CRP6: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance
ICRAF’s GRP6 (Policies and incentives for multifunctional
landscapes with trees that provide environmental services)
AND
CIFOR’s Domain 4 (Managing the trade-offs between
conservation and development at the landscape scale)
form the primary basis for CRP6.3:
Globally applicable concepts, hypotheses
Global policy development
Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V
ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA
ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB
ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC
Every place is unique
Sentinel landscape design?
Can it run?
SES SEPES Socio-ecological-politi-cal-economy systems
CGIAR Strategic Results Framework SLO1. Reducing
rural poverty
SLO2. Increasing
food security
SLO3. Improving
nutrition and health
SLO4. Sustainable
management of natural resources
Measurables include increased income from farm and non-farm activities, per-mitting investment in health, education and other poverty-redu-cing activities.
Measurables include changing levels of production, price and access to affordable food by the urban and rural poor.
Measurables incluide metrics of healthy growth, particularly in children, and dietary intake, nutrient up-take and consequent health effects.
Measurables are resource use per unit of production, resto-ration and conserva-tion of ecosystem services and reduced impacts of climatic change & shocks.
CRP6.1 helps redu-cing rural poverty, through tree-based livelihoods; it includes poverty in forest mar-gins and of forest-dependent people CRP6.4 includes rural vulnerability to cli-mate change
CRP6.5 looks at ‘ex-tensification’ and economic investment in agriculture and forestry as a driver of tree cover transitions. CRP6.1 contributes agroforestry techno-logies for food pro-duction
CRP6.1 (supported by 6.2) has attention to fruit trees and medici-nals in various stages of domestication, as contributor to nutri-tional quality and health management
CRP6.2 and CRP6.3 focus on resource (biodiversity) conser-vation and ecosystem services CRP6.4 researches ecosystem-based adaptive responses and REDD financing
Redirecting development pathways towards environmental integrity
Positive incentives are needed to reward rural poor for the environmental services they can/do provide
Dominant DIVERGENT model of territorial configuration (i.e. land sparing)
García-Barrios et. al. 2009. Bioscience and 2010 La Jornada del Campo.
Rural-urban
migraton
Low Quality Food provi-sioning
Control of erosion and water excess and scarcity
Fortress type conservation
against masses
Rural poor
Cheap massive (highly profitable)
industrial agribussiness
Cheap massive (highly profitable) urban housing
Elite Organic
food
Wage laborers
Control of water excess and scarcity
Elite Suburban residence
Elite Ecotourism
Eco- servants
Rural-urban migrants
UrLand
AgLand NatLand
Quality Rural Matrix Landscapes
and livelihoods
UrLand
NatLand
Ag Land
Marginalized CONVERGENT model
(i.e. land sharing)
Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying
concept across CRP6
Temporal pattern
Spatial pattern
Institutional challenge
X-linkage of actions in landscape
The holistic forest+tree view of the world (combines both ‘forester’ and ‘agroforester’ point-of-views)
Source: Global tree cover inside and outside forest, according to the Global Land Cover 2000
dataset, the FAO spatial data on farms versus forest, and the analysis by Zomer et al. (2009)
>
Component 3: Landscape management for environmental services, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods
1. Understanding drivers of forest transition
2. Understanding the consequences of forest transition for environmental services and livelihoods
3. Learning landscapes: dynamics of multifunctionality
CRP6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance
Building on a joint history CIFOR Domain 4 + ICRAF GRP 6
Approval expected soon: Sustainable Rural Development through High Value Biocarbon Approaches: building multifunctional landscapes and institutions in West and East Africa Supported by Finland
Recently approved: Sustainable Sulawesi Supported by CIDA
Starting new joint projects:
SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
Feedback Loops Added to Four Conceptual Models
Linking Land Change with Driving Forces and Actors
ilding
Improving
Livelihoods,
Enviro.
Services,
Governance
Landscape management options
1.
Producti
on
systems
3.
Enviro.
Services
4.
Adapting
&
reducing
emissions
2.
Conser
vation
and
use
Livelihoods in context
Global actors and value chains
Drivers Tree cover transitions and forest quality
Local
External
5.
Trade
&
invest
ment
Institutions, gender, capacity strengthening &
partnerships
The components of CRP6 share common goals and
networked impact pathways
SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
Recognition by government agencies and in public debate of tree cover and forest transitions as a basis for realistic land use and development planning and institutional reform of land use regulation
Theme 6.3.1. Understanding patterns and drivers of forest (tree
cover) transition in decline and restoration phases
Recognition by government agencies and in public debate of tree cover and forest transitions as a basis for realistic land use and development planning and institutional reform of land use regulation
Policy documents use quantitative tree cover criteria and multiple forest types, rather than merely binary 'deforestation/ reforestation' data
CRP6 tools and approaches to multi-layered driver analysis are adopted for international/national/local policy development
Institutional support and interest in Agroforestry Policy Initiative and Forest Landscape Restoration
Theme-level outcome Verifiable indicator
CRP 6.3.1 Output targets
• 6.3.1.1 Empirical data sets of quantitative and qualitative tree cover transitions across major …
• 6.3.1.2 Empirical data on changes in spatial pattern of tree cover within landscapes in relation to segre..
