Dia 1 - Conferência de Abertua - Tony Simons

640
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
640
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dia 1 - Conferência de Abertua - Tony Simons

  1. 1. Trees and Forests for a Healthy World:  Vision for 2030 Tony Simons, Director General, ICRAF VIII Brasilian Agroforestry Congress November 21st 2011
  2. 2. Trees and Forests for a Healthy World1. The Challenges2. Guiding Paradigms3. Looking ahead to 20304. Knowledge Transfer Opportunities5. Some New Directions??
  3. 3. 1.  The Challenges Los Angeles  Cairo City  Tropicalcity commuters populace deforestation Differentiated problems? or interlinked global challenges?
  4. 4. Shifting Geopolitics, Demographics and FinancingPopnbillions Asia Africa Latin America 1950                  1970                  1990                  2010                  2030                  2050 Source: UN DESA, World Population Prospects 2008
  5. 5. Widening InequalityCountry Gini coefficientBrazil 57%Burkina Faso 39%Cameroon 45%China 41%European Union 30%Finland 26%India 37%Indonesia 37%Kenya 42%Malawi 39%Namibia 71%Peru 50%Philippines  46%
  6. 6. Food Insecurity ‐ Global food prices doubled 2006 to 2008 ‐ By 2050 we will need to produce 70% more food ‐ Growth in agriculture generates greatest  improvements for the poor ‐ Policies, good governance and investments as  important as technologies ‐ Better risk management and avoidance is required ‐ Greater infrastructure needed in rural areas ‐ We need to produce as much food in the next  40 years as we have done in the last 8000 years
  7. 7. Food Securitywe put far more attention  on the securitydimension than on thefood dimension
  8. 8. The world as we know itwww.worldmapper.org
  9. 9. Forest loss 1990-2000
  10. 10. Net forest growth 1990-2000
  11. 11. Adams J.M. & Faure H. (1997) (ed.s), QEN members. Review and Atlas of Palaeovegetation: Preliminary land ecosystem maps of the world since the Last Glacial Maximum. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN, 
  12. 12. Adams J.M. & Faure H. (1997) (ed.s), QEN members. Review and Atlas of Palaeovegetation: Preliminary land ecosystem maps of the world since the Last Glacial Maximum. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN, 
  13. 13. Choosing a forest definition for the Clean Development Mechanism FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING PAPER 4 – 2006 http://www.fao.org/forestry/media/11280/1/0/For the CDM, developing countries must choose the  parameter values from the ranges: “Forest” is a  minimum area of land of 0.05‐1.0 hectares with  tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of  more than 10‐30 per cent with trees with the  potential to reach a minimum height of 2‐5 meters  at maturity in situ. 
  14. 14. 50 The relationship between tree crown cover and ability 40 to add extra carbon looks something like this.Opportunity  for  30incremental  carbon (t/ha) 20 10 10      20      30      40      50      60      70      80      90      100 % tree crown cover
  15. 15. Lower and upper limits for  CDM A/R 50 40 National governments can set theirOpportunity  forest definition as tree cover  for  30 minimum threshold between incremental  10% and 30%  carbon (t/ha) 20 10 10      20      30      40      50      60      70      80      90      100 % crown cover
  16. 16. AR at  10% 50 Avoided deforestation at 10% 40Opportunity  for  30incremental  REDD carbon (t/ha) 20 Avoided deforestation at 30% CDM A/R 10 Aff/Reforestation at 30% 10      20      30      40      50      60      70      80      90      100 % crown cover
  17. 17. Any signs of deforestation? ….are included under forest, as are  areas normally forming part of the  forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human  intervention such as harvesting or  natural causes but which are expected  to revert to forest; [FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1]
  18. 18. The foresters’ view of the world
  19. 19. The agroforestry view of the world
  20. 20. The integrated view of the worldGlobal 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)
  21. 21. 2. Guiding Paradigms
  22. 22. ProductivityIntensification
  23. 23. Ecological functioning Productivity Intensification
  24. 24. Ecological functioning Productivity Income stability Intensification
