Agroforestry: Enhancing the Prospects for Ameliorating Climate Change

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition that meeting the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement (United Nations Framework on Climate Change [1]. will require both aggressive decarbonization strategies and large-scale deployment of so-called carbon dioxide removal approaches, sometimes also referred to as “negative emissions technologies” [2]. Carbon dioxide removal options seek to remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, either by enhancing natural sinks for carbon, or deploying chemical engineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere [3]. This, in turn, can increase the amount of longwave radiation emitted by Earth back to space, reducing radiative forcing, thus, exerting a cooling effect [4].

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report included 204 scenarios in which integrated assessment models held atmospheric temperature increases to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial averages by 2100. Of those 204 scenarios,184 contemplated large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal approaches [5]. Across all these scenarios, the median commitment to the use of carbon dioxide removal in the latter half of this century is 12 gigatons of removal annually, equivalent to a quarter of current anthropogenic emissions [5]. Moreover, even with extremely stringent initiatives to strengthen greenhouse gas reductions, all scenarios that hold temperatures to 1.5 °C by the end of the century contemplate large-scale use of carbon removal options, at levels of somewhere between 640-960 GtCO2 [6].

One of the most widely discussed carbon dioxide removal options is afforestation and reforestation initiatives [7], as trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, resulting in a net accumulation of carbon in living biomass [8] and potential increases in soil organic carbon [9-11]. Indeed, some studies in recent years have concluded that large-scale tree-planting programs could effectuate sequestration of as much as a quarter of the current atmospheric carbon pool [12] potentially comprising a very large share [13,14] of the 400-1000 gigatons of carbon dioxide that needs to be removed over the course of this century to help meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets [15].

In 2011, the Bonn Challenge was launched by the German government and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, seeking to restore 350 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2030 [16,17]. In 2020, the World Economic Forum launched an even more ambitious initiative, 1T.org, which seeks to restore and grow one trillion trees by 2030 by mobilizing the private sector and engendering regional multi-stakeholder partnerships. Even Republican politicians in the United States, including former President Trump, have touted the benefits of the trillion-tree initiative.

However, poorly formulated massive afforestation/reforestation initiatives could also potentially displace and undermine natural ecosystems, as well as undercut sustainable livelihoods. For example, almost half of the pledged areas under the Bonn Challenge are slated to be plantations, often planted with commercially valuable trees [18-20]. In many cases, plantations are displacing native forest stands [18,21]. Because native forests can store more than forty times as much carbon as plantations in the longer term [19], this could result in a net increase in carbon emissions over the course of this century and beyond [19]. Plantations that supplant natural forests are also usually characterized by much lower fauna and flora speciation [22-24]. Moreover, fast-growing plantation species require significant nutrient inputs that can damage ecosystems [25]. Plantation species also often require higher water inputs that can alter hydrological regimes [25], including seriously diminishing stream flows in some regions [26].

Large-scale tree-planting initiatives such as the Bonn Declaration are also targeting areas that are misclassified as degraded or deforested, including large swathes of savannas, grasslands and shrublands in the Global South [27]. Some of the most prominent mappings for such initiatives include high conservation areas, including Kruger National Forest and the Serengeti Plains in Africa [28].

This strategy is misguided on several grounds. First, such a strategy threatens to undermine both ecosystems and local populations. Savannas and grasslands are huge storehouses of biodiversity in neotropical regions [29], including iconic species in Africa such as elephants [30]. Afforestation can undermine biodiversity in such regions by replacing diverse-community biotic communities with lower-diversity forests [31]. Additionally, reduction of stream flows associated with afforestation in savanna ecosystems in Africa may also severely limit water supplies for local communities in Africa during dry seasons [32].

From the perspective of climate policy, large-scale afforestation in inappropriate regimes may also prove ineffective, or even counterproductive. Grasslands may store almost as much carbon, or in some cases more, than the trees that may replace them in afforestation programs [33]. Also, savannas and grasslands are more prone to drought and fire risk, both of which will be exacerbated by climate change. This could denude the prospects for long-term carbon storage [34]. Thus, ultimately, afforestation in areas where trees do not naturally thrive may reduce global resilience to climate change [34,35].

Indeed, it’s hard not to view current tree-planting initiatives as “a great example of what happens when bad science hooks up with do-gooderism and they sleep together in a bed of political expediency” [36]. However, as one recent study concluded, carefully formulated and implemented forest mitigation projects can both help achieve climate objectives, as well as yield cobenefits, including bolstering the well-being of communities and contributing to ecosystem resilience. This article will advance the argument that agroforestry is one such approach, potentially both furthering climate goals while protecting and fostering ecosystems and livelihoods. This article will also outline a path for expanding the scope of this practice substantially beyond its current global outreach. In this pursuit, I will:
• Set forth a definition of agroforestry and assess its current scope of adoption and potential expansion;
• Assess the current and future benefits of agroforestry from the perspective of carbon sequestration;
• Discuss potential co-benefits of agroforestry approaches; • Outline potential constraints and challenges to expanding the scope of agroforestry operations, as well as recommendations to address these issues.

Definitions and scope

In a broad sense, agroforestry is defined as “the land-use system that involves the deliberate retention, introduction or mixture of trees or other woody perennials with agricultural crops, pastures and/or livestock to exploit the ecological interactions of the difference components” [37,38]. Agroforestry falls into three broad categories:
• Agrosiviculture, integrating annual crops and trees;
• Silvopastoral, integrating livestock and trees; and Agrosilvopastoral, integrating annual crops, livestock, and trees [39]. Agricultural areas with more than 10% tree cover are classified as agroforests [40].

Home gardening, an agroforestry practice involving the management of trees, shrubs, crops and livestock within compounds of individual houses [41] was associated with fishing communities in Southeast Asia in the period of 13,000-9000 BC [42]. However, agroforestry has only been incorporated into contemporary science-based land-use systems within the past three decades [42].