• 6.3.1.3 Methods for monitoring and quantifying tree cover refined and linked to data uncertainty
• 6.3.1.4 Proximate and ultimate drivers of land use and tree cover change: inference from spatial…
• 6.3.1.5 Policy levers and negotiation opportunities to influence drivers of tree cover transitions, rehabilitation
and/or agroforestry transformation
Evergreen Anogeissus
leiocarpus in
Burkina Faso 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
A. leiocarpus
S. birrea
δ1
8O
Year
-27
-26
-25
-24
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
A. leiocarpus
Year
δ1
8 C
Trees used as history book
where climate records are
scarce or unreliable
Widening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared
Tree cover transition
In the 1990s, loss of natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C-stock’/low economic value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the loss of natural forest
After 2000, planting of tree crops equals 90% of concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C-stock/low economic value land decreases
Examples of things we do 6.3.1
Coarsening of pattern: segregate
Integrate Segregate
Farm forests,
agro-forests
Fields, forests & parks
Pla
nta
tio
ns
Fiel
ds,
fallo
w, f
ore
st m
osa
ic
re
- a
nd
aff
ore
sta
tio
n
def
ore
sta
tio
n
Examples of things we do 6.3.1
CRP 6.3.2 Output targets • 6.3.2.1 Tools for and case studies of quantifying
buffering of water flows and other hydrological ES..
• 6.3.2.2 Tools for and case studies of understanding biodiversity-based environmental services across.. 6.3.2.3 Not just carbon? Quantified tradeoffs be-tween C stocks and other environmental services..
• 6.3.2.4 Gender, age and wealth-specific appreciation of tree cover transitions in relation to demo- ..
• 6.3.2.5 Tested tools and governance mechanisms for adaptive landscape management of ecology-
• 6.3.2.6 Policies for the agriculture-forestry interface and strategies for sustaining food security, ecologi-..
CRP 6.3.3 Output targets • 6.3.3.1 Network of ‘active learning landscapes’ on
RES/PES mechanisms maintained and enhanced
• 6.3.3.2 Synthesis from action research sites, identi-fying principles, methods and processes for advan..
• 6.3.3.3 Identification of improved modalities and approaches to effectively support conservation in.. 6.3.3.4 Participatory models for reserve manage-ment: resource use rights, threats to targeted … 6.3.3.5 Impact studies testing assumptions of the CRP6.3 theory of change and output-outcome-impact pathways.
Drivers
Consequences
Learning
landscapes
= some key interactions within CRP6
CRP6.3.1
CRP6.3.2
CRP6.3.3
Forest-based biodiversity
& genetic resource
conservation; sustainable
forest management in
practice
Livelihood options and
their ES tradeoffs
Quantification of land cover &
terrestrial C balance; driver
analysis REDD+/REALU
International trade and
investment as driver of change
CRP6.4.1
CRP6.5.1
Mitigation and adaptation at
landscape scale; REDD+ as
basis of funding landscape
investments
CRP6.4.1
CRP6.2
CRP6.1
Sentinel
landscapes as
spatial integration
of CRP6 research
= links to other CRPs
CRP6.3.1
CRP6.3.2
CRP6.3.3
Drivers
Consequences
Learning
landscapes
Institutions and
collective action
Green vs blue water
relationships &
ecosystem services
Quantification of land cover &
terrestrial C balance; sparing vs.
sharing discussion
CRP7
CRP 1.1,
1.2, 1.3
Mitigation and adaptation at
landscape scale; sparing vs.
sharing discussion at local level
CRP7
CRP2
CRP5
Sentinel and
benchmark
landscapes of
other CRPs
Sentinel landscape design?
Can it run?
Monitoring change &
attributing it to ‘drivers’
Stimulating
change
Four tables to discuss….
