Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6

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

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/

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


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


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


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


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


van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society

2

Actors in the landscape and livelihood assets


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


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 cohesion

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?

Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6

Education

Transcript of Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6