Agrobiodiversity research challenges - Meine van Noordwijk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Agrobiodiversity research challenges - Meine van Noordwijk



Presentation by Meine van Noordwijk, CCAFS Science Workshop, Bonn, 10th June 2011

Presentation by Meine van Noordwijk, CCAFS Science Workshop, Bonn, 10th June 2011



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Agrobiodiversity research challenges - Meine van Noordwijk Agrobiodiversity research challenges - Meine van Noordwijk Presentation Transcript

  • Agrobiodiversity research challenges: Sustainable Intensification, Buffers, Filters and Land Sharing Meine van Noordwijk Diversitas/CCAFS/CRP6 Meeting Chiapas, Mexico December 2010
  • Dominant DIVERGENT model of Territorial configuration Luis García-Barrios et. al. 2009. Bioscience and 2010 La Jornada del Campo. Rural-urban migraton Low Quality Food provi-sioning Control of erosion & Water excess and scarcity UrLand AgLand NatLand Land sparing Marginalized CONVERGENT model Land sharing Fortress type conservation against masses Rural poor Cheap massive (highly profitable) industrial agribussiness Cheap massive (highly profitable) urban housing Elite Organic food Wage laborers Control of Water excess and scarcity Elite Suburban residence Elite Ecotourism Eco- servants Rural-urban migrants Quality Rural Matrix Landscapes and livelihoods UrLand NatLand Ag Land
  • Variability of climate Variability of water flows Human vulnerability to floods & droughts Landscape filter & buffer functions Currently increasing Currently decreasing Focus of ‘adapta-tion stragegies’? Preventable increase in exposure Vulnerability range Resiliency range Tolerated range
  • Adaptation: change in sys-tem properties, reducing vulner. Exter-nal influen-ces & their Pat-terns of va-riability Filters: reducing lateral flows and conse-quent external impacts Buffers: reducing varia-bility by tempo-rary storage E x p o s u r e Resistance/ tolerance: absorbing external shocks Resilience: bouncing back from temporary disturbance System of primary interest Adaptive Capacity Immediate response medium/long term Vulnera-bility to external change & varia-bility Sustainagility: resource base for further change Landscape as Socio-Agro-Eco-System Trans-mis-sion + I M P A C T
  • Persistence Change sustainagility Social stressors originating within and among community/ies Economic stressors due to market fluctuations & policy shifts Climatic stressors: means, variability and change Access to under-utilized resources for innovative use Access to new markets, satisfying new types of demand Landscape buffers & filters Pover-ty? Resource accessibility Innovation support Shielding networks Market access & insurance 6 5 4 3 2 1
  • Field-level intensification Landscape-level intensification
  • Where would you like to see more trees?
  • Compositional heterogeneity Configurational heterogeneity
  • Participatory resource mapping followed by simulation board game with agents of change: seeking contracts for logging or oilpalm conversion, or agreements on forest protection and ecolabelling (Photographs: Grace Villamor)
  • Fully intensified landscape components Extensively used landscape Paddy - (semi)perma-nent rice fields in wet places ~ irrigation/ drainage systems Swidden – rotational temporary food crops + fallow Forest edge – source of timber & NTFP’s for local use and trade Core Forest Expand paddy domain Fallow  Agroforest Short (semi)domesticated fallows forest products Market-driven logging by concessionairs Use of fertilizer, pes-ticides, short-cycle, short-straw, HYV rice + vegetables/ palawija Permanent Intensified open-field agroforest, crops Pas- tree crops ture Industrial Industrial tree crop timber plantation plantation Permanently cropped, technical irrigation agriculture //urbanizing ‘ Transmi- Smallholder gration’ Pas- tree crops / towns ture homegarden Large-scale tree (crop) plantations Protec-ted area
  • Malaria control <20 km -2 ~50 km -2 ~200 km -2 1000 km -2 Physical terrain Human use Flat, lowland version Arche-typical Rugged , mountain Forest/agroforest/ crop mosaic Tree-crop dominated Rice-dominated Urbanized Terrain
  • Farms are decision points across spatial, temporal and institutional scales Jackson, L.E., van Noordwijk, M., Bengtsson, J., Foster, W., Lipper, L., Pulleman, M., Said, M., Snaddon, J. and Vodouhe, R., 2010. Biodiversity and agricultural sustainagility: from assessment to adaptive management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2:80–87 But a major challenge remains in reconciling 3 time scales relevant to various decision makers: Gene Product value chains Patch/field Organism Population Farm Land-scape Desakota network Globe National economy Community Water-shed Nation Global institutions National institutions  time  space  institutions Persistence Change Efficiency
  • Relative agricultural function (RAF) - provisioning Relative ecological function (REF) D Trade-off REF/RAF: convex, concave, win-win after lose-lose A Initial use B Degra- dation C Rehabilitation EU Critical loss of ecological functions
  • Low Low High Core wilderness/ natural forest terra incognita Polyculture attractors High Intensive agroecosys-tem domain Agroforest domain Degraded, aban-doned land -NMDS1 Natural capital -NMDS2 Hoeksche Waard, NL Sacramento Valley California Koubri, Burkina Faso Zona de Mata, Brasil Pacaja, E. Amazone, Brasil W. Ghats, India Jambi, Indonesia La Sepultura, Chiapas, Mexico Ag reliance on ecological processes (-NMDS1) Degrading agricultural landscapes Current dominant trend Biodiversity-ba-sed alternative pathway Landscape position
  • Sustainable Weighting of Economy-Ecology Tradeoffs: Organized Reduction or Stretching Our Use of Resources?  (SWEETorSOUR?) Production Possibility Frontier This may be societal optimum, but requires SWEET Getting here may turn SOUR
  • We need empirical data, comparative analysis of how SWEET could be made to work and how SOUR can be avoided. Comparison of 8 sites in a global network starts to give insights… Jackson et al under review Old-growth forest
  • Reliance on natural capital & ecolo-gical processes for production Agrotechnical intensification Jackson et al., under review
  • Field-scale actions Landscape-scale actions Jackson et al., under review
  • Key research challenges
    • Quantify buffer & filter functions at patch/ field/landscape scales under influence of ‘intensification’ (or alternative intensification pathways)
    • Quantify need for increase in buffer/filter functions in response to increased climate variability
    • Social & economic institutions to support SWEET and avoid SOUR