acknowledged the South Asian region for its capacity to incorporate adaptation and mitigation approaches that can also facilitate pro-poor development through carbon-offset arrangements such as farmer managed natural regeneration, agroforestry, and adaptive agriculture practices [17]. While synergies in adaptation and mitigation approaches need to be addressed, they should not be limited to income diversification from tree or forest-based products. Adaptation and mitigation approaches should ideally include approaches for improving soil health and biodiversity, and reducing fire risks, through restoration of natural ecosystems [18]. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) have emerged as the principal tool for benchmarking and reporting under the Paris Agreement. Likewise, removing atmospheric carbon and storing it in terrestrial vegetation is a feasible adaptation and mitigation option that contributes to the NDCs. Researchers have identified agroforestry among critical landscapes as an approach that can fulfill NDC commitments, particularly in developing countries [19][20].

Trees outside forests (TOFs) substantively contribute to livelihood improvement, while also enhancing biomass and carbon stocks. In the last few decades, policy makers have recognized the significance of TOFs, and included them in the national forest inventories [21]. Indigenous and traditional resource management by agroforestry is proven to benefit livelihood benefits in terms of provisioning, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services [22]. Trees on arable land have the potential to support carbon sinks under Nature-based Solutions (NbS) contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation through carbon sequestration [23,24,25,26].

Trees outside forests (TOFs) substantively contribute to livelihood improvement, while also enhancing biomass and carbon stocks. In the last few decades, policy makers have recognized the significance of TOFs, and included them in the national forest inventories [21]. Indigenous and traditional resource management by agroforestry is proven to benefit livelihood benefits in terms of provisioning, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services [22]. Trees on arable land have the potential to support carbon sinks under Nature-based Solutions (NbS) contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation through carbon sequestration [23][24][25][26].

2. Traditional Agroforestry Systems in South Asia

Agroforestry systems are dynamic, sustainable food production, and natural resource management systems with high prevalence and acceptance in developing countries in the tropics of South-East Asia, South Asia, and Central, and South America. These systems occupy more than 50% of the land coverage [28,29,30]. Despite global recognition and the presence of AFS, it is still a challenge to find reliable and accurate information on the extent for S. Asia. A list of land areas that are under agroforestry in different countries of the world including S. Asia was prepared by The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) [31]. Nair et al. [32] estimated global agroforestry cover to be 1023 million hectares followed by Zomer et al. [33]. Zomer [29] projected global agroforestry cover to be 1020 million hectares [22], thereby agreeing with Nair et al. [32] (

Agroforestry systems are dynamic, sustainable food production, and natural resource management systems with high prevalence and acceptance in developing countries in the tropics of South-East Asia, South Asia, and Central, and South America. These systems occupy more than 50% of the land coverage [27][28][29]. Despite global recognition and the presence of AFS, it is still a challenge to find reliable and accurate information on the extent for S. Asia. A list of land areas that are under agroforestry in different countries of the world including S. Asia was prepared by The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) [30]. Nair et al. [31] estimated global agroforestry cover to be 1023 million hectares followed by Zomer et al. [32]. Zomer [28] projected global agroforestry cover to be 1020 million hectares [22], thereby agreeing with Nair et al. [31] (

Table 1

).

% of Tree Cover Present in the Agricultural LandsGlobal Agricultural Land with Trees

(in km2)		% of All Agricultural Land with Trees
>1010,120,00046
>205,960,00027
>501,670,0007.5

Source: [29][33].

South Asia is recognized for its AFS and its long history of acceptance and adoption of traditional practices across diverse agro-ecological conditions and agro-climatic zones. The diverse AFS in the region showcase the accumulated knowledge related to climate adaptation and mitigation approaches developed by millions of smallholding farmers and marginalized communities over centuries [34]. Approximately 60% of the research on AFS in the Asia-Pacific region has been carried out in India, China, Indonesia, and Australia, with a clear focus on silvi-pastoral systems. Shin et al. [35] provided details on the extensive research on AFS in India from 1970–2018. Nair et al. [36] provided a detailed overview on traditional AFS in S. Asia, along with other regions of the world.