Major categories of agroforestry include the following:
• Home gardening: see above.
• Parklands: landscapes in which mature trees occur scattered in cultivated or recently fallowed fields … included in the very general category of ‘multipurpose trees on farmlands’”.
• Shaded Perennial Systems: “managed, vertically stratified plant associations involving shade-tolerant and/or shadeadapted crops under tall growing trees” [43].
• Shelterbelts: “linear arrays of trees and shrubs planted to create a range of benefits . . . Shelterbelts are called by different names (windbreaks, hedgerows, fence rows), depending upon their use, region, or preference of the individual” [44].
• Silvopasture: “the intensive management and growing of perennial grasses or grass-legume mixes in a forest stand for livestock pasture”.
• Rotational woodlots: “growing of trees and crops on farms in three inter-related phases: 1) an initial tree establishment phase in which trees are intercropped with crops, 2) a tree fallow phase, and 3) a cropping phase after harvest of trees” [45].
• Windbreaks: “strips of trees and/or shrubs planted and maintained to alter wind flow and microclimate, thereby protecting a specific area. They are often planted and managed as part of a crop and/or livestock operation”.

Agroforestry is currently carried out in temperate, sub-tropical and tropical zones [46], with over 1.2 billion people dependent upon such systems [47]. Agroforestry accounts for 46% of total agricultural area, encompassing approximately one billion hectares globally [40,48]. South America has the largest area under agroforestry operations, followed by sub-Saharan Africa [49].

Carbon sequestration and agroforestry: current and potential

Agroforestry practices effectuate carbon sequestration through uptake of carbon dioxide in the photosynthetic process, and transfer of fixed carbon into secure storage repositories, including vegetation, detritus and soil pools [50]. Agroforestry can substantially enhance biomass carbon stocks, with the biomass of trees consisting of 46-51% carbon [51,52]. Moreover, it can bolster soil carbon sequestration through enhancement of fine root production, rhizo-deposition, and litter fall [53,54]. Carbon can be stored in agroforestry systems for centuries through organic decomposition and absorption by plants [55]. Agroforestry can even rival monocultural plantations or secondary forests in terms of long-term carbon storage, while as outlined below, yielding substantial co-benefits [56,57].

Carbon sequestration rates in agroforestry systems vary widely, based on factors such as different practices, species, management protocols, densities of trees, and differences in climate, soil properties and land-use history [51]. However, a recent analysis concluded that, on average, agroforestry practices sequester 7.2 ± 2.8 t C ha-1y-1 [51]. Overall, recent estimates are that agroforestry systems are storing more than 34-36 gigatons of carbon globally [47,58]. In Africa, agroforestry constitutes the third largest sink for carbon, after primary forests and long-term fallows [46].

While agroforestry is already practiced extensively, there are prospects for substantial expansion, potentially contributing to the exigencies of carbon removal in a way that avoids environmental risks and social inequities. Indeed, agroforestry has been recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as having the greatest potential of all land-use options for effectuating net changes in sequestration of carbon [59,60].

The IPCC has estimated that there is 630 million hectares of unproductive agricultural land globally, with 20% that could feasibly be converted to agroforestry [60]. This includes degraded forest land, low-productivity cropland, and land laid bare after stem harvest [61]. Kim et al. recently concluded that this level of conversion could sequester approximately 3.4 GtCO2eq annually [51], or approximately a quarter of the carbon dioxide removal that may be necessary in the latter half of this century to help meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets [3,5,62]. Moreover, this may be an underestimation of the impact of this potential initiative. Several recent studies have concluded that agroforestry could result in much higher carbon sequestration rates than projected by the IPCC [14,51]. Also, agroforestry systems may decrease pressure on natural forests, potentially offsetting 5-20 hectares of deforestation per hectare of agroforestry stands, and thus avoiding releases of carbon [63,64].

Co-Benefits of agroforestry

Agroforestry has been characterized as a means of operationalizing principles of agroecology by potentially adapting ecological concepts and principles to agroecosystem design [65]. It has been touted as a holistic approach that can both further climate goals as well as other important objectives, such as enhanced food security and the fostering of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services [65,66]. As such, agroforestry approaches can prove to be a better climate mitigation option than many other terrestrial or ocean-based options [38].

Agroforestry system co-benefits include the following:

Agroforestry enhances food security: Agroforestry can enhance nitrogen cycling compared to conventional agricultural systems. This reduces the loss of nitrogen, and increases its transfer rate, which can help restore the fertility of soils. In regions such as Africa, where declines in soil fertility threaten yields and sustainability, agroforestry systems can improve soil fertility by increasing soil organic matter, facilitating tighter nutrient cycling, and improving soil structural properties [67,68]. Overall, agroforestry can effectuate a doubling or even tripling of yields. Moreover, the range of foods produced in many agroforestry systems, including fruits, vegetables, and nuts, can enhance the nutritional quality of diets [69]. Finally, the sale of products related to agroforestry operations can provide cash for food purchases [70].

As Waldron observes, however, long-term food security in developing countries is dependent on not only increases in crop yields, but also resilience in the face of climate change [71]. Climate change has already emerged as a major threat to food security and is likely to have a profoundly negative impact on food production in the decades to come [72].

Agroforestry systems can help farmers adapt to climate change in a number of ways. Tree canopies can moderate climate extremes in terms of rainfall and temperature by creating a more propitious microclimate for crop production [63,73,74]. For example, treebased systems are characterized by higher evapo-transpiration rates than row crops or pastures, which can facilitate superior aeration of soils [75]. Agroforestry systems can also increase soil porosity and reduce runoff, which can be critical during low rainfall years [75]. Moreover, agroforestry practices can also cushion farmers from financial shocks associated with crop losses related to flooding or drought by providing diversified sources of income [76,77].

Overall, the IPCC’s 2019 report on climate change and land concluded that the combination of rapidly degrading agricultural lands and climate change could reduce food production by 10% by 2050 [78]. It concluded that agroforestry could benefit more than 1.3 billion people by enhancing food security [78].