  25. 25. Ecological functioning Productivity Income stability optimal Intensification
  26. 26. Some effects of trees are mediated through impact on soil biota – trees increase abundanceMean density of different soil biota  and calculated response ratios Agroforestry Agriculture RR  References Soil macrofauna  (indiv m‐2)  (indiv m‐2)  Earthworms  54.4  17.6  3.1  1,2,3,4,5,6  Beetles  20.9  9.6  2.2  1,2,5  Centipedes  2.7  0.5  5.6  1,2,5  Termites  90.7  81.0  1.1  1,2,5  Ants  23.2  8.6  2.7  1,2,5  Soil mesofauna  (indiv m‐2)  (indiv m‐2)  Collembola  3890.1  2000.7  1.9  7  Mites  5100.7  1860.1  2.7  7  Soil microfauna  (indiv liter‐1)  (indiv liter‐1)  Non‐parasitic nematodes   2922  1288  2.3  8  Parasitic nematodes  203.7  211.5  1  8  Barrios, Sileshi, Shepherd, Sinclair 2010
  27. 27. Water Environmental services Soil Selection fertility Mechanization Agroecosystem diversity Breeding Cropping system Genetic IPM potential Agricultural inputs GREEN International Assessment of REVOLUTION Pests, GOAL weeds Agricultural Science  Hunger Yield and (IAASTD GOAL 1) diseases and Technology for  DevelopmentBiotechnology Biotechnology 2005‐2008 IAASTD Marketing GOAL 2 and trade Other Population Health and Nutrition products control IAASTD IAASTD IAASTD GOAL 5 GOAL 3 GOAL 6 Industry Social Livelihoods Economic growthsustainability IAASTD Public /Tradition and GOAL 4 Global policies Private Culture Environmental Partnerships sustainability
  28. 28. Sustainable Yields Annual yield (t/ha)FARM 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalFarm A 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 12.5Farm B 3.5 3.2 2.5 1.9 1.4 12.5Farm C 4.5 0.0 4.1 3.2 0.7 12.5Farm D 2.5 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.1 16.2Farm E 2.5 3.3 3.8 4.4 5.0 19.0
  29. 29. Limitations of Disciplinary Approaches LANDSCAPE APPROACHES Land units as non‐interacting aggregates Economic or social synergies not accommodated Social processes across land uses ignored or aggregatedGhazoul, ISPC Meeting, 2011)
  30. 30. re‐ and afforestation Fields,fallow, forest mosaicFarm fo‐ Plantations restry,  Fields,  agrofo‐ Forests  rests & Parks deforestation Integrate                 Segregate
  31. 31. ‘deforestation’ natural forest integrated, Tree plan- multifunctional tations landscape: crops, trees, meadows and forest patches ‘loss of forest intensive functions’ agriculture Segregate Integrate functionsCurrent legal, institutional Current reality& educational paradigm
  32. 32. 3.  Looking ahead to 2030
  33. 33. Science needs of development1. Actionable Knowledge and Materials – solutions, options, germplasm2. Robust Evidence for decision‐making for investments and policies3. Proof of Application for impact at scale4. Capacity Development and Mobilisation
  34. 34. Temporal ScaleEcosystem processesLifespan timber treeLifespan atmosph CO2Human lifespanTime to project impactPolitical TermProject durationCropping season 0                           1                          10                          100                      1000 Log Scale Time (years)
  35. 35. Social scale Geographic scale Political scaleFarmer IndividualFamily Farm HouseholdVillage Village VillageRelatives Watershed InstitutionsEthnic Community District Local governmentSocial network LandscapeNation Country Government Region Region Global International
  36. 36. The Science of Scaling Up Science (noun) – to know, knowledge Scaling up – to bring more benefits to more people, more quickly and more lastingly √    Multiplying and disseminating a new maize variety ??  Payment for environmental services ??  Agroecosystems improvement approach
  37. 37. Google ScholarExtension  ‐ 3,810,000 urlsDissemination  ‐ 992,000 urlsTechnology transfer  ‐ 522,000 urlsScaling up   ‐ 148,000 urlsScience of scaling up  ‐ 15 urls
  38. 38. Impact Pathway Paradigm Development (application of knowledge)Research(building of knowledge) Time  (years)
  39. 39. New Impact Pathway Paradigm Development (proof of application &  application of knowledge)Research(building of knowledge) Time  (years)
  40. 40. Extension, Scaling Up Research DimensionWhy ??????What ?????Where ????When ???HOW X Best Bet, Good Practice, Guideline