South Asia is recognized for its AFS and its long history of acceptance and adoption of traditional practices across diverse agro-ecological conditions and agro-climatic zones. The diverse AFS in the region showcase the accumulated knowledge related to climate adaptation and mitigation approaches developed by millions of smallholding farmers and marginalized communities over centuries [33]. Approximately 60% of the research on AFS in the Asia-Pacific region has been carried out in India, China, Indonesia, and Australia, with a clear focus on silvi-pastoral systems. Shin et al. [34] provided details on the extensive research on AFS in India from 1970–2018. Nair et al. [35] provided a detailed overview on traditional AFS in S. Asia, along with other regions of the world.

Home gardens are the dominant AFS across S. Asian countries. Traditional AFS in S. Asia are trusted for their diverse benefits from the small land holdings (

Table 2). In India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka, growing fuelwood, fodder and fruit trees on cropland bunds by local people is a common practice to fulfill energy and food demands, and are these practices that constitute important livelihood options for the region’s rural poor [37,38]. However, in Pakistan, local farmers are hesitant to plant trees on cropland bunds to avoid competition between trees and crops. Hence, their fuelwood and fodder needs are mostly met from natural forests or wasteland vegetation.

). In India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka, growing fuelwood, fodder and fruit trees on cropland bunds by local people is a common practice to fulfill energy and food demands, and are these practices that constitute important livelihood options for the region’s rural poor [36][37]. However, in Pakistan, local farmers are hesitant to plant trees on cropland bunds to avoid competition between trees and crops. Hence, their fuelwood and fodder needs are mostly met from natural forests or wasteland vegetation.

Table 2. Traditional agroforestry systems accepted/adopted in South Asia.

Traditional agroforestry systems accepted/adopted in South Asia.

Type of AFSAgro-Ecological Adaptation
Regions of the WorldAgricultural Area with Trees (in Million km2)% Of All Agricultural Area with Trees
Agri-silvicultural systems
South-East Asia1.34Shifting cultivation, Chena, Taungya, Bewat, dhya, dippa, erka, jhum, kumara, peenda, pothur, podu, rep syrti, zaboIn tropical forest areas in North-East India, Sri Lanka
82
Northern and Central Asia0.6527Plantation-based cropping systemMainly humid tropical countries (India, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka)
East Asia0.4123Scattered trees on farms, parklandsAll regions, especially semiarid, and arid regions
South Asia0.3821Shelterbelts and windbreaksIn wind-prone areas, especially coastal, arid, and alpine regions of India, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka
Western Asia and North Africa0.19Boundary Planting and live hedgesIn all countries of the region
Woodlots for soil conservationIn hilly areas, along sea coast and ravine lands of the region
Industrial plantations with cropsIntensively cropped area having plantation on bunds
Silvi-pastoral systems
Total (Global)Silvi-pasturesSub tropics and tropics with bio-edaphic sub- climaxes
Horti- pastoralIn hilly and non-hilly orchards for soil conservation
10.12Tree on rangelandsIn all countries of the region
Plantation crops with pasturesMostly humid and sub-humid regions with less grazing pressure on plantation lands
Seasonal forestry GrazingSemi- arid and mountainous ecosystems
Agro-silvi-pastoral systems
Home gardensIn all countries of the region especially Sri Lanka, India, Maldives, Bangladesh
Others
Aqua forestryLow lands
Apiculture with treesIn all countries of the region
 

Source: [38][39].

The magnitude of agroforestry in the region at present is highly underestimated, because of technical constraints to recognize low-density tree cover common the small landholdings of local farmers [20]. Agroforestry cover reported from different parts of Asia shows that there are fewer areas with trees in S. Asia region, compared to other regions in Asia (

Table 3

).

Table 3. Extent of agroforestry systems in different parts of Asia.

Extent of agroforestry systems in different parts of Asia.

46

Source: [29][33].