Agroforestry enhances protection of biodiversity:Agroforestry systems can create “fauna refuges” even in habitats facing rapid Degradation [79]. They can also provide corridors to facilitate the movement of animals and dispersal of plant propagules in fragmented forest environments [79,80], as well as a buffer to prevent deforestation and conversion of forestlands to other uses [81]. Agroforestry can comprise as little as 5% of agriculture land, yet account for 50% of biodiversity, both enhancing habitat for an array of species, as well as benefiting crop production by supporting birds and insects that feed on crop pests [81], and contribute to seed dispersal and pollination [82,83]. Finally, agroforestry can reduce deforestation in regions being cleared for crop production [84] by increasing yields, helping to preserve biodiversity [85].

Agroforestry could help to facilitate sustainable bioenergy with carbon capture and storage:Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is currently recognized as the other primary carbon removal option alongside afforestation/reforestation [86], with some analysts identifying it as the “linchpin” of negative emissions approaches [87,88]. While BECCS constitutes an array of technologies in different sectors, all approaches entail absorption of carbon dioxide by plant biomass, which is then burned or gasified, with capture of the carbon dioxide through industrial processes, preventing its return to the atmosphere [87].

However, there are major concerns that large-scale deployment of BECCS could require diversion of huge swathes of land currently used to grow food crops to grow dedicated energy crops [78,89], potentially resulting in huge increases in food prices for the world’s most vulnerable populations [90]. Moreover, the demand for biofeedstocks could result in the clearing of vast areas of native forests and grasslands [91].

Agroforestry systems are well suited for provision of feedstocks for biopower and biofuels [92,93]. Use of first-generation biofeedstocks may prove to be unsustainable and result in marginal or even negative outcomes in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, incorporating the production of bio-feedstocks into agroforestry systems can yield positive carbon footprints [39,94].

Despite the compelling climate benefits that an expansion of agroforestry could facilitate, there are some serious barriers that must be addressed. In this last section, I will discuss some of these challenges and constraints, and proffer a number of recommendations.

Capital/Credit constraints

Some of the areas with the highest potential for carbon sequestration are occupied by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Unfortunately, many such farmers may be unable, or unwilling, to invest in operations that require forgoing immediate revenue from valuable cash crops [63,67,95,96], and which may not produce additional revenue for 1-3 years [97]. Moreover, many poor food-insecure farmers are less likely to embrace agroforestry due to immediate food needs [98]. Indeed, in some regions in recent years, farmers have been converting agroforestry areas into monoculture croplands in pursuit of short-term income [83,99].

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is an approach that provides financial incentives to private landowners to implement practices that generate important ecosystem services, “bridging the private interests of landowners and the public benefits of conservation” [100,101]. Compensation to landowners is premised upon “acceptance of restrictions or achievement of a condition or proxy to specified environmental outcomes” [102].

Carbon sequestration has been recognized as an ecosystem service with one of the highest potential global impacts [103]. PES programs have increased uptake of agroforestry in some areas, such as the southern region of Costa Rica, but there are clear avenues for substantially expanding such programs [104]. In this context, every effort should be made to incorporate gender inclusion into the planning and implementation process, in the interests of both fostering equity and increased participation in such schemes [105]. Efforts should also made to “bundling” environmental services associated with agroforestry to enhance payouts and increase the competitiveness of agroforestry as a conservation measure. In addition to carbon sequestration, this might include benefits associated with biodiversity protection and watershed benefits [106].

One major challenge in designing PES programs in the context of agroforestry is that the approach has neither been scientifically evaluated in national carbon accounts or in global carbon financial plans [107,108]. Moreover, the development of regional or local models for carbon sequestration is challenging given spatial and temporal heterogeneity and the need to consider a wide range of different plant species and the interaction of soil, crop and tree components. Every effort should be made to facilitate communication between field scientists and the modelling community to facilitate the generation of good process-based models [51].

One potential outlet for designing PES protocols for agroforestry is the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research’s (CGIAR) Options by Context (OxC) program. OxC helps facilitate measurement of variations in performance metrics, including ecosystem services in the context of agroforestry [109]. While OxC has been applied in a handful of countries, it could be expanded to provide critical data to stand up PES programs for agroforestry in many more countries in the future.

Of course, it is critical to identify potential sources of funding for carbon sequestration associated with agroforestry. One avenue for payments is under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/Paris Agreement’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program [110,111]. REDD+ provides for “results-based finance” for developing country initiatives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation of forest stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks [1]. By increasing agricultural yields and providing a substantial source of fuel and fiber, agroforestry operations can reduce the clearance of forest lands for agricultural and energy needs [112]. Moreover, increasing farmland production of timber and fuelwood production can reduce primary drivers of forest degradation in many countries. Despite these benefits in the context of carbon sequestration, as well as many non-carbon co-benefits, agroforestry has been given short shrift in REDD+, perhaps primarily because it has never had a “clear home” within the UNFCCC, with linkages to both forestry and agriculture [63,113].

A strong argument can be made that the supporters of REDD+ should privilege agroforestry projects. As demonstrated earlier in this article, agroforestry can help to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks, key objectives of REDD+. However, while there are concerns that REDD+ projects that focus on avoided deforestation may undermine the rights of local and indigenous communities [114,115] agroforestry programs can protect such communities by enhancing food security and reduction of environmental degradation. This counsels in favor of providing more financial support for development of agroforestry pilot programs for REDD+ to help build the capacity of foresters and local communities to avail itself of co-benefits [28]. In this context, it’s important to note that many countries have not yet developed methodologies that can help REDD+ benefit local communities; this should be a priority of the UN-REDD Program, as well as organizations such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility [116]. Operationalization of REDD+ has been short-stepped in some cases due to a lack of access to capital. Governments should seek to facilitating farmer capital access to fund the establishment of agroforestry operations and “float” families until financial breakeven is achieved [104]..

Every effort should also be made to also generate localized environmental services that can generate revenue for farmers. This will maximize the potential effectiveness of these programs, as it is generally easier to structure payment for ecosystem services at this level [104]. For example, agroforestry can contribute to the removal of recalcitrant pollutants, such as nitrogen and trichloroethylene from groundwater plumes at a much lower expense than other forms of remediation [118,119].

