Agrarian change in tropical forests: A change for the better?

Terry Sunderland & team22 June 2016

Agricultural expansion remains major driver of deforestation

Transformation of natural systems has resulted in significant environmental degradation

Global food system is in crisis (Global Nutrition Report 2016)

Belief that biodiversity conservation and agriculture cannot co-exist

Ca.60% of world’s food originates from diverse small-holder farming systems in complex landscapes

Agro-ecological approaches being advocated (e.g. IPBES 2016)

Need strong evidence-based for implementation

Context

Agrarian Change Project: Research goals An integrated landscape

approach to explore the livelihood and dietary implications of land-use change and agrarian change processes in six multi-functional landscapes.

Provide insights into how globally conceived land-use strategies (e.g. land sharing/land sparing trajectories) manifest locally and how they are embedded into local histories, culture, and political and market dynamics.

Natural vegetation ‘Secondary’ vegetation Agricultural land

Agrarian change in tropical landscapes

Agricultural modification

Tree

cov

er

Photo credits: CIFOR

Land sharing

Photo credits: CIFOR

Agrarian change in tropical landscapes

Tree

cov

er

Natural vegetation

‘Secondary’ vegetation

Agricultural land

Land sparing

Study Sites

FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2

Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)

Tree

cov

erExperimental Design

A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:

1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change

2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification

3. Villages or settlements within each zone

1

2

3

Photo credits: CIFOR

Experimental Design

FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2

Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)

Tree

cov

er

Subsistence farming, high dependency on

forest products

A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:

1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change

2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification

3. Villages or settlements within each zone

1

2

3

Photo credits: CIFOR

Experimental Design

FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2

Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)

Tree

cov

er

E.g. Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest resources

E.g. Rubber agroforestry system

Subsistence farming, high dependency on

forest products Extensive coffee

agroforesty

A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:

1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change

2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification

3. Villages or settlements within each zone

1

2

3

A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design:

1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change

2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification

3. Villages or settlements within each zone

Experimental Design

FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2

Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities)

Tree

cov

er

E.g. Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest resources

E.g. Rubber agroforestry system E.g. Oil palm

monoculture

Subsistence farming, high dependency on

forest products Extensive coffee

agroforestyIntensive oil palm

monoculture

1

2

3

Field MethodsIn each zone the following methods are used:

Household Surveys

Focus Group Discussions

Key Informant Interviews

Farm Productivity

Surveys

BiodiversitySurveys

Yield measurements

Farm inputs (e.g. fertilizer, labour)

Production targets

Resource flow mapping

Wealth ranking

Food / cash calendars

Nutrition assessments

Ecosystem service mapping

Community perceptions

Tree plots

Bird point counts

Invertebrate trapping

MET

HODS

BiodiversityRelative povertyNutrition

Food securityEcosystem services Livelihoods

Agricultural production

RESP

ON

SES

Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia

Primary forest

Rubber agroforestry

Oil palm plantation

Oil palm concession

Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia

Primary forest

Rubber agroforestry

Oil palm plantation

Oil palm concession

Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia

Primary forest

Rubber agroforestry

Oil palm plantation

Oil palm concession

Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia

Primary forest

Rubber agroforestry

Oil palm plantation

Oil palm concession

Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia

Agrarian ChangePrimary forest

Rubber agroforestry

Oil palm plantation

Oil palm concession

Photo credits: Dominic Rowland

Photo credits: CIFOR

Initial results…..

Remote sensing data

Country-level results: impacts on poverty and livelihoods

Indonesia: Major dietary transition towards processed foods which has major impact on nutrition and health status

Bangladesh: Agroforestry seen as an important livelihoods strategy but only for those with secure tenure

Ethiopia: Loss of forest has led to increased poverty due to loss of common grazing land and access to fuelwood

Cameroon: Annexation of land for oil palm concessions has resulted in land displacement and encroachment into protected areas. Threatens future regional food security.

Zambia: Heavy policy emphasis on agriculture for food security at expense of forests. Loss of safety-net function

Burkina Faso: Recurring droughts are increasingly common and income from forest products (timber, fuelwood and NTFPs) are important safety-net to purchase food during dry periods. Continued forest loss will further jeopardise future adaptation strategies

Conclusions Across study regions, loss of forest to

agriculture does not necessarily result in direct livelihoods benefits

Loss of forest has direct impact on rural coping strategies

Diets inevitably transition with access to income and markets, but not necessarily for the better

Landscape mosaics are better at achieving multiple benefits, including ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation, so landscape configuration is important

Land sparing/sharing paradigm does not necessarily play out in reality as it implies some level of “grand design”

Contribution of forest products has been dramatically underestimated for both diets and income

Recent key publications

www.landscapes.orgwww.cifor.org @TCHSunderland