The Central Agroforestry Research Institute (CAFRI) based in Jhansi, India estimated agroforests to span 13.75 million hectares in the country [41]. In the biennial State of Forest Report (ISFR) of India for 2019, AFS are located under trees outside forests (TOF) category, spanning an area of 293,840 km

The Central Agroforestry Research Institute (CAFRI) based in Jhansi, India estimated agroforests to span 13.75 million hectares in the country [40]. In the biennial State of Forest Report (ISFR) of India for 2019, AFS are located under trees outside forests (TOF) category, spanning an area of 293,840 km

2, or about 8.94% of the geographical area of the country. More than 65% of the country’s timber and more than 50% of the fuelwood requirements are supported by AFS. Oli et al. [42] reported higher tree species richness in agroforests of Nepal compared to natural forests. Chakraborty et al. [43] stressed the value of agroforests in Bangladesh. Agroforests in Bangladesh support household fuelwood needs and thus, help in reducing household expenses and dependence on wood from natural forests. The National Research Centre for Agroforestry projected the livelihood potential of 943 million person-days/annum from 25.4 million ha agroforests in India [44]. The Agroforests with species such as teak (

, or about 8.94% of the geographical area of the country. More than 65% of the country’s timber and more than 50% of the fuelwood requirements are supported by AFS. Oli et al. [38] reported higher tree species richness in agroforests of Nepal compared to natural forests. Chakraborty et al. [39] stressed the value of agroforests in Bangladesh. Agroforests in Bangladesh support household fuelwood needs and thus, help in reducing household expenses and dependence on wood from natural forests. The National Research Centre for Agroforestry projected the livelihood potential of 943 million person-days/annum from 25.4 million ha agroforests in India [41]. The Agroforests with species such as teak (

Tectona grandis

L.f.) or Silver Oak (

Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R.Br.) are an investment option for the region providing significant economic, and ecological returns, for ensuring long and short term diverse ecological and social benefits for local communities [39]. Fast growing high biomass yielding species like Poplar (

A. Cunn. ex R.Br.) are an investment option for the region providing significant economic, and ecological returns, for ensuring long and short term diverse ecological and social benefits for local communities [42]. Fast growing high biomass yielding species like Poplar (

Populus

spp.) and Eucalyptus (

Eucalyptus

spp.) have gained larger acceptance and recognition in industrial plantations of Pakistan and India. Fast growing trees (

Eucalyptus

spp.,

Populus

spp.,

Tectona grandis

,

Casuarina equisetifolia L. etc) are preferred in industrial agroforestry plantations and shelterbelts because of their economic and ecological values and fast growth rates [45]. Agroforestry trees that have market value are preferred by farmers in the region, as they have less susceptibility to fail as annual crops.

L. etc) are preferred in industrial agroforestry plantations and shelterbelts because of their economic and ecological values and fast growth rates [43]. Agroforestry trees that have market value are preferred by farmers in the region, as they have less susceptibility to fail as annual crops.

Moringa oleifera

trees are preferred in India because of the medicinal properties and market value of its all plant parts. Similarly, many traditional fodder trees like

Grewia optiva

J. R. Drumm. ex Burret,

Carpinus viminea Wall. ex Lindl. etc., that can be harvested multiple times a year [22,46].

Wall. ex Lindl. etc., that can be harvested multiple times a year [22][44].

Noticeable examples of AFS include multifunctional landscapes such as home gardens that secure food and support conservation of lesser known underutilized biodiversity in Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh and India [47]. These tree-based land management practices (spice gardens in Kerala, India, and in Sri Lanka) have proven their potential in providing livelihood opportunities for rural industrialization. Integrated agri-silvi-horti production systems that favor resource conservation and support conservation of traditional agro-biodiversity also ensures climate adaptation and mitigation in the region [34].

Noticeable examples of AFS include multifunctional landscapes such as home gardens that secure food and support conservation of lesser known underutilized biodiversity in Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh and India [45]. These tree-based land management practices (spice gardens in Kerala, India, and in Sri Lanka) have proven their potential in providing livelihood opportunities for rural industrialization. Integrated agri-silvi-horti production systems that favor resource conservation and support conservation of traditional agro-biodiversity also ensures climate adaptation and mitigation in the region [33].

