Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests


Published on

Lini Wollenberg

Presentation for the conference on
Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry
Montpellier France
March 24-26, 2010

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • What do we know about forest conversion to agriculture? Note rice fallow, beef and beef-,manio/rice as largest contributors; 40% is for local food; 60% is to feed the rest of the world.Strassburg 2009 The opportunity costs of avoiding deforestation, based on the estimates presented by the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (Stern, 2007). That study synthesized field information on the economic returns of the activities to which land is converted in the top eight countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Myanmar, DRC, Zambia, Tanzania, Nigeria, Mexico ? ) by annual deforested area (responsible for 46% of annual deforestation). In addition, and crucially, the study also presented estimates for the area converted to each activity in each country.We assumed that the average behavior of these countries represents the behavior of any one developing country.
  • Long history; Macro issues are diffuse, driven by powerful interests
  • Despite the fact that in developing countries an annual increase of arable land of 0.34% is expected by FAO (2000a) between 1995/97 and 2030, the cropped area per person will nonethe- less decrease with one hectare feeding six persons in the developing countries by 2030 (0.17 ha/person). This is only double the 0.07–0.08-hectare benchmark, which Smil (1993) argues is the minimum unit of arable land per person required to feedcountry’s population, on an essentially vegetarian diet and without intensive use of fertilizers. This benchmark would need to be much higher if a meat-based diet were the global norm (Engelman, 1995). Today, 0.42 ha are required to feed a person on a high-meat diet using mechanized and input-intensive agriculture (Von Weizsäcker et al., 1997).
  • agricultural lands are used for pasture (about 70 per cent), approximately 27 per cent are arable lands, mainly devoted to annual crops and only a small part (less than 3 per cent) for permanent crops.
  • What about the environment?
  • we have GHG mitigation factors for different mitigation measures globally (see attached) – not C values for DC crops. Best way to get these would be to use FAO yield statistics, harvest index estimates for each crop, a scaling factor to account for below ground biomass and the take 0.5 of the total (to convert from dry matter to carbon).
  • Capacity and will of small holders. Are they being asked to bear burden Social justice arguments.Reducing emssisions from any land use = REALU
  • Bottom line- Examples of successes, but has not worked at significant scale
  • 116 sites…
  • Bottom line- Examples of successes, but has not worked at significant scale
  • Pedro Peixoto (Acre) Theobroma (Rondonia), Ebalowa, M’balmayo, Yaounde Cameroon, Jambi and lampung, Yurimaguas and Pucalpa, PeruSoil values are assumed
  • was designed to represent such interactions in a schematic form. It takes the concept of the tradeoff matrix of the ASB project (Tomich et al., 2005) into a dynamic decision process by multiple actors who respond to changes in accessibility of land and information as well as to price signals for agricultural inputs and marketable products.
  • Climate change mitigation and smallholders in forests

