Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6

1,666
views

Published on

Component 3 of the CGIAR Research Programme on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP6) focuses on landscape management for environmental services (ES), biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. This …

Component 3 of the CGIAR Research Programme on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP6) focuses on landscape management for environmental services (ES), biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. This presentation explores the links between the various themes of CRP6 Component 3 and the cross-cutting CRP6 research theme of sentinel landscapes. How these links fit into a broader context of the CGIAR’s strategic results framework is also discussed.



This presentation formed part of the CRP6 Sentinel Landscape planning workshop held on 30 September – 1 October 2011 at CIFOR’s headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia. Further information on CRP6 and Sentinel Landscapes can be accessed from http://www.cifor.org/crp6/ and http://www.cifor.org/fileadmin/subsites/crp/CRP6-Sentinel-Landscape-workplan_2011-2014.pdf respectively.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,666
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CRP6: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:livelihoods, landscapes and governance
  • 2. ICRAF’s GRP6 (Policies and incentives for multifunctionallandscapes 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:
  • 3. Globally applicable concepts, hypotheses  Global policy developmentStage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage VZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneAZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneBZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC Every place is unique
  • 4. Sentinel landscape design? Can it run?
  • 5. SES  SEPESSocio-ecological-politi- cal-economy systems
  • 6. CGIAR Strategic Results FrameworkSLO1. Reducing SLO2. Increasing SLO3. Improving SLO4. Sustainablerural poverty food security nutrition and health management of natural resourcesMeasurables include Measurables include Measurables incluide Measurables areincreased income changing levels of metrics of healthy resource use per unitfrom farm and non- production, price and growth, particularly of production, resto-farm activities, per- access to affordable in children, and ration and conserva-mitting investment in food by the urban and dietary intake, tion of ecosystemhealth, education and rural poor. nutrient up-take and services and reducedother poverty-redu- consequent health impacts of climaticcing activities. effects. change & shocks.CRP6.1 helps redu- CRP6.5 looks at ‘ex- CRP6.1 (supported by CRP6.2 and CRP6.3cing rural poverty, tensification’ and 6.2) has attention to focus on resourcethrough tree-based economic investment fruit trees and (biodiversity) conser-livelihoods; it includes in agriculture and medici-nals in various vation and ecosystempoverty in forest mar- forestry as a driver of stages of servicesgins and of forest- tree cover transitions. domestication, as CRP6.4 researchesdependent people CRP6.1 contributes contributor to nutri- ecosystem-basedCRP6.4 includes rural agroforestry techno- tional quality and adaptive responsesvulnerability to cli- logies for food pro- health management and REDD financingmate change duction
  • 7. Redirecting development pathways towards environmental integrity Positive incentives are needed to reward rural poor for the environmental services they can/do provide
  • 8. Dominant DIVERGENT model UrLand of territorial configuration (i.e. land sparing) Quality UrLand NatLand Rural Matrix Cheap massive Landscapes (highly profitable) Rural-urba and livelihoods urban housing n Ag LandControl of water Elite migratonexcess and Suburban Rural-urban migrantsscarcity residence Low Quality Food Elite Rural provi-sioning Ecotourism NatLand poor Wage laborers AgLand Fortress type Eco- servants Cheap massive Marginalized conservation Elite(highly profitable) CONVERGENT model against masses Organic industrial food agribussiness (i.e. land sharing) Control of erosion and water García-Barrios et. al. 2009. Bioscience excess and scarcity and 2010 La Jornada del Campo.
  • 9. Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying concept across CRP6 X-linkage ofTemporal Spatial Institutional actions in pattern pattern challenge landscape
  • 10. > 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)
  • 11. CRP6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governanceComponent 3: Landscape management for environmental services, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods1. Understanding drivers of forest transition2. Understanding the consequences of forest transition for environmental services and livelihoods3. Learning landscapes: dynamics of multifunctionality