3. Global Climate Dialogue around Agroforestry Systems

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) along with other prominent international environmental and scientific organizations have stressed the growing need for mainstreaming and implementation of sustainable land management approaches that specifically includes AFS [69,70,71]. AFS have received substantial recognition from international organizations like the UNFCCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the World Bank [72] (

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) along with other prominent international environmental and scientific organizations have stressed the growing need for mainstreaming and implementation of sustainable land management approaches that specifically includes AFS [46][47][48]. AFS have received substantial recognition from international organizations like the UNFCCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the World Bank [49] (

https://agroforestrynetwork.org/

, accessed on 25 June 2019).

Figure 4 presents an overview of major Conventions and reports that have brought AFS into global focus. The Kyoto Protocol was the first international arrangement to acknowledge the importance of AFS in climate mitigation. Since, then global attention for enhancing carbon sequestration using AFS has increased [30,70]. Although, the Kyoto Protocol was rooted in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the addition of AFS into CDM was hindered due to a lack of uniform protocols to estimate carbon sinks, and associated land right concerns [73]. However, REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestations and Forest Degradation) brought AFS back into focus in 2007, and several countries have made considerable progress to improve their national planning by understanding the importance of agriculture, forestry, and other land-use (AFOLU) sectors in climate change adaptation and mitigation [74]. AFS are known for their potential to contribute to nine out of the 17 SDGs including SDG 15 (life on land), 13 (climate action), 12 (responsible production and consumption), 2 (zero hunger), 1 (no poverty), 3 (good health and well-being), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 5 (gender equality) and 10 (reduce inequalities) [75,76,77]. AFS are an important climate mitigation tool, and can help both developing and underdeveloped to achieve policy synergy amongst technologies, landscapes, rights and markets [78] while also improving localization of SDGs (especially 2.4; 13.2 and 15.3), restoration of multi-functional landscapes, climate adaptation and mitigation; reforestation targets in line with the Bonn challenge, UN decade on restoration (2021–2030); and improving food and water security [79,80,81].

1 presents an overview of major Conventions and reports that have brought AFS into global focus. The Kyoto Protocol was the first international arrangement to acknowledge the importance of AFS in climate mitigation. Since, then global attention for enhancing carbon sequestration using AFS has increased [29][47]. Although, the Kyoto Protocol was rooted in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the addition of AFS into CDM was hindered due to a lack of uniform protocols to estimate carbon sinks, and associated land right concerns [50]. However, REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestations and Forest Degradation) brought AFS back into focus in 2007, and several countries have made considerable progress to improve their national planning by understanding the importance of agriculture, forestry, and other land-use (AFOLU) sectors in climate change adaptation and mitigation [51]. AFS are known for their potential to contribute to nine out of the 17 SDGs including SDG 15 (life on land), 13 (climate action), 12 (responsible production and consumption), 2 (zero hunger), 1 (no poverty), 3 (good health and well-being), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 5 (gender equality) and 10 (reduce inequalities) [52][53][54]. AFS are an important climate mitigation tool, and can help both developing and underdeveloped to achieve policy synergy amongst technologies, landscapes, rights and markets [55] while also improving localization of SDGs (especially 2.4; 13.2 and 15.3), restoration of multi-functional landscapes, climate adaptation and mitigation; reforestation targets in line with the Bonn challenge, UN decade on restoration (2021–2030); and improving food and water security [56][57][58].

Forests 12 00303 g004 550
Figure 41. Agroforestry System in key agreements and reports (Source: [82,83,84]).

Agroforestry System in key agreements and reports (Source: [59][60][61]).