  41. 41. Why not use Principles for Research in Scaling Up? 1. Problem based (utility, not pure curiousity) 2. Testing a hypothesis, construct, paradigm 3. Systematic/experimental approach 4. Observations (repeated) 5. Independent thinking, deductive reasoning 6. Documented and shared 7. Undergoes critical peer review (credible) 8. Validated, revalidated (robustness) 9. Unplanned serendipity 10.Progressive, building on base of knowledge, zero fraud
  42. 42. Scaling up defined ExpandNet defines scaling up as "deliberate efforts to  increase the impact of health innovations tested in pilot  or experimental projects so as to benefit more people  and to foster policy and program development on a  lasting basis." This definition is more specific than when  ExpandNet is a global network of public health professionals and  scientists seeking to advance the practice and science of scaling up  the term is used in a general sense to mean broadening  successful health service innovations tested in experimental, pilot and  the impact of existing or new practices.  demonstration projects.http://www.expandnet.net/PDFs/ExpandNet‐WHO%20Nine%20Step%20Guide%20published.pdf
  43. 43. Three main farm types in 20301. Medium and Large Size Farms economies of scale, national food security2.   Individual smallholders vulnerable, subsistence, poverty traps, marginalised3. Collective smallholders  (relatives, neighbours, coops, interest groups) more empowered, negotiation skills, aggregate produce, certification
  44. 44. 4. Knowledge Transfer Opportunities Brasil Latin America Africa AsiaPerhaps make abstracts of this Congress available in English
  45. 45. Changes over time in the source of germplasm for timber spp. (Peru) 80 70 60 50 40 original present 30 20 10 0 forest field relation nbour unspec. source
  46. 46. Changes over time in the source of germplasm for fruit spp. (Peru)70605040 original30 present20100 forest field relation nbour market outside unspec. source
  47. 47. Amazonian Case studies Guazuma crinitaCalycophyllum spruceanum
  48. 48. Guazuma crinita
  49. 49. Guazuma crinita
  50. 50. FAIRLY EFFICIENT OR EFFICIENTLY FAIR: SUCCESS FACTORS AND CONSTRAINTS OF PAYMENT ANDREWARD SCHEMES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN ASIA Beria Leimona Co authors: Meine van Noordwijk, Laxman Joshi, Rachman Pasha, Betha Lusiana,, Elok Mulyoutami, Nimatul Khasanah, Andree Ekadinata ICRAF Science Week 12-17 September 2011 Nairobi
  51. 51. RUPES SITES IN ASIA covering 12 sites in 8 countriesBac Kan
  52. 52. Three approaches within PES  Paradigm CES :  COS :  CIS : (van Noordwijk &  commoditization of ES,  compensating or  coinvestement in  Leimona, 2010) e.g. C markets opportunities skipped,  stewardship, risk &  e.g. public fund  benefit sharing allocationsCondition Requires A + B Requires B + C Requires C  (A helps as well)A. Spatial & con‐ Yes (national AFOLU)ceptual ES boun‐ No (subnational REDD)daries clear? No (local: plot&tree)B. All rightholders  Yes (national constitu‐ Yes (national constitu‐identified & in  tion, UNFCCC rules) tion, UNFCCC rules)agreement Yes? (subnat./sectors) Yes? (subnat./sectors) No (local: plot&tree) No (local: plot&tree)C. All stakeholders  Yes? With nested MRV Yes? With nested MRVengage in adaptive  Yes? With nested MRV Yes? With nested MRVlearning Yes? Possible locally Yes? Possible locally Conclusion National scale only Subnational scale Local plot&tree scale
  53. 53. Climate Smart Agriculture‐ Increase sustainable productivity‐ Strengthen farmers’ resilience (adaptation)‐ Reduce agriculture GHG emissions‐ Increase Carbon sequestration
  54. 54. The Political Dimension: African Union’s recent pre‐Durban COP17  publication 
  55. 55. Climate Smart Agric and Ministerial Interests Ministry Ministry Ministry  Ministry  Ministry  Ministry  Agric  Envt Water Lands Health FinanceFood Security(Prodn & Income) *** * ** ** **Reduce GHG emissions of agric ** ***Mitigation(increase Carbon seq.) ** *** ** **Farmer Resilience(Adaptation) *** ** ** **
  56. 56. MICCA ProjectMICCA intends to facilitate sustained internalization  of agriculture mitigation practices in farming  systems in various agro‐ecological zones moving  towards a low carbon agriculture while increasing  resilience to climate change and agricultural  productivityWithin the Pilot Activities the goal is to increase  household food security, agricultural productivity,  ecosystem resilience while reducing greenhouse gas  emissions.
