Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of d f t ti d f t d d tideforestation and forest degradation

8 June 2011, Bonn

Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing” hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and meso level evidence from multifunctional land use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA landscapes ‐Meine van Noordwijk

Sparing versus SharingSparing versus Sharing• Agricultural  • Multifunctiona‐gintensification lity & associated 

i ti tInput‐ or output‐based definition

incentive systems

Trade‐offs betweenbased definition

• ForestTrade‐offs between specific functions

Many definitions & concepts

h f ’ f h ld

>> >

The foresters’ view of the worldThe holistic forest+tree view of the worldSource: Global tree cover inside and outside forest according to the Global Land Cover 2000Source: 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)

BATANG TORU• Multifunctional landscape: forest‐

agroforest‐ agriculture gradientagroforest agriculture gradient

1. Undisturbed natural forest  2 Undisturbed + sust logged natural forest

Rainforest foundation

Conservation agency

Stakeholder:

2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest    4B 3 i b l i

Conservation agency

Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations  4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub  Modis data

Ministry of ForestryUNFCCC definition

Land use change in the tropicsLand use change in the tropics

Planting trees to accelerateaccelerate restoration phasephase

Degradation RestorationForest

Dewi et al. in prep.

of b

iota

0 0

Centrifugal forces towards ‘pure’of

bio

ta

0 0

Centrifugal forces towards ‘pure’

stic

atio

n o

33

Protectedarea

pconservation,

intensive animal, annual & tree-cropfst

icat

ion

o

33

Protectedarea

pconservation,

intensive animal, annual & tree-cropf

& d

omes

33 33 ‘Forest’

areaGame

ranchesNTFP-zone

Selective logging

‘F t’

annual & tree-crop production‘Forest’ world

Multifunctionalityattractor?

& d

omes

33 33 ‘Forest’

areaGame

ranchesNTFP-zone

Selective logging

‘F t’

annual & tree-crop production‘Forest’ world

Multifunctionalityattractor?

sific

atio

n

67

67

ForestAgroforest

Timber-enriched

forest‘Forest’ pulled towards 2

opposites

sific

atio

n

67

67

ForestAgroforest

Timber-enriched

forest‘Forest’ pulled towards 2

opposites

use

inte

ns

67

AgroforestFastwoodplantation

Off-farm Cut&carry

Feed-based bioindustryus

e in

tens

67

AgroforestFastwoodplantation

Off-farm Cut&carry

Feed-based bioindustry

Land

u

100 67 33 0

100

100

Open fieldcrops

Leysbioindustry

On-farm Cut&carryLa

nd u

100 67 33 0

100

100

Open fieldcrops

Leysbioindustry

On-farm Cut&carry

Agricultural intensification hypothesisASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed     ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994

systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…

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

agricultural productionagricultural production

Or… speed up forest conversionforest conversion to profitable agriculture

This may be true in 

This is true in ‘open’

‘closed’ economies

‘open’ economies

Sustainable logging has proved to be ahas proved to be a fiction in Indonesia I t i Intensive plantations as alternative

Sharing – argument 1: there isn’t enough h l f lspace without multifunctionality

Sharing – argument 2: Many tradeoff f l f lfunctions are convex: multifunctionality 

Convex tradeoff:

 2

Convex tradeoff: multifunctionality 

ction saves land

Func Concave tradeoff: 

specializationFunction 1

specialization saves land

ASB-data: Minang et al.,

2011

hysteresis

Pcrop  Ptree CstoreWsh Biod LandSynergies be‐tween functions

Crop pro‐duction

Concave likely

Tree pro‐duction

No preference

Carbon storage

Watershedservices

storage

servicesBiodiversityLandscapeLandscape 

beauty

Sharing – argument 3: Multifunctionalityb l drequires balanced economic incentives

Plot-level Carbon stock, Mg/ha Landscape-level Carbon stock, Tg

Unknown territory

2A 2B

1A

1BAgroforests

Intensive tree cropsReal-world land

use systems Open-field agriculture

Intensive tree crops

Net present value based on product flows, $/ha

Total economic value, k$

Sustainable Weighting of Economy‐E l T d ff O i d R d iEcology Tradeoffs: Organized Reduction 

or Stretching Our Use of Resources? (SWEETorSOUR?) 

This may be societal optimum, but requires SWEET

Production Possibility Frontier

Getting here may turn SOUR

ACTORS IN THE LANDSCAPE & LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

SWEET: not only PES buyer & 

SWEET: not only PES buyer & 

2

seller…seller…

van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society

Context + Mechanism OutcomeContext

Realistic:

+ Mechanism

Conditional: 

Outcome& Impact

•Per capita financial transfers Asia and Africa network of learning sites

Assessment of impacts of Land Use on ES

performance‐based contracts

remain small but with tenurial security•Reduced conflict over resource access > more options; lessUse on ES

Pro‐poor: Assessment of multiple di i f t

Voluntary: process of negotiations

access=> more options; less poverty•Co‐investment in steward‐ship, rather than ‘PES’dimensions of poverty

g rather than  PES

R&D efforts to reduce transaction costs, enhance and balance fairness + efficiency;+ efficiency;Mainstreaming into Development Planning

Three paradigms within PES Paradigm CES COS CISParadigm

(van Noordwijk & Leimona, 2010)

CES : 

commoditization of ES, e.g. C markets

COS : 

compensating or opportunities skipped, 

CIS :coinvestement in stewardship, risk & 

ConditionRequires A + B

e.g. public fund allocations

Requires B + C( )

benefit sharing

Requires C (A helps as well)

A. Spatial & con‐ceptual ES boun‐

Yes (national AFOLU)No (subnational REDD)

daries clear? No (local: plot&tree)

B. All rightholders identified & in agreement

Yes (national constitu‐tion, UNFCCC rules)Yes? (subnat /sectors)

Yes (national constitu‐tion, UNFCCC rules)Yes? (subnat /sectors)agreement Yes? (subnat./sectors)

No (local: plot&tree)Yes? (subnat./sectors)No (local: plot&tree)

C. All stakeholders engage in adaptive

Yes? With nested MRVYes?With nested MRV

Yes? With nested MRVYes?With nested MRVengage in adaptive 

learningYes? With nested MRVYes? Possible locally

Yes? With nested MRVYes? Possible locally

Conclusion National scale only Subnational scale Local plot&tree scale

Sharing – argument 4: Removal of perverse policies helps multifunctionalitypolicies helps multifunctionality

With current farm gate pricesWith  current farm‐gate prices there is no benefit for farmers in growing timber trees on their land… 

but under ‘social’ (national economy) accounts benefits y)are clear

Sparing + Sharing + CaringSparing + Sharing + Caring• Agricultural  • Multifunctiona‐gintensification lity & associated 

i ti tInput‐ or output‐based definition

incentive systems

Trade‐offs betweenbased definition

• ForestTrade‐offs between specific functions

Many definitions  Coinvestment& concepts

Coinvestment & incentives