References

  1. Zomer, R.; Trabucco, A.; Coe, R.; Place, F.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Xu, J. Trees on Farms: An Update and Reanalysis of Agroforestry’s Global Extent and Socio-Ecological Characteristics; Volume Working Paper 179; World Agroforestry Center: Bogor, Indonesia, 2014; pp. 1–33.
  2. Zomer, R.; Trabucco, A.; Coe, R.; Place, F. Trees on Farm: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographical Patterns of Agroforestry. Icraf Work. Pap. World Agrofor. Cent. 2009, 89, 63.
  3. Dagar, J.C.; Singh, A.K.; Arunachalam, A. (Eds.) Agroforestry Systems in India: Livelihood Security & Ecosystem Services; Advances in Agroforestry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-81-322-1661-2.
  4. Puri, S.; Nair, P.K.R. Agroforestry Research for Development in India: 25 Years of Experiences of a National Program. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 437–452.
  5. Feliciano, D.; Ledo, A.; Hillier, J.; Nayak, D. Which Agroforestry Options Give the Greatest Soil and above Ground Carbon Benefits in Different World Regions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 254, 117–129.
  6. de Coninck, H.; Puig, D. Assessing Climate Change Mitigation Technology Interventions by International Institutions. Clim. Chang. 2015, 131, 417–433.
  7. Turral, H.; Burke, J.; Faurès, J.M. Climate Change, Water and Food Security; Water Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011; p. 200. ISBN 978-92-5-106795-6.
  8. Noorudin, I. South Asia: The Road Ahead in 2020. Atlantic Council, 2020. Available online: (accessed on 3 March 2020).
  9. Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Stefanski, R. Climate Change in South Asia. In Climate Change and Food Security in South Asia; Lal, R., Sivakumar, M.V.K., Faiz, S.M.A., Mustafizur Rahman, A.H.M., Islam, K.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 13–30. ISBN 978-90-481-9516-9.
  10. Bandara, J.S.; Cai, Y. The Impact of Climate Change on Food Crop Productivity, Food Prices and Food Security in South Asia. Econ. Anal. Policy 2014, 44, 451–465.
  11. Maharjan, A.; de Campos, R.S.; Singh, C.; Das, S.; Srinivas, A.; Bhuiyan, M.R.A.; Ishaq, S.; Umar, M.A.; Dilshad, T.; Shrestha, K.; et al. Migration and Household Adaptation in Climate-Sensitive Hotspots in South Asia. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 2020, 6, 1–16.
  12. Sharma, L.N.; Vetaas, O.R. Does Agroforestry Conserve Trees? A Comparison of Tree Species Diversity between Farmland and Forest in Mid-Hills of Central Himalaya. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 2047–2061.
  13. Laurance, W.F.; Sayer, J.; Cassman, K.G. Agricultural Expansion and Its Impacts on Tropical Nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 107–116.
  14. Westholm, L.; Ostwald, M. Food Production and Gender Relations in Multifunctional Landscapes: A Literature Review. Agroforest Syst. 2020, 94, 359–374.
  15. Yang, Y.; Liu, B.; Wang, P.; Chen, W.-Q.; Smith, T.M. Toward Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24, 318–330.
  16. Jat, M.L.; Chakraborty, D.; Ladha, J.K.; Rana, D.S.; Gathala, M.K.; McDonald, A.; Gerard, B. Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification in South Asia. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 336–343.
  17. Barros, V.R. (Ed.) Regional Aspects; Climate Change 2014; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-107-05816-3.
  18. Matocha, J.; Schroth, G.; Hills, T.; Hole, D. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation through Agroforestry and Ecosystem Conservation. In Agroforestry—The Future of Global Land Use; Nair, P.K.R., Garrity, D., Eds.; Advances in Agroforestry; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 105–126. ISBN 978-94-007-4676-3.
  19. Duguma, L.A.; Nzyoka, J.; Minang, P.A.; Bernard, F. How Agroforestry Propels Achievement of Nationally Determined Contributions. Icraf Policy Brief. 2017, 34, 1–8.
  20. Rosenstock, T.S.; Wilkes, A.; Jallo, C.; Namoi, N.; Bulusu, M.; Suber, M.; Mboi, D.; Mulia, R.; Simelton, E.; Richards, M.; et al. Making Trees Count: Measurement and Reporting of Agroforestry in UNFCCC National Communications of Non-Annex I Countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 284, 106569.