  57. 57. Participatory  Assessment of  Current and  Potential Climate  Smart Practices Using and Improving  Awareness Raising, Predictive Tools for  Capacity  Potential Impact Increasing Productivity Development and  Demonstrations Reducing Environmental  Footprint Baseline  Measurement and  Introduction or  Monitoring of Land  testing of Climate  Health Smart Practices Greenhouse Gases
  58. 58. Engaging multiple stakeholders to facilitateenhanced climatic risk management
  59. 59. Trees on farms: Tackling the triple challenge  of mitigation, adaptation and food securityTrees on farms address climate change mitigation and adaptation, and food security by storing carbon, buffering against climate‐related impacts and providing additional income through tree‐based products
  60. 60. Tools for monitoring, reporting and verification The Carbon Benefits Project aims to provide  a cost‐effective end‐to‐end estimation and  support system for showing carbon benefits  in GEF and potentially other natural  resource management projects The system will be applicable to a wide  range of soils, climates and land uses
  61. 61. New book to be launched at COP17
  62. 62. Timber Value Chain (per standing tree) Assumptions: For Vitex grown in Meru Seed germination 60% Nursery survival 85% $0.01 Field survival 70% seed sowing, watering, tending 15 year rotation Three lengths 2.8m a 40cm dbh $0.30 Sawnwood recovery 40%  Nursery seedling Carbonprice $14 per tonne Planting, weeding, protecting Wood density 0.65 tree, 0.55 pole $0.01 (year 1) Product value Sapling in field thinning, pruning, protecting thinning, pruning, protecting (year 2) Carbon value (total) $42.85 $7.14 Standing pole in field Standing tree in field $9.45 $1.15 (year 9) (year 16) Felling, limbing, cutting, stacking Felling, limbing, stacking $50.00 $8.57 Felled tree at farm gate $6.30 Pole at farm gate $0.86 Transport, sizing, stacking $64.28 Log at timber yard $6.30 Transport, sizing, stacking Sawing, grading, stacking If 15% is Gross – with no: permanent Community $128.57 then it risk $17.14DNA Pole in merchant yard $0.86 Sawn wood at timber yard equals US$0.37 $2.52verification Carbon Value Chain Farmer Project Manager Broker Buyer $8.08 $12.01 $14.00 (If use half life cycle of 30 years and Roy and Phelps decay curve then 15% of carbon still stored at 100 years)
  63. 63. INNOVATION: Rural Resource CentersICRAF‐WCA has been experimenting the  concept of rural resource centres and  relay organisations for the  dissemination of agroforestryinnovations and more particularlyparticipatory tree domestication, forthe last 5 years in Cameroon, DRCand Nigeria. Degrande A et al,. 2010. Agroforestry innovations supporting livelihoods in conservation landscapes: experiences from the World Agroforestry Centre in the Congo Basin. Paper presented at the National Forum on Forests, 29‐30 March 2010, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
  64. 64. KEY SERVICES PROVIDED BY RRCs Skills development in areas such as nursery practices  (Tree Domestication, group dynamics and marketing) Information and demonstration of new technologies  and innovations Access to market information Links with market actors particularly from the private  sector A forum for exchange of information among farmers  and between farmers and other stakeholders Seed, seedlings and other inputs
  65. 65. Spread 350 317 300 250Numbers 200 Nigeria 150 DRC Cameroon 100 50 43 0 2009 2010 2009 2010 RC Smallholder nurseries Asaah E.K., et al, (2011). Trees, Agroforestry and  Multifunctional Agriculture in Cameroon.  International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9 (1): 110‐119. 