    1. 1. Climate Change Mitigation and Smallholders in Forests<br />LiniWollenberg<br />Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Program, CGIAR<br />Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: Where do we go from here? Montpellier, France 24-26 March, 2009<br />
    2. 2. Mitigation and smallholders in forests<br />Smallholders in/near forests depend on agriculture and live in dynamic tension between agrarian forces and forests<br />But climate change interventions in land use currently sectoral. Focused on sequestering carbon forests: REDD<br />
    3. 3. Agrarian-forest interactionsin climate change <br />Farmers as major drivers of LUC, agricultural expansion<br />CC mitigation in forests (REDD) and implications for farming communities<br />Agroforestry, swidden and shifting cultivation as mitigation strategies<br />Landscape-based mitigation strategies<br />Forest frontier transition zone: boom-bust cycles, migration, high risk environment<br />
    4. 4. What do we know, what do we still need to learn? <br />How to protect high carbon forests from conversion to agriculture<br />How to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon in agricultural landscapes<br />
    5. 5. And how can these mitigation strategies<br />….also sustainably provide food, reduce poverty and maintain natural resources? <br />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<br />
    6. 6. 1. How to protect forests from conversion to agriculture<br />
    7. 7. Forest conversionby land use <br />Strassburg et al. 2009, Stern Review 2006<br /><ul><li> Smallholders contribute signif.
    8. 8. Market-oriented contribute</li></ul> more<br />
    9. 9. Pathways 1 Incentives linked to the forest<br />Raise the value of forests and secondary forests through NTFPS and environmental services (e.g. REDD)<br />Institutional arrangements: local management, protected area rules and enforcement<br />
    10. 10. IMPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION and POVERTY, etc.<br /><ul><li>Most cost effective mitigation/high impact
    11. 11. Maintaining forest creates positive feedback on climate: stabilizes regional climate (Stickler et al 2009)
    12. 12. Displaces local farming. Where do people get their food?
    13. 13. High carbon forests will be most protected; least productive forests more threatened (Miles and Kapos 2008)</li></li></ul><li>Pathways 2 Incentives linked to farmsRaise the productivity and value of existing agricultural lands <br />“Green revolution to shifting cultivation” Greenland 1975 <br />Agroforestry and Alternatives to Slash and Burn, Sanchez et al. 2005; Swallow, Boffa and Scherr 1996<br />Protected area management: ICDPS, buffer zones (Hughes and Flintan 2001)<br /><ul><li>Incentive not linked to forest; Jovan’s paradox: efficiency-> more clearing
    14. 14. Only possible if agriculture is main threat</li></ul>Conversion linked to multiple local and macro causes of (migration, infrastructure, fire, drought, markets, wood extraction, technology) (Hirsch and Fisher 2007)<br />Past projects limited by focus on local technical interventions<br />
    15. 15. IMPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION and POVERTY, etc.<br />Higher emissions from intensive agriculture<br /><ul><li> Fertilizer, irrigation increase N2O and CO2
    16. 16. Intensification reduces CH4 sink function of upland </li></ul> forest soils<br /><ul><li> High quality legumes can increase N2O and CO2 </li></ul> emissions (Mutuo 2005)<br /> 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.<br />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<br />
    17. 17. 2. How to reduce GHG and sequester C in agricultural landscapes? <br />
    18. 18. Agricultural GHG emissions (UNFCCC)<br />10–12% global anthropogenic GHG emissions, 6.8 Gt of CO2 equivalent<br />74% from developing countries (increasing)<br />From<br />38% - N2O emissions from soils<br />32% - CH4 enteric fermentation <br />CO2-low flux<br />12% - Biomass burning, 11% - CH4 rice production, 7 % - CH4 and N20 manure management <br />Highest emitters: South, Southeast Asia and Latin America<br />(But high uncertainty)<br />GHGs from land-use change, including deforestation in tropical areas, exceed emissions from all other agricultural sources (about 18%)<br />
    19. 19. Technical mitigation potential<br />IPCC- combination of modeling, default values and data from limited sites<br />Reducing conversion of land through intensification<br />89% soil carbon (C) sequestration through cropland management, grazing land management, restoration of organic soils and degraded lands, agroforestry etc. <br />9% CH4 mitigation through rice, livestock and manure management<br />2% N2O mitigation emissions from soils through crop management.<br />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)<br />
    20. 20. Alternatives to slash and burn studies<br />Palm 2000: 14<br />
    21. 21. Issue: Appropriate mitigation strategies for shifting cultivation?<br />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)<br />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<br />Swidden can act as a GHG sink due to fallows and agroforestry(next section)<br />“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 <br />
    22. 22. Gockowski et al. 2000<br />In Sanchez 2000: 377<br />
    23. 23. Trade-offs and Synergies: Food and Carbon (FAO 2009)<br />
    24. 24. Implementation issues<br />Technical<br />High uncertainty in emissions estimates and lack of information for their assessment, no baselines<br />C measurement; responses to land use not always well understood, high local variability, risk of loss, maximum capacity of soils to store C <br />No life cycle information for value chain or smallholder livelihoods<br />Other<br />High transaction costs and risks may make mitigation less attractive than current land use (e.g. forest conversion to pasture)(Coomes et al. 2008) <br />Impacts on costs of production and competitiveness<br />ASB experience: site specific, game in progress<br />Farmers want menus of mitigation choices (Tschakert 2007)<br />Adoption of sustainable land management will require incentives<br />High initial investments<br />
    25. 25. Agricultural trends<br />Northern Mountain Region of Vietnam (Leisz et al. 2009)<br /> (1) if farming systems continue as is, GHG emissions + <br />(2) if the NMR farming systems change according to government policies and programs, net C sequestration occurs in first 20 years<br /> (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 <br />
    26. 26. Summary<br />Protect existing forest?<br />(high C sequestration)<br />Reduce GHG/sequester C in agriculture<br />Incentives for conserved forest (REDD)<br />Intensification of agriculture<br />Reduce emissions (techno. & land use change)<br />Increase sequestration<br />Soil, AF<br />Food, costs, appropriate to smallholders?<br />Food, rights?<br />Incentives for adoption, ST productivity?<br />Emissions, pressure on forest, sustainability?<br />Issues<br />
    27. 27. Conclusions<br />Interrelated paths towards mitigation: intensify ag and protect forests to reduce LUC; technical fixes to reduce emissions, SALM/AF to sequester more C<br />Above ground biomass carbon probably most feasible and high impact management intervention<br />Smallholders will face pressures for intensification and intervention that sometimes compete e.g., forest v. farming, longer fallows v. food production<br />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!<br />
    28. 28.
    29. 29. Option 1Raise the value of forests and secondary forests through NTFPS and environmental services (carbon)<br /><ul><li>Direct incentive to maintain/protect forest
    30. 30. Voluntary markets and REDD based on this
    31. 31. 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)</li></li></ul><li>Mutuo et al. 2005: 45<br />
    32. 32. Reinforce protection with local management, institutions and protected area rules and enforcement<br />Probability of deforestation 7–11x lower inside ILPAs than in surrounding areas. (Since 2002 in Brazilian Amazon, Rickett et al. 2010)<br />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)<br />Mayan spatial analysis study<br />
    33. 33. IMPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION and POVERTY<br />Burning releases significant GHG. <br />Widespread burning can induce regional reduction in rainfall, exacerbating climate?<br />
    34. 34. 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) <br />Where do we want to bear costs of mitigation?<br />
    35. 35. Conclusions (cont)<br />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<br />Numbers currently best estimates. Need for caution: diverse approaches; careful of crisis arguments<br />
    36. 36.
    37. 37. Carbon in Land Uses before and after Slash and Burn (116 ASB Sites)<br />Sanchez 2000: 376<br />
    38. 38. Carbon in forest-agriculture mosaic<br />SubektiRahayu, BethaLusiana and Meine van Noordwijk 2005. <br />
    39. 39.
    40. 40. Soil v. Biomass Carbon<br />
    41. 41. Mitigation factors (sample)<br />Warm, moist climate zone<br />Smith et al. 2008 <br />
    42. 42. Trade-offs predicted by models as well…<br />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)<br /> Used FALLOW model (Van Noordwijk, 2002)<br />
    43. 43. Forest conversion<br />72% of est. original 1450 mil ha tropical forest now converted to other uses<br />Small scale farmers- 96% of losses, 30% in Lat Am, 50% in Asia, 70% in Africa<br />
    44. 44. Carbon payments for agroforestry demonstrated to technically increase incomes (Seeberg-Elverfeldt et al. 2008)<br />