Analysis of Trade-offs in Agricultural SystemsIdentifying and quantifying trade-offs across temporal and spatial scalesbetween productivity, food security, profitability and ecological services

Wageningen, February 2013

Key tradeoff questions and tools in CRP6Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:

livelihoods, landscapes and governance

Meine van Noordwijk and Fergus Sinclair

Key tradeoff questions in CRP6

1.CGIAR SLO1+2+3 vs 4

2.Forest vs People

3.Sparing, sharing, caring

4.Buffers vs intensification

5.Tree cover transitions vs ES functions

6.Tree water use vs climate influence

7.Terrestrial C stock vs Income

8.Motivations to reduce emissions

9.Small vs large scale investors

10.Subsistence & markets by gender roles

Tools:??

Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance

Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying concept

Temporal pattern, X-

axis

Spatial pattern, X-axis

Institutional challenge at turning point

X-linkage of actions in landscape

Core

Choice of Y-axis

1

2 3 4 5

6

Atmospheric concentrations of short- and longlived greenhouse gassesAt

mos

-ph

ere

Climate systems

An

thro

pog

en

ic

GH

G

em

issio

ns

Impacts of actual & predicted

climate change on human and ecosystems

Adaptation

Mitigation

Vulnerability

Human actions .

Human quality of life

Oth

er

pote

nti

al

eff

ect

s on c

lim

ate

syst

em

s

Exogenous variabiliy

The logarithm of human population density is a good predictor of the fraction of land area reported as forest (across different forest

types)We can identify countries that

have more than 10% extra, or

more than 10% forest deficit

relative to what is expected for their

population density

7

Spatial analysis: classification of 450 districts in Indonesia according to 7 tree cover transition stages (Dewi et al., in prep.)

“Forest transition” as spatial pattern.

‘chronosequence’?

Ecosystemservices

Socio-eco-nomic devt

Governance systems

ASB matric as boundary object

• Land use system 1 + ++ - - + 0 ++ + 0• ,, 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..• ,, 3• …• ,, n

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e 1

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e 2

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e n

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e 1

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e 2

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e n

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e 1

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e 2

Indi

cato

r/Attr

ibut

e n

Step 1: qualitativeStep 2: quantitative

Methods allow for life-cycle assessment of land use systems

e.g. ADSB reports 2007/8

NPV, $/Ha

Carb

on s

tock

, tC/

Ha

Slope indicates emissions per gain in $/ha

Tradeoff at land use system level

oppo

rtun

ity c

ost,

$/t C

O2e

,

Cumulative emissions

Emission reduction poten-tial for given C price

Opportunity cost at landcape scale

Rural income (increasing)

Rural income (declining)

C stock (increasing)

C stock (decreasing)

Dynamic land use scenario model

Agents with variation in resource base, moti-vation, live-lihood stra-tegies.interactingwith rules & policies Agent-based land use change model

e.g. ASB-II reports of 1990’s

e.g. FALLOW scenarios

I II

III

IV

Four levels of analyzing opportunity costs

Tools:Global data setsSpatial analysisSentinel landscapesMultiple-knowledge appraisalsTree-Soil-Crop modelsSystem tradeoff plotsPolicy Analysis MatrixAgent-based modelsRole-Play GamesParticipatory LU plansLearning landscapes

Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance

Key tradeoff questions in CRP6

1.CGIAR SLO1+2+3 vs 4

2.Forest vs People

3.Sparing, sharing, caring

4.Buffers vs intensification

5.Tree cover transitions vs ES functions

6.Tree water use vs climate influence

7.Terrestrial C stock vs Income

8.Motivations to reduce emissions

9.Small vs large scale investors

10.Subsistence & markets by gender roles