Another potential source of revenue to drive adoption of agroforestry is from the corporate sector. In recent years, hundreds of corporations have made pledges to reach either “net zero emissions” or “negative emissions” within a few decades (Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy (ICRLP), n.d.). Many of these corporations seek to effectuate their goals through the purchase of forest carbon offsets (ICRLP, n.d.), with forest investments projected to reach more than $800 billion by the middle of the century [120]. Corporations making such pledges, as well as the verification organizations that many of them rely on to ensure the integrity of said pledges, should be encouraged to privilege agroforestry projects given their compelling environmental and socio-economic benefits, including the potential to help further 9 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

A final potential source of funding may be green bonds. Green bonds are instruments that facilitate the raising of capital and investments in environmentally sound and sustainable projects focused on achieving a net-zero emissions economy. The volume of green bonds has substantially increased in recent years, from $230 million in 2010 to more than $142 billion by 2017 [121]. Recently, the insurance company Swiss Re has suggested the potential establishment of a new sub-class of green bonds, which it denominated “carbon removal-type bonds” [122]. The instruments could facilitate investment in smaller carbon removal projects by an array of institutions, including insurance companies, by aggregating a pipeline of carbon removal projects of various types and sizes [122]. Governments and NGOs could assist in aggregating agroforestry projects for funding by bond instruments.

Initiatives at a landscape or community level could also help more smallholder farmers adopt agroforestry practices. One potential way to reduce and spread the costs for smallholder farmer participation in agroforestry projects, and thus to reduce risk, would be to develop projects on a community basis by creating common property regimes. Similarly, while certification programs can help provide revenue for farmers engaged in agroforestry, it may be insufficient to compensate for the production constraint of smallholders. In such cases, landscape labelling, in which certification labels aren’t restricted to individual products, but rather are applied to all outputs from a particular landscape, may provide sufficient incentives for smallholder farmers [123]. This approach, emphasizing a diversity of land uses within an ecosystem, including food, commodities such as cocoa, timber, and non-timber resources can also contribute to environmental benefits, including habitats for pollinators, improved soil quality, pest control, and fostering biodiversity.

Land tenure challenges

Farmers are often chary to adopt long-term activities if they do not have secure land rights, fearing that more powerful actors might seize their lands upon improvement. This has proven to be a particularly important barrier to more widespread adoption of agroforestry, with trees often remaining the property of the state. Indeed, as the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry has concluded, “there are few agroforestry successes stories in an uncertain land tenure context”. Banks are also often hesitant to extend credit to farmers in the face of insecure land tenure.

One potential solution would be to grant non-tenured landowner’s long-term contracts on state-owned land. This can provide sufficient security to justify investments in approaches such as agroforestry. This approach was adopted in Viet Nam in 2016, granting contractors twenty-year contracts for state-owned forest resources, with the possibility of extension [124]. Non-State actors have also successfully advocated for statutory land rights for smallholder farmers, such as through titling reforms, that is, grants of formal rights to land [125]. They could also help resolve conflicts within or between communities in cases of customary land tenure [125]. Of particular assistance in this context, as well as more generally, could be the GlobalEverGreening Alliance. The Alliance is a coalition of NGOs established with the goal of capturing 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2050 in Africa through naturebased solutions, including agroforestry [126]. Companies may also advocate for land tenure for suppliers of products when supply chain networks have been established.

Other constraints

There are a number of additional challenges to scaling up agroforestry, especially in developing countries:

Access to seeds/seedlings: Successful agroforestry systems require the production of sufficient quantities of seeds and seedlings, and efficient distribution to farmers [67]. Unfortunately, adequate supplies of high-quality seeds are usually not available, especially in the case of smallholder farmers in Africa seeking to establish agroforestry operations [63,127]. In many cases, the upfront cost of seeds is the major constraint on uptake of agroforestry by poor farmers. However, once the trees are established, they produce seeds that farmers can collect and use for replanting and expansion of the size of their stands.

Moreover, distribution of high-quality genetic material, or germplasm, can be critical to induce adoption by farmers who wish to harvest commercially viable tree products, animal fodder and natural fertilizers [125]. Careful assessment of intra- and inter-specific diversity in provenance selection of germplasm can maximize the provision of environmental services, contributing further to the welfare of local communities [128].

Partnerships of academic institutions and the private sectors in some countries, including India, have produced high-quality germplasm. This has helped increase farmer uptake of agroforestry, as has efforts by NGOs to work with communities to develop native seed sources [128]. Another option is to seek to expand Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) initiatives. FMNR is an approach whereby farmers seek to protect and manage regrowth of trees in their fields, primarily by pruning shoots growing from tree stumps [129,130]. Beyond helping to address seed access issues [131], FMNR has been touted as an approach that can ameliorate low survival rates common in tree-planting. Moreover, studies have reported increases in household income, as well as crop diversity [132], which can contribute to household resilience in the face of climate change.

Access to information/expertise: Many agroforestry practices are knowledge-intensive, and specialized training is often required where extraction of trees for revenue generation is contemplated [132,133]. This has often proven to be a substantial barrier to adoption of agroforestry for smallholder farmers [125]. Moreover, training is required to ensure tree survival. For example, in the Ivory Coast, training in agroforestry operations is minimal. As a consequence, despite large-scale distribution of trees, their survival rates have been less than 2%. Also, most young tree seedlings are felled during crop weeding due to lack of training of those engaged in such operations, usually sharecroppers [134].

Uptake of agroforestry would greatly benefit from strengthening of extension services in many developing countries. Extension, which focuses on training of farmers in innovative agricultural practices, has been recognized as a critical element in the adoption of such practices [135,136]. Studies indicates that regular interfacing with extension services, including training, increases the prospects for adoption of agroforestry systems, as well as successful implementation [137], including reaching profitability [138]. Unfortunately, in recent years many developing countries have disinvested in agricultural extension services [139]. Moreover, extension services are often under-resourced and seldom focus on trees.

In recent years, Norway and other donors have invested in strengthening the Conservation Farming Unit of Zambia, which has helped the country to substantially strengthen its extension support for conservation farming. Developed countries should be encouraged to fund such programs in developing countries with high potential for agroforestry, as it can contribute to both environmental and development objectives.

Countries and NGOs providing aid should also consider funding the development of Innovation Platforms. Innovation Platforms seek to engender two-way communication between a wide array of key stakeholders, including researchers, development agents, farmers, cooperatives, input and output traders and policymakers. As such, the approach can improve the prospects for successful outcomes by engaging more of the players along the value chain that play a key role in effectuating key objectives of conservation agriculture [140].

Access to viable markets: Many successful efforts by farmers to raise production yields or diversify income sources through agroforestry have foundered due to constraints in marketing their products. This has included limited access to rural credit, a lack of expertise in developing warehouse receipt systems, and inadequate skills in selling products [141]. Moreover, there are often no established markets for sale of wood and other tree products at a reference price, permitting middlemen to exploit farmers [142]. This often results in low prices for producers, which can denude the incentives to continue agroforestry operations [143].

Programs by governments, the private sector, and NGOs to assist farmers by bolstering value chains must address all components, including livelihoods. This must include efforts by governments and others to develop marketing infrastructure that is as robust as it is for agricultural commodities, including the establishment of minimum price supports [144-151]. At the local level, the establishment of cooperatives can help poor scarce resources to improve market access.

There is a clear exigency in the context of climate policymaking to develop extensive carbon removal options in addition to full-throated decarbonization of the global economy. Trees can play important role in any carbon removal portfolio. However, it is critical to develop this approach in a way that both furthers climate change objectives as well as taking into consideration a broad array of social, economic, and environmental interests.

