Havemann t financing options for smallholders and mitigation july 2011
Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Education
-
view
1.167 -
download
4
Transcript of Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests
![Page 1: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Climate Change Mitigation and Smallholders in Forests
Lini WollenbergClimate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Program, CGIAR
Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: Where do we go from here? Montpellier, France 24-26 March, 2009
![Page 2: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Mitigation and smallholders in forests
Smallholders in/near forests depend on agriculture and live in dynamic tension between agrarian forces and forests
But climate change interventions in land use currently sectoral. Focused on sequestering carbon forests: REDD
![Page 3: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Agrarian-forest interactionsin climate change
• Farmers as major drivers of LUC, agricultural expansion
• CC mitigation in forests (REDD) and implications for farming communities
• Agroforestry, swidden and shifting cultivation as mitigation strategies
• Landscape-based mitigation strategies• Forest frontier transition zone: boom-bust cycles,
migration, high risk environment
![Page 4: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
What do we know, what do we still need to learn?
• How to protect high carbon forests from conversion to agriculture
• How to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon in agricultural landscapes
![Page 5: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
And how can these mitigation strategies
….also sustainably provide food, reduce poverty and maintain natural resources?
By 2020, need to increase crop production (grains, roots and tubers) by 40% and meat products by 58% in developing countries; yet degrading resources, few valuable lands, limited crop yields in green revolution areas
![Page 6: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
1. How to protect forests from conversion to agriculture
![Page 7: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Forest conversionby land use
Strassburg et al. 2009, Stern Review 2006
Land use %Fallow-based farming 11Other small scale 27Med-large scale farming 39Other market-oriented 22
• Smallholders contribute signif.• Market-oriented contribute more
![Page 8: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Pathways 1 Incentives linked to the forest
• Raise the value of forests and secondary forests through NTFPS and environmental services (e.g. REDD)
• Institutional arrangements: local management, protected area rules and enforcement
![Page 9: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
IMPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION and POVERTY, etc.•Most cost effective mitigation/high impact•Maintaining forest creates positive feedback
on climate: stabilizes regional climate (Stickler et al 2009)• Displaces local farming. Where do people get
their food? • High carbon forests will be most protected;
least productive forests more threatened (Miles and Kapos 2008)
![Page 10: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Pathways 2 Incentives linked to farmsRaise the productivity and value of existing agricultural lands
“Green revolution to shifting cultivation” Greenland 1975 Agroforestry and Alternatives to Slash and Burn, Sanchez et al. 2005;
Swallow, Boffa and Scherr 1996Protected area management: ICDPS, buffer zones (Hughes and Flintan 2001)
• Incentive not linked to forest; Jovan’s paradox: efficiency-> more clearing• Only possible if agriculture is main threat• Conversion linked to multiple local and macro causes of
(migration, infrastructure, fire, drought, markets, wood extraction, technology) (Hirsch and Fisher 2007)• Past projects limited by focus on local technical
interventions
![Page 11: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
IMPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION and POVERTY, etc.Higher emissions from intensive agriculture
• Fertilizer, irrigation increase N2O and CO2• Intensification reduces CH4 sink function of upland forest soils• High quality legumes can increase N2O and CO2 emissions (Mutuo 2005)
Yet best win-win option? (Vlek et al 2004). Net reduction at landscape scale if more land under forest. Mitigation funds would support intensification costs.
Feasibility, sustainability, and social justice issues: natural resources productivity, limited yield-growth potential, limited productive land, low efficiencies in developing countries, access to inputs, distribution of benefits
![Page 12: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
2. How to reduce GHG and sequester C in agricultural landscapes?
![Page 13: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Agricultural GHG emissions (UNFCCC)• 10–12% global anthropogenic GHG emissions, 6.8 Gt of CO2 equivalent • 74% from developing countries (increasing)
From• 38% - N2O emissions from soils• 32% - CH4 enteric fermentation • CO2-low flux• 12% - Biomass burning, 11% - CH4 rice production, 7 % - CH4 and N20
manure management Highest emitters: South, Southeast Asia and Latin America
(But high uncertainty)GHGs from land-use change, including deforestation in tropical areas,
exceed emissions from all other agricultural sources (about 18%)
![Page 14: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Technical mitigation potentialIPCC- combination of modeling, default values and data from limited
sites• Reducing conversion of land through intensification• 89% soil carbon (C) sequestration through cropland management,
grazing land management, restoration of organic soils and degraded lands, agroforestry etc.
• 9% CH4 mitigation through rice, livestock and manure management
• 2% N2O mitigation emissions from soils through crop management.
Remember: Full accounting of all greenhouse gas emissions exists for only a few intensive agricultural systems and for slash and burn. (Davidson et al 2008)
![Page 15: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Alternatives to slash and burn studies
Palm 2000: 14
![Page 16: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Issue: Appropriate mitigation strategies for shifting cultivation?