  21. Schnell, S.; Kleinn, C.; Ståhl, G. Monitoring Trees Outside Forests: A Review. Environ. Monit. Assess 2015, 187, 600.
  22. Kumar, V. Multifunctional Agroforestry Systems in Tropics Region. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 2016, 15, 365–376.
  23. Dhyani, S.; Thummarukuddy, M. Ecological Engineering for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 20049–20052.
  24. Griscom, B.W.; Adams, J.; Ellis, P.W.; Houghton, R.A.; Lomax, G.; Miteva, D.A.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Shoch, D.; Siikamäki, J.V.; Smith, P.; et al. Natural Climate Solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 11645–11650.
  25. Dhyani, S.; Karki, M.; Gupta, A.K. Opportunities and Advances to Mainstream Nature-Based Solutions in Disaster Risk Management and Climate Strategy. In Nature-Based Solutions for Resilient Ecosystems and Societies; Dhyani, S., Gupta, A.K., Karki, M., Eds.; Disaster Resilience and Green Growth; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1–26. ISBN 9789811547126.
  26. Dhyani, S.; Bartlett, D.; Kadaverugu, R.; Dasgupta, R.; Pujari, P.; Verma, P. Integrated Climate Sensitive Restoration Framework for Transformative Changes to Sustainable Land Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 1026–1031.
  27. Zomer, R.J.; Trabucco, A.; Bossio, D.A.; Verchot, L.V. Climate Change Mitigation: A Spatial Analysis of Global Land Suitability for Clean Development Mechanism Afforestation and Reforestation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 126, 67–80.
  28. Zomer, R.; Trabucco, A.; Coe, R.; Place, F.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Xu, J. Trees on Farms: An Update and Reanalysis of Agroforestry’s Global Extent and Socio-Ecological Characteristics; Volume Working Paper 179; World Agroforestry Center: Bogor, Indonesia, 2014; pp. 1–33.
  29. Zomer, R.J.; Neufeldt, H.; Xu, J.; Ahrends, A.; Bossio, D.; Trabucco, A.; van Noordwijk, M.; Wang, M. Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land: The Contribution of Agroforestry to Global and National Carbon Budgets. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29987.
  30. Ishii-Eiteman, M.; Li Ching, L. The IAASTD Report. Development 2008, 51, 570–573.
  31. Nair, P.K.R.; Kumar, B.M.; Nair, V.D. Agroforestry as a Strategy for Carbon Sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10–23.
  32. Zomer, R.; Trabucco, A.; Coe, R.; Place, F. Trees on Farm: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographical Patterns of Agroforestry. Icraf Work. Pap. World Agrofor. Cent. 2009, 89, 63.
  33. Mohan Kumar, B.; Singh, A.K.; Dhyani, S. South Asian Agroforestry: Traditions, Transformations, and Prospects. In Agroforestry-The Future of Global Land Use; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 359–389. ISBN 978-94-007-4675-6.
  34. Shin, S.; Soe, K.T.; Lee, H.; Kim, T.H.; Lee, S.; Park, M.S. A Systematic Map of Agroforestry Research Focusing on Ecosystem Services in the Asia-Pacific Region. Forests 2020, 11, 368.
  35. Nair, P.K.R.; Viswanath, S.; Lubina, P.A. Cinderella Agroforestry Systems. Agroforest Syst. 2017, 91, 901–917.
  36. Dhyani, S.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Dhyani, D. Energy Budget of Fodder Harvesting Pattern along the Altitudinal Gradient in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1823–1832.
  37. Dhyani, S.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Dhyani, D. Utility of Fodder Banks for Reducing Women Drudgery and Anthropogenic Pressure from Forests of Western Himalaya. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 2013, 36, 453–460.
  38. Chavan, S.; Dhyani, S.K.; Handa, A.K.; Newaj, R. National Agroforestry Policy in India: A Low Hanging Fruit. Available online: (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  39. Oli, B.N.; Treue, T.; Larsen, H.O. Socio-Economic Determinants of Growing Trees on Farms in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Agroforest Syst. 2015, 89, 765–777.
  40. Chakraborty, M.; Haider, M.; Rahaman, M.M. Socio-Economic Impact of Cropland Agroforestry: Evidence from Jessore District of Bangladesh. Int. J. Res. Agric. For. 2015, 2, 11–20.
  41. Inder, D.; Ram, A.; Bhaskar, S.; Chaturvedi, O.P. Role of Agroforestry in current scenario. In Agroforestry for Climate Resilience and Rural Livelihood; Scientific Publishers: Jodhpur, India, 2018; pp. 1–10.