Potentially expanding the scope of agroforestry substantially could both contribute to battling climate change while affording societies, including some of the most vulnerable, the potential to avail themselves of a number of co-benefits. Successful implementation of this approach, however, will require a commitment on the part of many sectors to cooperate on many different axes, including research, finance, and regulation. Agroforestry’s benefits provide a compelling rationale for incorporating this approach into national and international programs to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA, Buchori D, Faust H, et al. (2011) Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes - a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3): 619-629.
2. Aragones MP, Wang  F (2021) New EU climate law delivers innovative policy framework to advance carbon removal and avoid moral hazard. Climate Works Foundation.
3. Hester RE, Harrison RM (2014) The Global Potential for Carbon Dioxide Removal. In Geoengineering of the climate system (p. 53) essay Royal Society of Chemistry.
4. Lenton TM, Vaughan NE (2009) The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 9(15): 5539-5561.
5. Field CB, Mach KJ (2017) Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356(6339): 706-707.
6. Luderer G, Vrontisi Z, Bertram C, Edelenbosch OY, Pietzcker RC, et al. (2018) Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5-2 °c pathways. Nature Climate Change 8(7): 626-633.
7. Samurović K (2021) What is the difference between afforestation and reforestation? Geography Realm.
8. Meadowcroft J (2013) Exploring negative territory carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Climatic Change 118(1): 137-149.
9. Hong S, Yin G, Piao S, Dybzinski R, Cong N, et al. (2020) Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nature Sustainability 3(9): 694-700.
10. Korkanç SY (2014) Effects of afforestation on soil organic carbon and other soil properties. CATENA 123: 62-69.
11. Terrer C, Phillips RP, Hungate BA, Rosende J, Pett-Ridge J, et al. (2021) A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO₂. Nature 591(7851): 599-603.
12. Bastin JF, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, et al. (2019) The global tree restoration potential. Science 365(6448): 76-79.
13. Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F et al. (2018) Negative emissions-part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letter 13(6): 063
14. Smith P (2011) Agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation potential globally, in Europe and in the UK: What have we learnt in the last 20 years? Global Change Biology 18(1): 35-43.
15. Carton W (2019) “Fixing” climate change by mortgaging the future: Negative Emissions, spatiotemporal fixes, and the political economy of delay.Antipode 51(3): 750-769.
16. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020) About the challenge. Bonchallenge.
17. New York Declaration on Forest (2021) (n.d.).Project Assessment. New York Declaration on Forests. 
18. Heilmayr R, Echeverría C, Lambin EF (2020) Impacts of Chilean forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity. Nature Sustainability 3(9): 701-709.
19. Lewis SL, Wheeler CE, Mitchard ET, Koch A (2019) Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568(7750): 25-28.
20. Naudts K, Chen Y, Mc Grath MJ, Ryder J, Valade A et al. (2016) Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351(6273): 597-600.
21. Scheidel A, Work C (2018) Forest plantations and climate change discourses: New powers of ‘green’ grabbing in Cambodia. Land Use Policy 77: 9-18.
22. Bonnie Waring (2021) There aren't enough trees in the world to offset society's carbon emissions - and there never will be. The Co
23. Holl KD, Brancalion PH (2020) Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368(6491): 580-581.
24. Taki H, Yamaura Y, Okabe K, Maeto K (2011) Plantation vs. natural forest: matrix quality determines pollinator abundance in crop fields. Scientific Reports.
25. Dooley K, Kartha S (2017) Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development.International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 18(1): 79-98.
26. Zhang M, Wei X (2021) Deforestation, forestation, and water supply. Science 371(6533): 990-991.
27. Stevens N (2020) Trees as nature-based solutions: A global south perspective. One Earth 3(2): 140-144.
28. Welz A (2021) Are huge tree planting projects more hype than Solution? Yale E360.
29. Murphy BP, Andersen AN, Parr CL (2016) The underestimated biodiversity of tropical grassy biomes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1703): 20150319.
30. Fleischman F, Basant S, Chhatre A, Coleman EA, Fischer HW, et al. (2020) Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. Bio Science 70(11): 947-950.
31. Veldman JW, Aleman JC, Alvarado ST, Anderson TM, Archibald S, et al. (2019) Comment on “the global tree restoration potential.” Science: 366(6463).
32. Bond WJ, Stevens N, Midgley GF, Lehmann CER (2019) The trouble with trees: Afforestation plans for Africa. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34(11): 963-965.
33. Allison S (2019) The trouble with Indiscriminate Tree-planting in Africa.
34. Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CA, Smith A, et al. (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375(1794): 20190120.
35. Waring B, Neumann M, Prentic IC, Adams M, Smith P, et al. (2020) Forests and Decarbonization - roles of natural and planted forests. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
36. Goodell J (2020)Why planting trees won't save us. Politics Features.
37. Alavalapati JR, Mercer DE, Montambault JR (2004) Agroforestry systems and valuation methodologies. Valuing Agroforestry Systems, pp. 1-8.
38. Kumar R, Pandey A, Rana R, Yadav A (2019) Climate change and mitigation through agroforestry. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8(06): 1662-1667.
39. Sharma N, Bohra B, Pragya N, Ciannella R, Dobie P et al. (2016) Bioenergy from agroforestry can lead to improved food security, climate change, soil quality, and rural development. Food and Energy Security 5(3): 165-183.
40. De Beenhouwer M, Geeraert L, Mertens J, Van Geel M, Aerts R, et al. (2016) Biodiversity and carbon storage co-benefits of coffee agroforestry across a gradient of Increasing management intensity in the SW Ethiopian highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 222: 193-199.
41. Linger E (2014) Agro-ecosystem and socio-economic role of homegarden agroforestry in Jabithenan district, North-western Ethiopia: Implication for climate change adaptation. SpringerPlus: 3(1).
42. Ramachandran Nair, PK, Nair VD, Mohan Kumar B, Showalter JM (2010) Carbon sequestration In agroforestry systems. Advances in Agronomy 108: 237-307.
43. Nair PK (2017) Managed multi-strata tree + crop systems: An agroecological marvel. Frontiers in Environmental Science: 5.
44. Mize CW, Brandle JR, Schoeneberger MM, Bentrup G (2008) Ecological development and function of shelterbelts in temperate North America. Advances in Agroforestry: 27-54.
45. Nyadzi GI, Otsyina RM, Banzi FM, Bakengesa SS, Gama BM, et al. (2003) Rotational woodlot technology in northwestern Tanzania: tree species and crop performance. Agroforestry Systems 59(3): 253-263.
46. Negash M, Kanninen M (2015) Modeling biomass and soil carbon sequestration of indigenous agroforestry systems using CO₂ fix approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 203: 147-155.
47. Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, Ahrends A, Bossio D, et al. (2016) Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports: 6(1).
48. Den Herder M, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada RM, Palma JHN, Sidiropoulou A, et al. (2017) Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 241: 121-132.
49. Kumar Y, Thakur TK, Thakur A (2017) Socio-Cultural paradigm of Agroforestry in India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6(6): 1371-1377.
50. Nair PK (2011) Carbon sequestration studies in agroforestry systems: A reality-check. Agroforestry Systems 86(2): 243-253.
51. Kim DG, Kirschbaum MUF, Beedy TL (2016) Carbon sequestration and net emissions of CH4 and N2o under agroforestry: Synthesizing available data and suggestions for future studies. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 226: 65-78.
52. Nair PK (2012) Climate change Mitigation: A low-hanging fruit of Agroforestry. Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use: 31-67.