Swidden and shifting cultivation can fit under the UNFCCC definition of forest (10-30% cover, 2-5 m, temporarily unstocked, expert judgement (Van Noordwijk 2009)
Only 1.75% of conversion due to long fallow annual crops. Only 37 million people? (Dixon 2001), 1 billion ha? (Sanchez et al. 2005). Need to verify numbers
Swidden can act as a GHG sink due to fallows and agroforestry(next section)
“Chop and mulch” in E Amazon maintains nutrients, but no fire-related emissions. Fire emissions/ha were 630 kg CH4, 19 kg N2O, and 130 kg NO, or 42, 3, and 10x times higher than highest soil emissions of CH4, N2O, and NO
![Page 17: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Gockowski et al. 2000In Sanchez 2000: 377
![Page 18: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Trade-offs and Synergies: Food and Carbon (FAO 2009)
![Page 19: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Implementation issuesTechnical• High uncertainty in emissions estimates and lack of information for their
assessment, no baselines• C measurement; responses to land use not always well understood, high local
variability, risk of loss, maximum capacity of soils to store C • No life cycle information for value chain or smallholder livelihoods
Other• High transaction costs and risks may make mitigation less attractive than
current land use (e.g. forest conversion to pasture)(Coomes et al. 2008) • Impacts on costs of production and competitiveness• ASB experience: site specific, game in progress• Farmers want menus of mitigation choices (Tschakert 2007)• Adoption of sustainable land management will require incentives• High initial investments
![Page 20: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Agricultural trendsNorthern Mountain Region of Vietnam (Leisz et al. 2009) (1) if farming systems continue as is, GHG emissions +
(2) if the NMR farming systems change according to government policies and programs, net C sequestration occurs in first 20 years
(3) over the longer term, increased GHG emissions from changes in the farming systems (e.g. increased paddy and increased pig raising in sties due to government policies) will overtake the C in vegetation
![Page 21: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Summary
Incentives for conserved forest
(REDD)
Reduce GHG/sequester C in agriculture
Protect existing forest?(high C sequestration)
Food, costs, appropriate to smallholders?
Intensification of agriculture
Reduce emissions
(techno. & land use change)
Increase sequestration
Soil, AF
Food, rights?Incentives for adoption, ST productivity?
Emissions, pressure on
forest, sustainability?Is
sues
![Page 22: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conclusions• Interrelated paths towards mitigation: intensify ag and
protect forests to reduce LUC; technical fixes to reduce emissions, SALM/AF to sequester more C
• Above ground biomass carbon probably most feasible and high impact management intervention
• Smallholders will face pressures for intensification and intervention that sometimes compete e.g., forest v. farming, longer fallows v. food production
• Which trade-offs are most appropriate for smallholders in specific regions and types of agrarian strategies? Use REALU /landscape + life cycle + trends over time approach. Need real numbers!
![Page 23: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
• Direct incentive to maintain/protect forest• Voluntary markets and REDD based on this• Experience: Mixed. Site specific values and
markets; trade-offs; limited access by poor, needs clear tenure, but need more data (PES, CDM, voluntary mkt literature, Tschakert 2007)
Option 1 Raise the value of forests and secondary forests through NTFPS and environmental services (carbon)
![Page 25: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Mutuo et al. 2005: 45
![Page 26: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
• Probability of deforestation 7–11x lower inside ILPAs than in surrounding areas. (Since 2002 in Brazilian Amazon, Rickett et al. 2010)• Larger forest size and greater rule-making autonomy
assoc. w/high C storage & livelihood benefits. Communities restrict consumption of forest products when they own forest commons, (80 forest commons, 10 countries, Chhatre and Agrawal 2009)• Mayan spatial analysis study
Reinforce protection with local management, institutions and protected area rules and enforcement
![Page 27: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
IMPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION and POVERTYBurning releases significant GHG. Widespread burning can induce regional reduction in rainfall, exacerbating climate?
![Page 28: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
• Risk of agriculture in forest areas: MRV already challenging exercise for any land use but especially difficult at tropical frontiers where land use fluctuates according to boom and bust economic cycles, migration, sociopolitical conflict, national policy, wildlife etc (Cacho 2003)
• Where do we want to bear costs of mitigation?
![Page 29: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions (cont)
• Whole system/landscape perspective (REALU) needed to understand interactions and accounting (Van Noordwijk et al. 2008), especially for sustainability implications : food production v. natural resource sustainability v emissions trade-offs not clear
• Numbers currently best estimates. Need for caution: diverse approaches; careful of crisis arguments
![Page 30: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Carbon in Land Uses before and after Slash and Burn (116 ASB Sites)
Sanchez 2000: 376
![Page 32: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Carbon in forest-agriculture mosaic
Subekti Rahayu, Betha Lusiana and Meine van Noordwijk 2005.
![Page 33: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Soil v. Biomass Carbon
![Page 35: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Mitigation factors (sample)
Smith et al. 2008
Warm, moist climate zone
![Page 36: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Trade-offs predicted by models as well…
• The highest value for predicted additional carbon storage in the wider landscape did not coincide with the best results for local livelihoods (Noordwijk et al. 2008)
• Used FALLOW model (Van Noordwijk, 2002)
![Page 37: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Forest conversion
• 72% of est. original 1450 mil ha tropical forest now converted to other uses
• Small scale farmers- 96% of losses, 30% in Lat Am, 50% in Asia, 70% in Africa
![Page 38: Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062522/58701f671a28ab7f428b7987/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Carbon payments for agroforestry demonstrated to technically increase incomes (Seeberg-Elverfeldt et al. 2008)