• 1. How to reconcile development/intervention and monitoring/non-intervention objectives across time and space
• 2. Describing, understanding patterns of change and local/global drivers of ‘forest transition’
• 3. Consequences of change in tree cover for a) livelihoods, b) ecosystem services
• 4. What can be done: governance options, learning landscapes
SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
Local resource managers in tree-based multiple use landscapes use cost-effective and replicable tools and approaches to appraise likely impacts of changes in land-use on watershed functions, biodiversity and carbon stocks as well as on the economic productivity of the landscape
Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree cover
transition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services and
adaptive policy
SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
Land use planners and practioners use principles and methods resulting in clearer and more transparent recognition of conservation and development trade-offs in land and rights allocation, as well as adjustments to economic incentives
Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree cover
transition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services &
adaptive policy
Theme-level outcome Verifiable indicator
Local resource managers in tree-based multiple use landscapes use cost-effective and replicable tools and approaches to appraise likely impacts of changes in land-use on watersheds, biodiversity and carbon stocks as well as on the economic productivity of the landscape
Documented use of tools and approaches developed, tested and/or promoted by CRP6 partners
Land-use planners and practitioners use principles and methods resulting in clearer and more transparent recognition of conservation and development trade-offs in land and rights allocation, as well as adjustments to economic incentives
Documented application of participatory land-use planning for forest margin settings, integrated with tenure reform
Crop production
Tree production
Watershed services
Biodiversity
Landscape beauty
Carbon storage
Pcrop Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod Land
Concave likely
No preference
Synergies between functions
Sustainable Weighting of Economy-Ecology Tradeoffs: organized reduction or Stretching Our Use of Resources
(SWEETorSOUR)?
Production Possibility Frontier
This may be societal optimum,
but requires SWEET
Getting here may turn
SOUR
Examples of things we do 6.3.2
van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society
2
Actors in the landscape and livelihood assets
SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
Local and external stakeholders negotiate and have access to a range of conditional and performance-based arrangements that support the provision and maintenance of environmental services and biodiversity in productive landscapes
Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes where
innovative response and policy options are being tested
SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
Opportunities for win-win solutions in restoration contexts are fully used, while the hard tradeoffs are recognised and contest over them is replaced by negotiation
Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes where
innovative response and policy options are being tested
Theme-level Outcome Verifiable indicator
Stakeholders negotiate and have access to a range of conditional and performance-based arrangements that support the provision and maintenance of environmental services and biodiversity in productive landscapes
National policy formulation and new action research undertakings refer to multiple PES paradigms that were derived from RUPES and PRESA experience
Opportunities for win-win solutions in restoration contexts are fully used, while the hard tradeoffs are recognised and contest over them is replaced by negotiation
Documented progress on tenure reform and negotiated joint management regimes in conservation and restoration contexts, that refer to CRP6 approaches and results
Where would you like to see more trees?
Participatory resource mapping followed by simulation board game with agents of change: seeking contracts for logging or oilpalm conversion, or agreements on forest protection and ecolabelling
(Ph
oto
grap
hs:
Gra
ce V
illam
or)
e.g. ADSB reports 2007/8
NPV, $/Ha
Car
bo
n s
tock
, tC
/Ha
Slope indicates emissions per gain in $/ha
Tradeoff at land use system level
op
po
rtu
nit
y co
st, $
/t C
O2
e,
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. interacting with rules & policies
Agent-based land use change model
e.g. ASB-II reports of 1990’s
e.g. FALLOW scenarios
I II
III
IV
Effo
rt t
o p
rote
ct/e
nh
ance
ES
External financial rewards 0 low medium high
Baseline
Schematic results of ES experiment No Medium Strong loss of social motivation
Hypothesis of PES replacing social motivation to protect ES
Price condition for inter-generational
increase in altruism:
( )+( )( )> 0 Individual Benefits -
Costs
Social cohe- sion
Group Benefits -
Costs
Loss of social cohesion (‘relatedness’) term implies shift from group to individual ‘benefit–cost’ considerations
Free and prior informed consent
Efficiency Fairness
Balancing act is needed
3. National economies in global market context
2.LU adoption dynamics
Living landscapes
1.Patch-level cyclical
succession
LU-system properties
Ω:Crash
α:Reorganize
r: Exp Growth
K: Approach CarrCap
Sto
red
cap
ital
Interlinkage
Nesting of three non-linear dynamic systems: 1) patch-level tree growth and decay,
2) landscape level adoption and abandonment of tree-based production systemns,
and 3) national economies as part of global markets and policy interventions
Forest domain
53% Other + disputed
forest lands
10% State Forest
National Park
Protected Area
Restoration conces-sion
Community-forest
Village forest
Benefit-sharing
Logging concession
Plantation contract
Mixed agroforest, private forests,
community landscapes with
trees
1. By ecosys- 2. By vegetation 3. By land use 4. By ‘owner’ 5. By ‘co-management tem service & its C-stocks category regime’
Non-forest land uses (APL)
Conservation + watershed protection forest
Production forest
Convertible forest
Official conversion from forest to non-forest land status: ‘planned deforestation’
Rights to define forest Five different ways of classifying forest:
Emis-sion GHG
C capture
Meadow 1996 2006 Fallow XP 2011 Vineyard
Land cover change….
3101 Fremont Drive, Sonoma,
California, United States
10% TREE cover in
agricultural lands…
Enough to qualify as
forest?
Top Related