53. Chatterjee N, Nair PKR, Chakraborty S, Nair VD (2018) Changes in soil carbon stocks across the forest-agroforest-agriculture/pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 266: 55-67.
54. Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Rigueiro-Rodríquez A, Mosquerra-Losa MR et al. (2022) Assessment of soil carbon storage in three land use types of a semi-arid ecosystem in South Portugal. Catena, 212: 106196.
55. Kumar P, Kumar M, Garrett L (2014) Behavioural foundation of Response policies for ECOSYSTEM management: What can we learn from payments for ecosystem services (pes).Ecosystem Services 10: 128-136.
56. Nadège MT, Louis Z, Cédric CD, Louis-Paul KB, Funwi FP (2018) Carbon storage potential of cacao agroforestry systems of different age and management intensity. Climate and Development 11(7): 543-554.
57. Kirby KR, Potvin C (2007) Variation in carbon storage among tree species: Implications for the management of a small-scale carbon sink project. Forest Ecology and Management 246(2-3): 208-221.
58. Roshetko JM, Lasco RD, Angeles MS (2006) Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change12(2): 219-242.
59. Harrison RD, Gassner A (2020) Agricultural lands key to mitigation and adaptation.Science 367(6477).
60. Kay S, Rega C, Moreno G, den Herder M, Palma JHN, et al. (2019) Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe. Land Use Policy 83: 581-593.
61. Shi L, Feng W, Xu J, Kuzyakov Y (2018) Agroforestry systems: Meta-analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degradation & Development 29(11): 3886-3897.
62. Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Haile SG (2009) Soil carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems: A feasibility appraisal. Environmental Science & Policy 12(8): 1099-1111.
63. Mbow C, Van Noordwijk M, Luedeling E, Neufeldt H, Minang PA, et al. (2014) Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 61-67.
64. Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2004) Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 61-62(1-3): 281-295.
65. Muchane MN, Sileshi GW, Gripenberg S, Jonsson M, Pumariño L, et al. (2020) Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: A meta-analysis. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 295: 106899.
66. Abbas F, Hammad HM, Fahad S, Cerdà A, Rizwan M, et al. (2017) Agroforestry: A Sustainable Environmental practice for carbon sequestration under the climate change scenarios - a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research24(12): 11177-11191.
67. Mbow C, Smith P, Skole D, Duguma L, Bustamante M, et al. (2014) Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 8-14.
68. Pandey DN (2002) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Climate Policy 2(4): 367-377.
69. Salimath SK, Manasa PA, C Nanaya, Hegde R (2021) Trees on farmlands: An underexploited source to achieve nutritional security in India. Forest Resources Resilience and Conflicts: 299-304.
70. Quandt A, Neufeldt H, Mc Cabe JT (2018) Building livelihood resilience: What role does agroforestry play? Climate and Development 11(6): 485-500.
71. Waldron A, Garrity D, Malhi Y, Girardin C, Miller DC et al. (2017) Agroforestry can Enhance food security while meeting other sustainable development goals. Tropical Conservation Science 10: 194008291772066.
72. Arora NK (2019) Impact of climate change on agriculture production and its sustainable solutions. Environmental Sustainability 2(2): 95-96. 
73. Gomes LC, Bianchi FJJA, Cardoso IM, Fernandes RBA, Filho EIF, et al. (2020) Agroforestry systems can mitigate the impacts of climate change on coffee production: a spatially explicit assessment in Brazil. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 294: 10
74. Nguyen Q, Hoang MH, Öborn I, van Noordwijk M (2012) Multipurpose agroforestry as a climate change resiliency option for farmers: An example of local adaptation in Vietnam. Climatic Change 117(1-2): 241-257.
75. Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji S, Tomich T, Ong C, et al. (2007) Climate change: Linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12(5): 901-918.
76. Carsan S, Stroebel A, Dawson I, Kindt R, Mbow C, (2014) Can agroforestry option values improve the functioning of drivers of agricultural intensification in Africa? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 35-40.
77. Thorlakson T, Neufeldt H (2012) Reducing subsistence Farmers’ vulnerability to climate change: Evaluating the potential contributions Of agroforestry in western Kenya. Agriculture & Food Security.
78. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, et al. (2015) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 6(1): 42-50.
79. Oke DO, Odebiyi KA (2007) Traditional Cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondo State, Nigeria. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 122(3): 305-311.
80. Etana B, Atickem A, Tsegaye D, Bekele A, De Beenhouwer M, et al. (2021) Traditional shade coffee forest systems act as refuges for medium- and Large-sized mammals as natural forest dwindles in Ethiopia. Biological Conservation 260: 1
81. Murthy IK (2013) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India. Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change: 04(131).
82. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA, Buchori D, Faust H, et al. (2011) Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes - a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3): 619-629.
83. Hoffner E (2021) Climate, biodiversity & farmers benefit from rubber agroforestry: Report. Mongabay Environmental News.
84. Watson C (2021) To save chocolate's future, 'start now and go big' on agroforestry. Mongabay Environmental News.
85. Gustafsson K, Sadegh-Vaziri R, Grönkvist S, Levihn F, Sundberg C, et al. (2021) BECCS with combined heat and power: Assessing the energy penalty. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 108:
86. Fajardy M, Morris J, Gurgel A, Herzog H, Mac Dowell N, et al. (2021) The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world. Global Environmental Change 68: 102262.
87. Palmer J, Carton, W (2021) Carbon removal as Carbon Revival? Bioenergy, Negative emissions, and the politics of alternative energy futures. Frontiers in Climate: 3.
88. Williamson P (2016) Emissions reduction: Scrutinize co2 removal methods. Nature 530(7589): 153-155.
89. Schübel H, Wallimann-Helmer I (2021) Food security and the moral differences between climate mitigation and geoengineering: The case of biofuels and BECCS. Justice and Food Security in a Changing Climate: 71-76.
90. Boysen LR, Lucht W, Gerten D (2017) Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Global Change Biology 23(10): 4303-4317.
91. Jose S, Bardhan S (2012) Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: An overview. Agroforestry Systems 86(2): 105-111.
92. Jose S, Bardhan S (2012) Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: An overview. Agroforestry Systems 86(2): 105-111.
93. Kang K, Klinghoffer NB, ElGhamrawy I, Berruti F (2021) Thermochemical conversion Of agroforestry biomass and solid waste using decentralized and mobile systems for renewable energy and products. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 149: 111372.
94. Elagib NA, Al-Saidi M (2020) Balancing the benefits from the water-energy-land-food Nexus Through agroforestry in the Sahel.Science of The Total Environment 742: 140509.
95. Mbow C, Van Noordwijk M, Prabhu R, Simons T (2014) Knowledge gaps and research needs concerning agroforestry's contribution to sustainable development goals in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 162-170.
96. Beedy TL (2013) Scaling up Agroforestry to Achieve Food Security and Environmental Protection among Smallholder Farmers in Malawi. Field Actions Science Reports Special Issue 7: 1-7.
97. Faße A, Winter E, Grote U (2014) Bioenergy and rural development: The role of agroforestry in a Tanzanian village economy. Ecological Economics 106: 155-166.
98. Ruf FO (2011) The myth of complex Cocoa agroforests: The case of Ghana. Human Ecology 39(3): 373-388.
99. Garbach K, Lubell M, De Clerck FAJ (2012) Payment for ecosystem services: The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices.Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 156:  27-36.
100. Kumar P, Kumar M, Garrett L (2014) Behavioural foundation of Response policies for ECOSYSTEM management: What can we learn from payments for ecosystem services (pes).Ecosystem Services 10: 128-136.
