Assets for sss un day 24th october 2012


Published on

ASSETS talk for UN SSS day

  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • Source: Mathews Tsirizeni – LEAD Southern & Eastern Africa. Note – this slide has animation – the first picture shows flooding, the second the participatory GIS they have been doing to identify causes and solutions.
  • Source: Mathews Tsirizeni – LEAD Southern & Eastern Africa. Note – this slide has animation – the first picture shows flooding, the second the participatory GIS they have been doing to identify causes and solutions.
  • Source: Mathews Tsirizeni – LEAD Southern & Eastern Africa. Note – this slide has animation – the first picture shows flooding, the second the participatory GIS they have been doing to identify causes and solutions.
  • For each specific beneficiary we can quantify, fluxes are precise and spatial, so it is known how much of the service reaches each beneficiary, and the trajectories required for the service to flow. Point by point we can tell how much each beneficiary receives from which specific area and this has important implications for example in payments for ecosystem services. As an example the analysis allows to identify areas that are critical for the delivery of a given service. Critical areas of ES flow should be given the highest importance in planning conservation of biodiversity and ES.
  • Assets for sss un day 24th october 2012

    1. 1. The ASSETS project:Attaining Sustainable Services fromEcosystems through Trade off ScenariosPhoto by Erwin Palacios CI Colombia © The Economist Twitter @espaassets
    2. 2. Our Team Southampton (UK) (PI Poppy) plus Dawson, Dundee) Conservation International (USA) (Co-PI Honzak) Basque Centre for Climate Change (Spain) (Co-PI Villa) CIAT: International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (Cali, Colombia) (Co-PI Jarvis) plus Colombian research centres, universities and NGOs Chancellor College, Malawi, (Co-PI Chiota) LEAD Africa plus Ministry of Forestry, Forest Research Institute of Malawi and Rhodes University South Africa
    3. 3. The pursuit of food security through increased agricultural production (including through changes in land use, land cover and irrigation) is a key driver of landscape change (UNEP, 2011). At the same time, food security for many of the world’s rural poor is particularly dependent ontheir being able to benefit from the flow of ecosystem services (ES) – the benefits humans obtain from nature (MA, 2005).
    4. 4. The overarching goal is to explicitly quantify thelinkages between the natural ecosystem servicesthat affect – and are affected by – food security andnutritional health for the rural poor at the forest-agricultural interfacePhoto by Erwin Palacios CI Colombia
    5. 5. A complex ecosystem where agro-ecosystem meets “natural” ecosystems
    6. 6. Choice of Case studies-cutting across two continentsAfrica & Amazonia: different situations…… much in common• Deforestation: Africa much more advanced Amazonia in rapid transition due to a range of drivers• impacted by climate change and extreme weather events• issues of extreme poverty, malnutrition and inequality• Our workshops selected paired case study regions in Malawi and Colombia- as the best locations to address our research questions, but also because of links to partner organisations already active locally
    7. 7. ASSETS Research ThemesTheme 1Drivers, pressures and linkages betweenfood security, nutritional health and ES
    8. 8. Participatory research Aims: – To understand links between ES and food security – To derive non-monetary values for different ES Well-being ranking of study communities Focus groups (differentiated by social group) to: – Understand local concepts of food (in)security – Identify ES that contribute to food security at different temporal and spatial scales Seasonal calendars – seasonal coping strategies Community timelines – inter-annual food security Matrix scoring and ranking to prioritise the most important ES for food security for different groups Participatory economic valuation of some ES
    9. 9. Participatory RuralAppraisals (PRA)
    10. 10. Participatory RuralAppraisals (PRA)
    11. 11. Participatory RuralAppraisals (PRA)
    12. 12. The Food Estimation and Export for Diet andMalnutrition Evaluation (FEEDME) Model
    13. 13. Measuring household poverty, food security, and nutrition healthAims: Identify poverty status of households using objective and subjective measures (expenditure, subjective wealth, assets) Measure food security and nutritional status of under-five children in households across the forest-agricultural gradient Deeper understanding of coping mechanisms Disseminate to, and feedback from the local community
    14. 14. ASSETS Research ThemesTheme 2Crises and tipping points: Past, present and interactions between food insecurity aerial-view-of-sumatra- blog/2010/08/12/an- hotographers-and ES at the forest-agricultural interfaceCoping strategiesFuture scenarios
    15. 15. ARIES: summary• A rapid spatial assessment tool for ecosystem services and their values; not a single model but an artificial intelligence assisted system that customizes models to user goals.• Demonstrates a mapping process for ecosystem service provision, use, sink and flow while most ES assessments only look at provision.• Probabilistic, Bayesian models inform decision- makers about the likelihood of possible scenarios; users can explore effects of policy changes and external events on estimates of uncertainty.
    16. 16. Components of the ARIES system
    17. 17. Precise spatial representationand Area of Critical Flow Area of Critical Flow
    18. 18. ASSETS Research ThemesTheme 3The science-policy interface: How can we manageES to reduce food insecurity and increasenutritional health?Minimising risk of future environmental changeInfluencing policy to better manage ld/south_asia/7445570.stmES conflicts, trade-offs andsynergies to sustain food securityand health?
    19. 19. Pidgeon …Poppy 2006Proc Roy Soc
    20. 20. ASSETS: Science-Policy Interface Map different factors affecting ES Identify the factors with highest negative impact on ES (and which are more relevant for food security and nutritional health) Identify critical changes and tipping points that can accelerate the degradation of key ecosystems (that can be addressed through timely policy interventions) Report on climate change impacts on ES provision, food security and nutritional health Report on current and future impact of land use change on sustainable provision of ES and food security Provide input for policies that can counterbalance the most urgent needs of the population exerting pressure on ES
    21. 21. Caqueta’s Development PlanThe project…. – funded by ESPA & implemented by CIPAV, Conservation International, CIAT & partnersHopes to… – give key inputs to contribute to a better management of Caquetá environmental resources and – to improve the food security of its population.More exactly… – to analyze the links between ecosystem services that have a predominant role in food security and nutritional health for the rural poorScientific contributions are expected to serve as input for the formulation of better policies for intervention, prioritization of actions and management of regional and local authorities
    22. 22. Our consortium will undertake world class research on ecosystem services (ES) for povertyalleviation at the forest-agricultural interface and deliver evidence from a range of sourcesand in various formats to inform policy and promote behavioural change. Photo by Erwin Palacios CI ColombiaWe hope to make a difference to the lives of 2 million poor people living in our case-studyregions – up to 550 million people living in similar environments around the world
    23. 23. Thank You - www.espa-assets.orgThis presentation was produced by ASSETS (NE-J002267-1), funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for PovertyAlleviation Programme (ESPA). The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID),the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), as part of theUK’s Living with Environmental Change Programme (LWEC). The views expressed here are those of the authors and donot necessarily represent those of the funders, the ESPA Programme, the ESPA Directorate, or LWEC.