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
Top Related