  42. Dagar, J.C.; Singh, A.K.; Arunachalam, A. (Eds.) Agroforestry Systems in India: Livelihood Security & Ecosystem Services; Advances in Agroforestry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-81-322-1661-2.
  43. Basu, J.P. Agroforestry, Climate Change Mitigation and Livelihood Security in India. N. Z. J. Sci. 2014, 44, S11.
  44. Murthy, I.K.; Gupta, M.; Tomar, S.; Munsi, M.; Hegde, R.T.G.; Nh, R. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems in India. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Chang. 2013, 4, 1–7.
  45. Dhyani, S.; Kadaverugu, R. Food Security and Cultural Benefits from Urban Green Spaces: Exploring Urban Foraging as a Silently Growing Global Movement. Clim. Chang. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 8, 219–225.
  46. Bélanger, J.; Pilling, D. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 978-92-5-131270-4.
  47. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: An Ipcc Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., et al., Eds.; IPCC Press Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; p. 36.
  48. Bongaarts, J. IPBES, 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2019, 45, 680–681.
  49. Buttoud, G. Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda: A Guide for Decision-Makers; Agroforestry Working Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 978-92-5-107470-1.
  50. Atangana, A.; Khasa, D.; Chang, S.; Degrande, A. Agroforestry and the Carbon Market in the Tropics. In Tropical Agroforestry; Atangana, A., Khasa, D., Chang, S., Degrande, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 353–365. ISBN 978-94-007-7723-1.
  51. Fortuna, S.; Tjarvar, A.; Borelli, S.; Simelton, E. Agroforestry in REDD+ and NDCs Ways to Fulfill the Paris Agreement and Reduce Deforestation. In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Agroforestry, Montpellier, France, 20–22 May 2019.
  52. Van Noordwijk, M. Agroforestry as Nexus of Sustainable Development Goals. Iop Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 449, 012001.
  53. Leimona, B.; Noordwijk, M.V. Smallholder Agroforestry for Sustainable Development Goals: Ecosystem Services and Food Security|CAPSA. Palawija Newslett. 2017, 34, 1–6.
  54. van Noordwijk, M.; Duguma, L.A.; Dewi, S.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.C.; Lusiana, B.; Öborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Minang, P.A. SDG Synergy between Agriculture and Forestry in the Food, Energy, Water and Income Nexus: Reinventing Agroforestry? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 33–42.
  55. Van Noordwijk, M.; Duguma, L.; Dewi, S.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.; Lusiana, B.; Oborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Minang, P.; Ekadinata, A.; et al. Agroforestry into its fifth decade: Local responses to global challenges and goals in the Anthropocene. In Sustainable Development through Trees on Farms: Agroforestry in Its Fifth Decade; van Noordwijk, M., Ed.; World Agroforestry (ICRAF): Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 397–418.
  56. Waldron, A.; Garrity, D.; Malhi, Y.; Girardin, C.; Miller, D.C.; Seddon, N. Agroforestry Can Enhance Food Security While Meeting Other Sustainable Development Goals. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 10, 1940082917720667.
  57. Borah, B.; Bhattarcharjee, A.; Ishwar, N.M. Bonn Challenge and India: Progress on Restoration Efforts across States and Landscapes, 1st ed.; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-2-8317-1912-2.
  58. Fagan, M.E.; Reid, J.L.; Holland, M.B.; Drew, J.G.; Zahawi, R.A. How Feasible Are Global Forest Restoration Commitments? Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12700.
  59. Yasin, G.; Nawaz, M.F.; Martin, T.A.; Niazi, N.K.; Gul, S.; Yousaf, M.T.B. Evaluation of Agroforestry Carbon Storage Status and Potential in Irrigated Plains of Pakistan. Forests 2019, 10, 640.
  60. Mccarthy, J.; Canziani, O.; Leary, N.; Dokken, D.; White, K. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; 1032p.
  61. Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Calvo Buendia, E.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Zhai, P.; Slade, R.; Connors, S.; Van Diemen, R.; et al. IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback