Addressing agricultural drivers of deforestation: critical

reflections on sparing and sharing strategies

Peter A Minang & Meine van Noordwijk

ASB Partnership at World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)CGIAR Science Forum 2011

17-19 October 2011, Beijing, China

Agriculture as driver of REDD

• Increased demand for food, fiber and fuel for rising population

= clearing of forested lands• 80% of farm

establishments in 1980s & 90s in developing countries came from intact forests (Gibbs et al., 2010)

• With 3-4x more GHG emissions than temperate areas

Can Intensification spare forests?

• Higher Yield = more food on same land area

• Therefore sparing more land for forest conservation

• Therefore potentially resolve Agriculture – REDD conflict?????Rudel et al., 2009

How true is Sparing? -Global

Rudel et al., 2010

How true is Sparing-Global II• Only between 1980 – 85 (sustained decline

in prices & increased yield in 70s) we see evidence of intensification leading to reduced yields

• Two pathways: • i. Increased Yields + Inelastic demand =

lower prices= POSSIBLE DROP IN AREAS• ii. Increased yields + elastic demand =

INCREASE IN AREAS CULTIVATED• (Rudel et al., 2009)

How true is Sparing- Global III?

• Agric production in Developing countries increased by 3.3 - 3.4 / yr in last 20 yrs; But deforestation increased agric area by only 0.3% / yr (Angelsen, 2010)

• BUT Regional specificities worth noting• In Africa, 70% of increased output in food

production is derived from expansion of harvested area, while globally, only 22% is due to expansion of harvested areas (Chomitz, 2006).

Change in cereal production due to change in area and yield

Sub- Saharan Africa Asia

Indonesia-Jambi: Jostling for profits

(ASB-Indonesia Tommich et al., 1995)

• Local smallholder farmers, migrants, loggers, large-scale tree crop estates- oil palm, rubber, cocoa, coffee (including industrial timber plantations) and

• Government sponsored resettlement schemes in Central Summatra accelarated deforestation

• Years of economic growth also created huge pool of absentee landlords (Urban investors) competing for tree crop estates

• The 1997 currency collapse made land conversions to tree crops profitable

In the 1990’s 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 area

After 2000 planting of tree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C-stock/low economic value land decreases

Brazil: (ASB Brazil- Vosti et al., 2002)

• Pedro Peixoto-Acre and Theobroma-Rondonia

• Built mainly between late 60s and 80s through government sponsored Migration policies

• ASB Research since 1994

Cattle profitability and labour shortages preventing adoption of alternatives• Deforestation by

settlers primarily for pastures despite strengthening of rules and regional market links, incomes etc

• Extensive Livestock prod- favored by relative profitability and labour constraints

How true is Sparing- LOCAL?Some ASB evidence (ASB-Indonesia, 1995; ASB- Brazil, 2002)

• In Jambi and Lampung urban investments in tree crops & Migration: = Intensification = Higher returns to land = attract migrants

• Relative profitability (Opp. Cost) of alternative land uses and labour shortages hampering adoption of more intensive land uses in Acre and Rondonia in Brazil

Agricultural intensification hypothesis

More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total

agricultural production

Or… speed up forest conversion

to profitable agriculture

This may be true in ‘closed’ economies

This is true in ‘open’ economies

ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994 Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…

Therefore

•Intensification of agriculture is a necessary but not sufficient condition for forest protection

(ASB-Indonesia, 1995; ASB- Brazil, 2001)

Sharing: Wildlife Friendly Farming

•Interventions in landscapes that favour / enhance the maintenance of biodiversity

•Heterogeneous landscapes •Patches of natural habitats in

farmlands to enable connectivity

Sparing vs Sharing•Agricultural

intensificationInput- or output-

based definition

•ForestMany definitions

& concepts

• Multifunctiona-lity & associated incentive systems

Trade-offs between specific functions

Sharing: Many tradeoff functions are convex: multifunctionality

Function 1

Func

tion

2

Convex tradeoff: multi-

functionality saves land

Concave tradeoff: specialization saves

land

1. Undisturbed natural forest 2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest 4B. as 3 + timber plantations 4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub

Rainforest foundation

Conservation agency

Modis data

Ministry of ForestryForest ecologist

UNFCCC definition

Stakeholder:

Reflections I: what does intensification mean?

• Increasing yield per hectare( possibly with increase costs in labour and capital inputs;

• Increasing cropping intensity (i.e. two or more crops) per unit of land or other inputs (e.g. water);

• Change land use from low-value crops or commodities to high value market priced commodities (Pretty et al. 2011)

Reflections- II: Sparing –Sharing and Caring needed

• Intensification not magic bullet- Potentially counter REDD

• Multiple policy instruments Needed

• Landscape level planning (Cross-sectoral

• Intensification in areas already cleared (non forested)

• Trees on farms and areas outside forests = viable pathway for intensification, REDD & reducing poverty

• Increase economic incentives for ecosystems services– Payments/ Rewards for ES

A multi-functionality hypothesis

Intensification Gradient / Livelihood

Functional dimensions of natural capital

Biodiversity Climate (Net GHG Emissions)

Watershed Integrity

Subsistence farming

Mixed / Transitional systems

Fully Market-integrated systems

Sparing Sharing and Caring for multifunctional landscapes

Opportunity Cost of Forest conversion- Column 1

• Opportunity cost of avoiding emissions by conversion of natural forest to a range of land uses, expressed as the difference in Net Present Value (NPV) divided by the difference in time-averaged C stock (multiplied by 44/12 as CO2/C ratio); values are given for a range of NPV estimates of natural forests, as this was not assessed by the ASB Cameroon report;

hysteresis

ASB-data: Minang et al.,

2011

COLUMN 2 and 3

Carbon and Profitability- Column 3

An emerging research agenda

• How can we learn from landscape level multifunctional planning – what evidence that it leads to maintenance of suite of ecosystem services?

• How to determine the right mix of policies including among others- intensification, conservation, economic incentives etc?

• What is the appropriate planning scale? And how do we “nest” with other scales?

• How do we deal with ecosystem service issues and drivers of change embedded in trade?

•

THANK YOUTHANK YOUWWW.ASB.CGIAR.ORGWWW.ASB.CGIAR.ORG

Agriculture as a driver of deforestation

)

●Large scale agriculture is a major global deforestation contributor

●Smallholder agriculture is also a key driver of forest loss

Africa Latin America Asia Pan-Tropical0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Agriculture as a Driver of Forest Area Change

Shifting cultivation ex -pansion into undisturbed forestIntensification of agricul -ture in shifting cultivation areasConversion of forest to small scale agricultureSmallholder Total Conversion of forest to large scale agriculture

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al fo

rest

are

a ch

ange

From : Global Forest Resource Assessment. FAO 2000