  66. 66. Rehabilitation of  old cocoa farms • Improved variety grafted to old  cocoa tree – Success rate 59‐73 % – Variation on growth – Variation among clones4 weeks after grafting
  67. 67. Project Vision for Change (V4C)First flowers  after 5 months First pod at 9 months
  68. 68. COCOA IMPACTS• This approach for rehabilitation of old cocoa will help farmers to reduce poverty in rural areas.• The production is expected to move from 400kg/ha to 1.5 ton/ha•This approach used for 300,000 farmers will then be extended to other cocoa production countries • Help to increase production while avoid new clearing for new plantations   
  69. 69. International conference to take stock of current policies, thinking and practice, successes and failures of ongoing and past reforms in extension and advisory services and build a coalition moving forward to specifically address meeting the future needs of small‐holder farmers, marginalized communities, women and youth in a sustainable and cost effective manner. CTA, FARA, GFRAS, IFAD, FAO, AGRA, KARI, ICRAF and othershttp://extensionconference2011.cta.int/
  70. 70. Small-scale Large-scale saw mill saw millSmall-holderproduction Independent Out‐grower  growers schemesLarge-holderproduction Industrial plantations
  71. 71. Farmers imagine the crown size and how  many trees may fit along a boundary 
  72. 72. And typically plant boundary/contour trees at final spacing
  73. 73. Of course because of variation in trees and the  micro‐site, later we see differences in growth
  74. 74. The challenge is to get farmers to plant at  greater than final spacing
  75. 75. We can then learn about  farmers’ thresholds by = getting them to select  the best of two trees
  76. 76. Demonstrations on farmer’s fields are good because the concepts may be too abstract otherwise
  77. 77. 5. Some new/stronger directions in agroforestry1. Land tenure, rights and resources2. Production economics3. Tree commodities (cocoa, coffee, rubber, oilpalm, others)4. Productivity gap and how trees can help5. Adaptation decision support6. Location‐based intelligence (new Geoinformatics work)7. Co‐investment PES model development8. Capacity Development (incl. local level)9. Agroforestry indicators10. M&E and Impact Assessment11. Science of Scaling Up12. Genomics of trees
  78. 78. Forest definition  Forest definition based on X% canopy  based on insti‐tutions  cover & intent Non-forest without trees Trees Forest Forest outside with without forest trees trees Clearfelling/ re‐ plant is accep‐ted  Including e.g.  as forest; no time‐ agroforests, oil  limit on ‘replant’ palm plantation
  79. 79. RED = Reducing emissions from (gross)  REDD+ = idem, + restocking within and towards deforestation: only changes from ‘forest’ to  ‘forest’ ; in some versions RED+ will also include ‘non‐forest’ land cover types are included, and  peatlands, regardless of their forest status ; details very much depend on the operational  details still depend on the operational definition of ‘forest’ definition of ‘forest’ REDD++ = REALU = idem, + all transitions in land REDD = idem, + (forest) degradation, or the  cover that affect C storage, whether peatland or shifts to lower C‐stock densities within the  mineral soil, trees‐outside‐forest, agroforest, forest;  details very much depend on the  plantations or natural forest. It does not depend on operational definition of ‘forest’ the operational definition of ‘forest’
  80. 80. Annex‐I  Non‐ A REDD  PEAT SLM Agricult.   Alleviating Emissions all  Annex‐I  / and  intensi‐ rural sectors CDM R SFM fication poverty Export of wood Biofuel, agrocommoditiesNon‐accountable footprint
  81. 81. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses: The  case for a whole landscape approachA whole‐landscape approach to reducing emissions and managing carbon stocks can help address the drivers of deforestation, reduce problems like leakage, and enhance participation of developing countries in a REDD deal. 
  82. 82. CGIAR Research Program onForests, Trees and Agroforestry
  83. 83. New disciplines “CONSILIENCE: the methods and assumptions of any field of study should be consistent with the known and accepted facts in other disciplines” E.J. Wilson. Social Transdisciplinary Biological Sciences Sciences SciencesAnthropology Landscape ecology BotanyEconomy Ecological economy EcologyPolicy Genetics Political ecologySociology Zoology Land change …… Human ecology…
  84. 84. Best Practices Support on:Where to plant – trees suitable for your areaWhat to plant – trees suitable for your purposes Which to plant – sources of tree seedsHow to plant – good tree nursery practicesHow to engage communities and scale up
  85. 85. Remember, people who support agroforestry  1. Live longer 2.  Have more friends 3. Enjoy a better love lifeDon’t believe it, then try it and see

×