Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution

The expansion of agroforestry could provide substantial climate change mitigation (up to 0.31 Pg C yr−1), comparable to other prominent natural climate solutions such as reforestation. Yet, climate-focused agroforestry efforts grapple with ambiguity about which agroforestry actions provide mitigation, uncertainty about the magnitude of that mitigation and inability to reliably track progress. In this Perspective, we define agroforestry as a natural climate solution, discuss current understanding of the controls on farm-scale mitigation potential and highlight recent innovation on emergent, high-resolution remote sensing methods to enable detection, measurement and monitoring. We also assess the status of agroforestry in the context of global climate ambitions, highlighting regions of underappreciated expansion opportunity and identifying priorities for policy and praxis

What evidence exists on the links between natural climate solutions and climate change mitigation outcomes in subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions? A systematic map protocol

Background Natural climate solutions (NCS)—actions to conserve, restore, and modify natural and modified ecosystems to increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—are increasingly regarded as important pathways for climate change mitigation, while contributing to our global conservation efforts, overall planetary resilience, and sustainable development goals. Recently, projections posit that terrestrial-based NCS can potentially capture or avoid the emission of at least 11 Gt (gigatons) of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, or roughly encompassing one third of the emissions reductions needed to meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals by 2030. NCS interventions also purport to provide co-benefits such as improved productivity and livelihoods from sustainable natural resource management, protection of locally and culturally important natural areas, and downstream climate adaptation benefits. Attention on implementing NCS to address climate change across global and national agendas has grown—however, clear understanding of which types of NCS interventions have undergone substantial study versus those that require additional evidence is still lacking. This study aims to conduct a systematic map to collate and describe the current state, distribution, and methods used for evidence on the links between NCS interventions and climate change mitigation outcomes within tropical and sub-tropical terrestrial ecosystems. Results of this study can be used to inform program and policy design and highlight critical knowledge gaps where future evaluation, research, and syntheses are needed. Methods To develop this systematic map, we will search two bibliographic databases (including 11 indices) and 67 organization websites, backward citation chase from 39 existing evidence syntheses, and solicit information from key informants. All searches will be conducted in English and encompass subtropical and tropical terrestrial ecosystems (forests, grasslands, mangroves, agricultural areas). Search results will be screened at title and abstract, and full text levels, recording both the number of excluded articles and reasons for exclusion. Key meta-data from included articles will be coded and reported in a narrative review that will summarize trends in the evidence base, assess gaps in knowledge, and provide insights for policy, practice, and research. The data from this systematic map will be made open access

Snapshot of the Carbon Dioxide Removal Certification and Standards Ecosystem (2021-2022)

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will be necessary to fulfil the hundreds of pledges to reach net-zero by 2050. As with any industry, standard methodologies and certification are crucial to guarantee successful and reliable activities. However, buyers and policymakers currently face challenges in evaluating the ecosystem of CDR certification. The issue is not with CDR, nor with individual certifications – some of which may be very robust – but with the lack of transparency in the overall ecosystem. To bring some clarity, we present a snapshot of the CDR certification and standards ecosystem for the year 2021-2022. We find a complex ecosystem with at least 30 standard developing organizations proposing at least 125 standard methodologies for carbon removal from 23 different CDR activities and selling 27 different versions of certification instruments in voluntary and compliance markets. This exercise reveals many more existing standards for nature-based than for engineering-based activities and more diversity from standards serving the voluntary rather than the compliance market. It also highlights a proliferation of standards for the same activity, and a plethora of activities without standards. The process revealed ambiguity on what constitutes carbon removal, with many standards certifying activities that remove CO2 already in the environment as well as activities that avoid or reduce new emissions by sequestering the carbon into reservoirs. This mapping highlights key gaps and potential starting points for reforms to strengthen the CDR certification industry; it also underscores the need for independent oversight

Snapshot of the Carbon Dioxide Removal certification and standards ecosystem (2021–2022)