101. Namirembe S, Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, Bernard F, Bacwayo KE, et al. (2014) Co-investment paradigms as alternatives to payments for tree-based ecosystem services in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 89-97.
102. Villa PM, Martins SV, de Oliveira Neto SN, Rodrigues AC, Hernández EP, et al. (2020) Policy forum: Shifting cultivation and agroforestry in the Amazon: Premises for REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics 118: 102217.
103. Ranjan R (2021) Payments for ecosystems Services-based agroforestry and groundwater nitrate remediation: The case of poplar deltoids in Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Cleaner Production 287: 125059.
104. Benjamin EO, Ola O, Buchenrieder G (2018) Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES) economically empower women in sub-Saharan Africa? Ecosystem Services 31: 1-11.
105. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Locatelli B, Wunder S, Brockhaus M (2011) Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: What scope for payments for environmental services? Climate and Development 3(2): 143-158.
106. Dhyani S, Murthy IK, Kadaverugu R, Dasgupta R, Kumar M, et al. (2021) Agroforestry to achieve global climate adaptation and mitigation targets: are South Asian countries sufficiently prepared? Forests 12(3): 303.
107. Nath AJ, Sileshi GW, Laskar SY, Pathak K, Reang D, et al. (2021) Quantifying carbon stocks and sequestration potential in agroforestry systems under divergent management scenarios relevant to India’s nationally determined contribution. Journal of Cleaner Production 281: 124831.
108. CGIAR (2021) Agroforestry and payment for ecosystem services. I
109. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1.
110. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2021) REDD+ Web Platform.
111. Minang PA, Duguma LA, Bernard F, Mertz O, van Noordwijk M, et al. (2014) Prospects for agroforestry in REDD+ landscapes in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 78-82.
112. Bryan E, Akpalu W, Yesuf M, Ringler C (2010) Global carbon markets: Opportunities for sub-saharan africa in agriculture and forestry.Climate and Development 2(4): 309-331.
113. Barletti JPS, Larson AM (2017) Rights abuse allegations in the context OF REDD+ readiness and implementation: A preliminary review and proposal for moving forward. Center for International Forestry Research.
114. Tegegne YT, Palmer C, Wunder S, Moustapha NM, Fobissie K, et al. (2021) REDD+ and Equity Outcomes: Two cases from Cameroon. Environmental Science & Policy 124: 324-335.
115. Thangata PH, Hildebrand PE (2012) Carbon stock and sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in smallholder agroecosystems of sub-Saharan Africa: Mechanisms for ‘reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ (redd+). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 158: 172-183.
116. Di Sacco A, (2021) Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefit. Global Change Biology 27(7): 1328-1348.
117. Ausland H, Ward A, Licht L, Just C (2015) Enhanced vadose zone nitrogen removal by poplar during dormancy. International Journal of Phytoremediation 17(8): 729-736.
118. Dillon PJ, Ragusa SR, Richardson SB (1991) Biochemistry of a plume of nitrate-contaminated ground water.Nitrate Contamination 173-180.
119. Keating C (2020)Study: Forestry finance market could soar to $800bn as net zero goals multiply. News and Analysis for the Low Carbon Economy.
120. Tolliver C, Keeley AR, Managi S (2019) Green bonds for the Paris agreement and sustainable development goals. Environmental Research Letters 14(6): 064009.
121. Repmann M, Schelske O, Colijn D, Prasad S (2021) The insurance rationale for carbon removal solutions. Swiss Re Institute.
122. Bernard F, van Noordwijk M, Luedeling E, Villamor GB, Sileshi GW, et al. (2014) Social actors and unsustainability of agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 155-161.
123. Enters T, Inoguchi A (2019)From driver to solution: Coffee agroforestry in Viet Nam. UN-REDD Programme .
124. Bettles J, Battisti DS, Cook-Patton SC, Kroeger T, Spector JT, et al. (2021) Agroforestry and non-state actors: A review. Forest Policy and Economics 130: 10
125. Hoffner E (2019) $85 million initiative to scale up agroforestry in Africa announced. Mongabay Environmental News.
126. Frey GE, Fassola HE, Pachas AN, Colcombet L, Lacorte SM, et al. (2012) Perceptions of silvopasture systems Among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agricultural Systems 105(1): 21-32.
127. Roshetko JM, Dawson IK, Urquiola J, Lasco RD, Leimona B, et al. (2017) To what extent are genetic resources considered in environmental service provision? A case study based on trees and carbon sequestration. Climate and Development 10(8): 755-768.
128. Chomba S, Sinclair F, Savadogo P, Bourne M, Lohbeck M, et al. (2020) Opportunities and constraints for using farmer managed natural regeneration for land restoration in sub-saharan africa. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3.
129. Rinaudo T (2008) The development of Farmer Managed natural regeneration. The Permaculture Research Institute.
130. Watson C (2018) Farmer-managed natural regeneration: The fastest way to restore trees to degraded landscapes? Mongabay Environmental News.
131. Haglund E, Ndjeunga J, Snook L, Pasternak D (2011) Dry land tree management for improved household livelihoods: Farmer managed natural regeneration in Niger. Journal of Environmental Management 92(7): 1696-1705.
132. Matocha J, Schroth G, Hills T, Hole D (2012) Integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry and ecosystem conservation. Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use: 105-126.
133. Fountain A, Huetz-Adams F (2020)Cacoa Barometer 2020  Voice Network.
134. Duffy C, Toth G, Cullinan J, Murray U, Spillane C (2020) Climate smart agriculture extension: Gender disparities in agroforestry knowledge acquisition.Climate and Development 13(1): 21-33.
135. Wigwe CC, Ifeanyi-Obi CC, Fabian JO (2020) Agricultural extension in environmental ISSUES Discourse: Case of Niger Delta region of Nigeria.Handbook of Climate Change Management: 1-18.
136. Baig MB, Burgess PJ, Fike JH (2021) Agroforestry for Healthy Ecosystems: Constraints, improvement strategies and extension in Pakistan.Agroforestry Systems 95(5): 995-1013.
137. Molua EL (2005) The economics of Tropical agroforestry systems: The case of agroforestry farms in Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics 7(2): 199-211.
138. Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(1): 5-24.
139. Kabambe VH (2012) Using innovation platforms to scale out soil acidity-ameliorating technologies in Dedza district in central Malawi.African Journal Of Biotechnology: 11(3).
140. Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy. (n.d.). Carbon removal corporate action.
141. Bistline JE, Blanford GJ (2021) Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization of the electric power sector. Nature Communications 12(1): 2.
142. Carlson T (2009) Sustainable Farming Association. Silvopasture & Agroforestry.
143. Joseph W Veldman, Julie C Aleman, Swanni T Alvarado, T Michael Anderson, Sally Archibald, et al. (2019) Comment on “the global tree restoration potential.”Science 366(6463).
144. Holme I, Kirby KR, Potvin C (2017) Agroforestry within Redd+: Experiences of an indigenous Emberá community in Panama. Agroforestry Systems 91(6): 1181-1197.
145. Masson-Delmotte V (2019) Interlinkages Between Desertification, Land Degradation, Food Security and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes: Synergies, Trade-offs and Integrated Response Options. InClimate 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: Summary for policymakers. essay, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
146. Pecchioni G, Bosco S, Volpi I, Mantino A, Dragoni F (2020) Carbon budget of an agroforestry system after being converted from a poplar short rotation coppice. Agronomy 10(9): 1251.
147. Sonwa DJ, Dieye A, El Mzouri EH, Majule A, Mugabe FT, et al. (2016). Drivers of climate risk in African agriculture. Climate and Development 9(5): 383-398.
148. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Conference of the Parties, 21^st Session FCCC/CP/2015/L.9.
149. Waring B (2021) There aren't enough trees in the world to offset society's carbon emissions - and there never will be. Environment + Energy.
150. World Economic Forum (2021)A platform for the trillion-tree community. 1t org.
151. WWF (n.d.) Forest carbon credits: Separating the "good" from the merely "good enough".