Some six countries have succeeded in increasing both Agric production area and Forest area (China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Vietnam). But not from intensification only but through a combination of policies- (Lambin and Mefroidt, 2011- REDD ALERT Project). Most have done through displacement of Land use to other countries ( Mefroidt et al. 2010 and ASB PB 17)

2. Where and when?- Texts that
address drivers
• Decision 2/CP.13, para. 3.
• Decision 4/CP.15, para. 1(a).
• Decision 1/CP.16, para. 68.
• Decision 1/CP.16, Appendix II, para. 1(a).
• Decision 1/CP.16, Appendix II, para. 1(a).
• Decision 1/CP.16, Appendix II.
• Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair
(FCCC/SBSTA/2011/L.14), paras. 1, 4.

3. Recurrent themes in guidance
and submissions (tentative)
• Identify, identify, Identify….
• Direct, Indirect (Underlying)
• Measure impact on emissions reductions
(MRV)
• National vs International……
• Agriculture vs Non agriculture drivers
• Agricultural drivers of deforestation
• Methodological Issues: Participatory
analysis, links to MRV, (FAO submission)

4. WHAT IS KNOWN:
What drivers? Current and future?
Geist and Lambin ( 2002)

5. Population and Deforestation
• In about 70% of the cases
deforestation is directly
related to population
density (log transformed).
• Yet, we have not had a
population discussion as
part of the deforestation
discussion?
• Is it necessary and possible
to handle?

6. On Agriculture as a driver
•Intensification of
agriculture is a necessary
but not sufficient
condition for forest
protection
(ASB-Indonesia, 1995; ASB- Brazil, 2001)

7. Agricultural intensification hypothesis
More intensive agriculture at forest
margins can save forest at equal total
agricultural production
Or… speed up
forest conversion
to profitable
agriculture
This may
be true in
‘closed’
economies
This is true
in ‘open’
economies
ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994
Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed
systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…

8. How true is Borlaug? -Global
Rudel et al., 2010

9. How true is Borlaug? -Global II
• Only between 1980 – 85 (sustained decline
in prices & increased yield in 70s) we see
evidence of intensification leading to
reduced yields
• Two pathways:
• i. Increased Yields + Inelastic demand =
lower prices= POSSIBLE DROP IN AREAS
• ii. Increased yields + elastic demand =
INCREASE IN AREAS CULTIVATED
• (Rudel et al., 2009)

10. Sub- Saharan Africa Asia

11. Sparing vs Sharing
Segregate vs Integrate
• Sparing/segregate • Sharing/integrate
multifunctionality
hypothesis
Therefore
Landscape Approaches
/

12. National Vs International
•Most countries have reduced
deforestation by displacing land
use
•Emissions Embedded in Trade-
EET?
•Land Grabbing in Developing
countries?
•Therefore International Leakage?

13. How true is Borlaug -Global IV?
• Some six countries have succeeded in increasing both Agric
production area and Forest area (China, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Vietnam);
• But not from intensification only but through a combination of
policies- (Lambin and Mefroidt, 2011- REDD ALERT Project);
• Most have done through displacement of Land use to other
countries ( Mefroidt et al. 2010 and ASB PB 17)
Lambin and Mefroidt, 2011

14. SOME KEY QUESTIONS?
• How about the links between drivers and REL?
• What linkages between drivers and the relative /
cummulative impact?
• How about approaches that enable handling dynamic
and diverse drivers in a systematic way with specific
levers at specific leverage points?
• What leverage does policy have on drivers in different
contexts? Can these be measured and the trajectories
mapped?

15. THANK YOU