VULNERABILITY – ADAPTATION –MONITORING

The adaptation of an agroforestry system to climate change utilises an adaptive management approach in combination with climate models (LIFE+AdaptFor Working Group 2014). More specifically, adaptation proceeds in the following three steps: assessment of the vulnerability of agroforestry ecosystems due to climate change, adoption of new management measures or modification of the parameters of ongoing measures or even modification of management objectives and, monitoring to assess the status of a particular agroforestry system, including the degree of success of adaptation measures and the re-evaluation of management objectives, actions and measures.

A critical step in the whole process is to decide against which climate change scenario to assess vulnerability. The prevailing practice is to use Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) up to 2100. In Greece, the three scenarios shown in Figure 1 (RCP2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) are used for these assessments.

AdaptInGR www.adaptivegreece.gr.

This assessment is already being carried out at national and regional level with the preparation of Regional Climate Change Adaptation Plans (RCCAPs) and it is expected that it will be possible to do this for smaller areas as well (LIFE-IPAdaptInGR project). The vulnerability of agroforestry systems to climate change can be increased both by the direct influence of the abiotic environment (temperature, precipitation, wind, etc.) and indirectly, through changes in their socio-economic environment. These systems are dependent on their management and there are numerous examples of their degradation, either due to land use intensification or abandonment (Papanastasis 2015).

In the case of deterioration of the abiotic environment, estimated impacts are sought to be prevented by appropriate management measures, for example by enriching a system with more tolerant species or by reducing the density of trees to ease competition. The intensity of agricultural or livestock farming in the system may also be reduced. In this way, the soil retains a better structure and organic matter, factors that contribute to the maintenance of higher levels of nutrients and moisture.

Socio-economic factors prompt their managers of agroforestry systems to change the level of labour they invest in order to obtain a satisfactory income.

In the case of labour investment reduction, for example due to lower productivity, we have abandonment and gradual establishment of woody vegetation. This increases carbon sequestration, but causes a loss of other ecosystem services, mainly provisioning services, such as low carbon footprint pasture production. In the case of Greece, it is particularly likely that the risks from forest fires are also intensified. The intensity of these risks concerns both the system itself and the possibility of facilitating its function as a ‘corridor’ for the spread of fires. For example, in well-managed silvopastoral systems where the flammable vegetation of the understory is effectively controlled through grazing, the spread of forest fires is impeded on the one hand and their control is facilitated on the other. An increase in invested labour may occur if, for example, the productivity of other areas is reduced, making the agroforestry system at hand more ‘competitive’. In this case, woody vegetation is usually reduced and the use of irrigation, agrochemicals and machinery is increased at the expense of ‘natural’ techniques such as intercropping, reducing water loss by shading with hedgerows, and others. As a result, biodiversity loss, soil degradation and loss of a plethora of regulating ecosystem services are also noted. Addressing these phenomena requires sustained economic and social compensation policies that are documented, such as by matching specific management measures implemented in the countryside with benefits spreading throughout society (Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2018). Such approaches are implemented for example through the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. The common risks for agriculture and livestock from climate change, the related adaptation needs and the practices/management measures to achieve them are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Examples of some risks that landowners may face due to climate change and how agroforestry practices might be used to adapt to those risks.

Risk Adaptation Agroforestry practice

Intense precipitation events

Increased storm intensity (wind & precipitation)

Increased temperatures

Increased frequency and intensity of drought

Changes in growing season due to temperature and precipitation

Winter storms and cold temperature extremes

Increased insect and disease problems

Increased possibility of crop failure due to other risks

Slow water runoff to reduce flooding, soil erosion, and water pollution

Protect crops from wind damage

Reduce heat stress on animals by providing shade

Reduce evapotranspiration by reducing windspeed

Protect crops by creating microclimates

Reduce cold stress on animals by providing shelter

Control pests by providing habitat for beneficial insects

Reduce total crop loss by increasing crop diversity

Riparian forest buffers; alley cropping

Windbreaks; alley cropping

Silvopasture

Windbreaks

Windbreaks; alley cropping; forest farming

Silvopasture; windbreaks

Windbreaks; riparian forest buffers; alley cropping

All agroforestry practices