  • 12. Building on a joint history CIFOR Domain 4 + ICRAF GRP 6 Starting new joint projects:Recently approved: Approval expected soon:Sustainable Sulawesi Sustainable Rural Development through HighSupported by CIDA Value Biocarbon Approaches: building multifunctional landscapes and institutions in West and East Africa Supported by Finland
  • 13. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources
  • 14. Feedback Loops Added to Four Conceptual ModelsLinking Land Change with Driving Forces and Actorshttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
  • 15. Landscape management options Livelihoods in context 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Local Producti Conser Enviro. Adapting Trade Improving on vation Services & & Livelihoods,Drivers Tree cover transitions and forest quality ilding Enviro. Services,External systems and reducing invest Governance use emissions ment Institutions, gender, capacity strengthening & partnerships Global actors and value chains The components of CRP6 share common goals and networked impact pathways
  • 16. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resourcesTheme 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
  • 17. Theme-level outcome Verifiable indicator Policy documents use quantitative tree cover criteria and multiple forest types, rather than merely binary deforestation/Recognition by government reforestation dataagencies and in public debateof tree cover and forest CRP6 tools and approaches totransitions as a basis for multi-layered driver analysisrealistic land use and are adopted fordevelopment planning and international/national/localinstitutional reform of land policy developmentuse regulation Institutional support and interest in Agroforestry Policy Initiative and Forest Landscape Restoration
  • 18. 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
  • 19. -24 A.Trees used as history book leiocarpuswhere climate records are -25scarce or unreliable δ18 C -26 -27 1999 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year 26 A. leiocarpus S. birrea 25 24Evergreen Anogeissus δ18O 23 22 leiocarpus in 21 Burkina Faso 20 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year
  • 20. Tree cover transitionWidening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared
  • 21. Examples of things we do 6.3.1 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 forestAfter 2000, planting oftree crops equals 90% ofconcurrent loss of naturalforest; the amount of lowC-stock/low economicvalue land decreases
  • 22. Coarsening of pattern: segregate
  • 23. Examples of things we do 6.3.1 deforestation re- and afforestation Fields,fallow, forest mosaic Farm Plantationsforests, Fields, agro- forests forests & parks Integrate Segregate
  • 24. 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-..
  • 25. 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.
  • 26. Quantification of land cover & Sentinel terrestrial C balance; driver landscapes as analysis  REDD+/REALU spatial integration Drivers of CRP6 research CRP6.3.1 CRP6.4.1Livelihood options and CRP6.5.1their ES tradeoffs International trade and investment as driver of changeCRP6.1 Consequences CRP6.3.2 = some keyCRP6.2 interactionsForest-based biodiversity within CRP6& genetic resourceconservation; sustainableforest management in CRP6.4.1practice CRP6.3.3 Learning Mitigation and adaptation at landscape scale; REDD+ as landscapes basis of funding landscape investments
  • 27. Quantification of land cover & Sentinel and terrestrial C balance; sparing vs. benchmark sharing discussion landscapes of Drivers other CRPs CRP6.3.1 CRP7Green vs blue waterrelationships & CRP 1.1,ecosystem services Consequences 1.2, 1.3CRP5 CRP6.3.2 = linksCRP2 to otherInstitutions and CRPscollective action CRP6.3.3 CRP7 Learning Mitigation and adaptation at landscape scale; sparing vs. landscapes sharing discussion at local level
  • 28. Sentinel landscape design?Monitoring change &attributing it to ‘drivers’ Stimulating change Can it run?
  • 29. 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
  • 30. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree covertransition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services and adaptive policy 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
  • 31. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree covertransition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services & 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
  • 32. Verifiable Theme-level outcome indicatorLocal resource managers in tree- Documented usebased multiple use landscapes use of tools andcost-effective and replicable tools approachesand approaches to appraise likely developed, testedimpacts of changes in land-use on and/or promotedwatersheds, biodiversity and carbon by CRP6 partnersstocks as well as on the economicproductivity of the landscapeLand-use planners and practitioners Documenteduse principles and methods resulting application ofin clearer and more transparent participatory land-recognition of conservation and use planning fordevelopment trade-offs in land and forest marginrights allocation, as well as settings, integratedadjustments to economic incentives with tenure reform
  • 33. Synergies between functions Pcrop Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod LandCrop production Concave likely Tree production No preference Carbon storage Watershed services Biodiversity Landscape beauty
  • 34. Examples of things we do 6.3.2 Sustainable Weighting of Economy-Ecology 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
  • 35. Actors in the landscape and livelihood assets 2 van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society
  • 36. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes whereinnovative response and policy options are being tested 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
  • 37. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes whereinnovative 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
  • 38. Theme-level Outcome Verifiable indicatorStakeholders negotiate and National policyhave access to a range of formulation and newconditional and performance- action researchbased arrangements that undertakings refer tosupport the provision and multiple PES paradigmsmaintenance of environmental that were derived fromservices and biodiversity in RUPES and PRESAproductive landscapes experienceOpportunities for win-win Documented progresssolutions in restoration contexts on tenure reform andare fully used, while the hard negotiated jointtradeoffs are recognised and management regimes incontest over them is replaced conservation andby negotiation restoration contexts, that refer to CRP6 approaches and results
  • 39. Where would you like to see more trees?
  • 40. Participatory resource mapping followed bysimulation board game with agents of change:seeking contracts for logging or oilpalm conversion,or agreements on forest protection and ecolabelling (Photographs: Grace Villamor)
  • 41. Tradeoff at land use system level Opportunity cost at landcape scale opportunity cost, $/t CO2e, Slope indicates Emission reduction poten- Carbon stock, tC/Ha emissions per tial for given C price gain in $/ha I II e.g. ADSB reports e.g. ASB-II  Cumulative emissions reports of 2007/8 1990’s NPV, $/Ha Dynamic land use scenario modelAgents with C stockvariation in (increasing)resourcebase, moti-vation, live- IIIlihood stra- IVtegies. Rural income  Rural incomeinteracting (declining) (increasing)with rules& policies C stock e.g. FALLOW Agent-based land use change model (decreasing) scenarios
  • 42. Hypothesis of PES replacing social motivation to protect ESEffort to protect/enhance ES Baseline Schematic results of ES experiment No Medium Strong loss of social motivation 0 low medium high External financial rewards
  • 43. Price condition for inter-generationalincrease in altruism: Individual Social Group( Benefits - Costs )+( )( cohe- sion )> 0 Benefits - CostsLoss of social cohesion (‘relatedness’)term implies shift from group toindividual ‘benefit–cost’ considerations
  • 44. Balancing act is neededEfficiency Fairness Free and prior informed consent
  • 45. 3. National economies in global market context 1.Patch-level cyclical succession K: Approach CarrCap Stored capital LU-system properties Ω:Crash r: Exp 2.LU adoption dynamics Growth α:Reorganize Interlinkage Living landscapesNesting 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
  • 46. Rights to define forest Five different ways of classifying forest: 1. By ecosys- 2. By vegetation 3. By land use 4. By ‘owner’ 5. By ‘co-management tem service & its C-stocks category regime’ Conservation + 10% State National Park watershed Forest Protected Area protection Forest forest Restoration conces- Emis- domain sion sion GHG 53% Other + Community-forest C capture Production disputed forest forest lands Village forest Benefit-sharing Convertible Logging concession forest Plantation contract Official conversion from forest to non-forest land status: ‘planned Mixed agroforest, deforestation’ private forests, community Non-forest land uses landscapes with (APL) trees
  • 47. 10% TREE cover in agricultural lands… Enough to qualify as forest? Meadow 1996 2006 Fallow XP 2011 Vineyard Land cover change….3101 Fremont Drive, Sonoma,California, United States

×