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will be necessary to fulfil the hundreds of pledges to reach net-zero by 2050. As with any industry, standard methodologies and certification are crucial to guarantee successful and reliable activities. However, buyers and policymakers currently face challenges in evaluating the ecosystem of CDR certification. The issue is not with CDR, nor with individual certifications – some of which may be very robust – but with the lack of transparency in the overall ecosystem. To bring some clarity, we present a snapshot of the CDR certification and standards ecosystem for the year 2021–2022. We find a complex ecosystem with at least 30 standard developing organizations proposing at least 125 standard methodologies for carbon removal from 23 different CDR activities and selling 27 different versions of certification instruments in voluntary and compliance markets. This exercise reveals many more existing standards for nature-based than for engineering-based activities and more diversity from standards serving the voluntary rather than the compliance market. It also highlights a proliferation of standards for the same activity, and a plethora of activities without standards. The process revealed ambiguity on what constitutes carbon removal, with many standards certifying activities that remove CO2 already in the environment as well as activities that avoid or reduce new emissions by sequestering the carbon into reservoirs. This mapping highlights key gaps and potential starting points for reforms to strengthen the CDR certification industry; it also underscores the need for independent oversight

Maximizing tree carbon in croplands and grazing lands while sustaining yields

Abstract Background Integrating trees into agricultural landscapes can provide climate mitigation and improves soil fertility, biodiversity habitat, water quality, water flow, and human health, but these benefits must be achieved without reducing agriculture yields. Prior estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2) removal potential from increasing tree cover in agriculture assumed a moderate level of woody biomass can be integrated without reducing agricultural production. Instead, we used a Delphi expert elicitation to estimate maximum tree covers for 53 regional cropping and grazing system categories while safeguarding agricultural yields. Comparing these values to baselines and applying spatially explicit tree carbon accumulation rates, we develop global maps of the additional CO2 removal potential of Tree Cover in Agriculture. We present here the first global spatially explicit datasets calibrated to regional grazing and croplands, estimating opportunities to increase tree cover without reducing yields, therefore avoiding a major cost barrier to restoration: the opportunity cost of CO2 removal at the expense of agriculture yields. Results The global estimated maximum technical CO2 removal potential is split between croplands (1.86 PgCO2 yr− 1) and grazing lands (1.45 PgCO2 yr− 1), with large variances. Tropical/subtropical biomes account for 54% of cropland (2.82 MgCO2 ha− 1 yr− 1, SD = 0.45) and 73% of grazing land potential (1.54 MgCO2 ha− 1 yr− 1, SD = 0.47). Potentials seem to be driven by two characteristics: the opportunity for increase in tree cover and bioclimatic factors affecting CO2 removal rates. Conclusions We find that increasing tree cover in 2.6 billion hectares of agricultural landscapes may remove up to 3.3 billion tons of CO2 per year – more than the global annual emissions from cars. These Natural Climate Solutions could achieve the Bonn Challenge and add 793 million trees to agricultural landscapes. This is significant for global climate mitigation efforts because it represents a large, relatively inexpensive, additional CO2 removal opportunity that works within agricultural landscapes and has low economic and social barriers to rapid global scaling. There is an urgent need for policy and incentive systems to encourage the adoption of these practices

Data from Agroforestry for Planetary Health Benefits in Haiti

Please cite as: Blaise, G., Allred, S., Morreale, S., Meredith, G., Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S., Buck, L. E., Jagadish, A., & Constas, M. (2024). Data from Agroforestry for Planetary Health Benefits in Haiti [Data set]. Cornell University Library eCommons Repository. https://doi.org/10.7298/CFD2-XR41The data files contain data supporting the network analysis from Agroforestry for Planetary Health Benefits in Haiti PLOS Climate publication. The other documents are supporting information for the manuscript.Funding for this research was supported by Cornell University Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies (G.C.B), David M. Einhorn Center for Community Engagement (G.C.B), Cornell University Atkinson Center for Sustainability 147-8774 (S.B.A, S.J.M, G.R.M), and Gates Millennium Scholars Program (G.C.B). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript