‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems through Trade-off Scenarios (ESPA ASSETS project)’, Presentation by Dr Kate Schreckenberg, University of Southampton. Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013. #MDRWeek.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems through Trade-off Scenarios (ESPA ASSETS project)’, Presentation by Dr Kate Schreckenberg, University of Southampton. Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013. #MDRWeek.

on

  • 422 views

Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013 at the University of Southampton. #MDRWeek. World Water Day and International Year of Water Cooperation 2013. ...

Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013 at the University of Southampton. #MDRWeek. World Water Day and International Year of Water Cooperation 2013.
‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems through Trade-off Scenarios (ESPA ASSETS project)’, Presentation by Dr Kate Schreckenberg, University of Southampton.
See the latest videos, interviews, pictures, tweets and views from the floor at: www.southampton.ac.uk/multidisciplinary

Statistics

Views

Total Views
422
Views on SlideShare
422
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Water – today is World water dayForests – yesterday was International Day of ForestsTwo sources of numerous ecosystem services, some of which involve trade-offs e.g planting trees can reduce water flow but improve water quality
  • In this project, our main focus is on how different ES contribute to food and nutrition security but we also recognise that the pursuit of food security can have an impact on ES…..another trade-off between forest-based and agriculture-based ES.
  • Ecosystems – like a forest – provide multiple services that contribute to food and nutrition security directly (through harvested food products) or indirectly (through income-generating activities, but also through water and firewood for cooking food). Some of these ES may be competing (e.g. biomass and water quality/quantity); but there are also a range of possible beneficiaries who may be competing for the same service (e.g. water for irrigation may reduce availability of water for fishponds; careless timber harvesting may destroy regrowth of mushrooms or damage other non-timber forest products, as well as degrading habitat for pollinators. Trade-offs are constantly being made at different levels of decision-making.
  • Highly multi-disciplinary to deal with a complex topic
  • Today is water day but yesterday was International Day of forests – which is supposed to include trees in and outside forests. Our study sites are located along the forest transition curve, including Lower Caqueta in the Colombian Amazon, where people are highly dependent on the forest. At the other extreme is the very deforested Zomba Plateau in Malawi where the lack of access to communal forest resources has led many people to start planting trees on their private land. This immediately differentiates those with enough land for tree-planting form those who have no land or not enough to devote any to trees – the latter bear the greatest cost as communal resources are depleted. We are currently locating a third site in Latin America which will represent a scenario of approximately 50% deforestation.Rural Poverty (national poverty line): 50% in Colombia, 2010; 54% in Malawi, 2004.Child malnutrition (height for age): 13 % in Colombia and 48% in Malawi, 2010.Income share for top 10%: 44% in Colombia, 2010 and 33% in Malawi, 2004.TRENDS IN TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL IN COLOMBIA:In recent years, rainy seasons have been occurring earlier for central Colombia than 25 years ago. For the period of 1961-1990, annual precipitation has varied significantly, between -4 and +6 percent. For the period of 1995–2005 a relative precipitation increase of 5 percent from December to February is noted.Positive tendency for intense rainfall events and consecutive dry days.Between 1990 and 2000, an 82 percent reduction in glaciers has been observed, showing a linear withdrawal of the ice of 10-15 m, yearly. Under current climate trends, glaciers located in Colombia will disappear completely within the next 100 years.Increasing trends of daily mean and minimum temperature are noted for the past 30–40 years. Temperature has increased on the order of 1°C in the last 20 years.TRENDS IN TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL IN MALAWI:As year-to-year variability in rainfall is very high in Malawi, long-term trends are difficult to identify. In 2006, wet-season (December-February) rainfall over Malawi was markedly low, possibly causing a decreasing trend in December-February rainfall; however, evidence does not reveal consistent decreases.Mean annual temperature has increased by 0.9°C between 1960 and 2006, an average rate of 0.21°C per decade.The average number of ‘hot’ days per year in Malawi has increased by 30.5 between 1960 and 2003.The average number of ‘hot’ nights per year increased by 41 nights (an additional 11.1% of nights) between 1960 and 2003.The frequency of cold days and nights has decreased significantly since 1960 in all seasons except September-November
  • To do this we will be using participatory research methods, working in about 6-8 villages at each of our study sites.
  • This is preliminary data organised chiefly around residents’ perceptions and analysis of socioeconomic, environmental, and policy issues. They remain to be validated properly.The slide goes as follows:FIRST SECTION (ES – LIVELIHOODS – F. SECURITY):Pictures refer to Farming System diagram, Well-being and Livelihoods discussion, and Ranking of benefits from Ecosystem Services.The information obtained in Minama indicated that the (very) poor are the most dependent on various ES (the better-off have access to cash and hence can buy unavailable resources). Local informants estimated that around 70% of households were poor or very poor.Key features: poorer farmers have only rain-fed farmland (the better-off have access to irrigated farmland so rains are determinant to the poorest farmers); they collect mushrooms, wild-spinaches and relishes from the local forest and wetland as part of their regular diet (but these are less available during dry season); they cook with firewood but also sell it during the dry season (very little profit though, because of the volume traded and time/labour investments); drinking water comes predominantly from subterranean sources (boreholes) but some areas away from the village “centre” rely directly on the river for drinking water.SECOND SECTION (DRIVERS and PRESSURES):Pictures refer to Trend analysis on land use and Cause-Effect diagram on ES (although it was mixed with food security).The key points are that residents recognised both environmental and socioeconomic drivers. Poverty, population pressures, and environmental issues were associated with over-exploitation of land and, thus, loss of soil fertility; a constant reduction in land availability (e.g., it was reported that no communal land was available); limited access to farm inputs; lack of resources to rear significant livestock (few patches of forest to access fodder, they’d need cash), which was in turn related to limited access to manure. For the local poor, in addition, it is difficult to accumulate assets since they are continuously selling and trading them to access cash (and hence food). Finally, because of migration and conflicts due to economic problems and food scarcity, it was reported there was a problem of instability in local families (e.g., divorces). Family issues are worsened by constant temporal or permanent migration of household members.To see historical climatic trends in Malawi (according to the World Bank, temperature has increased around 1C since 1960s as well as the number of “hot” days whilst rainfall shows no clear trend / pattern), this may explain some of residents’ perceptions:http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportalb/home.cfm?page=country_profile&CCode=MWI&ThisTab=ClimateBaselineTHIRD SECTION (IMPACTS): Pictures refer to Seasonal calendar and cause-effect diagram on food security: Poverty and hunger-stricken families tend to sell their assets or fall into debt, particularly when they face health emergencies or severe periods of hunger; children suffer malnutrition and there were reports of recurrent illnesses (stomach problems alongside seasonal malaria). The fact that some women resort to prostitution as a coping strategy was related to the spread of illnesses and HIV. Thefts and conflicts (in the community and within families) were reported to result from this scenario (particularly during the dry season), which is also associated with an over-exploitation of local natural resources. It must be noted that forest, wetlands, and rivers are affected as well during the dry season so their capacity to cover most of families’ food needs is very limited.FOURTH SECTION (RESPONSES): This section reports a set of current responses identified during fieldwork. We hope they might be better (or more effectively implemented) once an integrated understanding of the socioeconomic and environmental dynamics (ie, our study) is presented to the authorities in charge. A. Residents reported accessing subsidised fertilisers and seeds from governmental programmes (e.g., seeds are obtained from the Agriculture Development and Marketing Corporation –ADMARC; Agora, a private company, distributes subsidised fertilisers in the area). The (very) poor have no capacity to stock produce for next agricultural campaign since they mostly eat them so these forms of support are key. The impact, however, is limited due to both soecioeconomic and environmental constraints. The Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP) is administered through coupons that allow eligible households to purchase fertilisers, hybrid seeds, and pesticides at reduced prices (beneficiary selection and management of the programme is supposed to be done at the community level, but we have not explored this yet). For a brief depiction of the process: http://www.moafsmw.org/ocean/docs/Research/masspn5-ImpactOfFISP.pdfMALAWI STRATEGY SUPPORT PROGRAM (2011) - The impacts of agricultural input subsidies in Malawi. Policy Note 5. B. The community timeline mentioned an EU project which introduced fruit trees in 2005 (only bananas are mature enough to yield so far). From direct observation, there was a lot of integration of trees on to farms –very typical trend when off-farm tree resources become scarce and the resource essentially becomes ‘privatised’ – brings lots of advantages to some people but you lose the ecosystem services of the whole forest. The poorest, with small land areas, are at a disadvantage when it comes to planting trees.During the trend analysis on land use, it was reported that maize became the main staple about 20-30 years ago and the variety of foods consumed from then onwards have decreased. The national policies established by the government in the 1970s may have influenced this process but this is yet to be confirmed (this may refer particularly with the creation of ADMARC in 1972, which was the main buyer of maize at set prices and main distributor of fertilisers / seeds). For a brief history of Malawi’s agriculture policies: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADS611.pdfChirwa, E. et al. (2008). Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Malawi: Past Performance and Recent Trends. ReSAKSS Working Paper No.8In terms of irrigation, it was found that there was a partially built dam upstream. Funding and form of management is yet to be confirmed by local teamsC. The forest natural reserve around local villages does not impede neighbouring villages to access some forest resources. Firewood and wild-foods are regularly collected from those reserves (Only dry wood is allowed to be collected for domestic use). It is clear, however, that this arrangement does not satisfy local needs. As observed, encroachment is an issue in Zomba.Overall, the policy-interface is a critical element in Malawi, where FOOD POLITICS is a contentious part of government operations and political leaders’ strategies. For a quick note on this:http://www.malawivoice.com/2012/11/25/jb-defends-her-mobile-admarc-again-im-traveling-to-meet-people-who-voted-for-me-i-will-distribute-50000-bags-by-nextweek-83474/
  • Our work so far suggests that the provisional ES relied upon by the local peoples can be grouped into two bundles:Water-related services – i.e. erosion control, water quality and quantity regulationForest-related services – i.e. timber, poles, thatch & other non-timber forest products.Many models currently exist that mechanistically estimate these processes.However, we are not aware of a model in which all three aspects are fully coupled and so we hope to do this. We aim to train and test the models at village level, and hope that, through knowledge of key processes and national level data, we will be able to scale-up to a level of interest for policy makers.
  • Once we have successful modelled the provisional ES, we will integrate these models into ARIES.ARIES is a modelling system that can amalgamate numerous models and data sources in an intelligent way. Using Bayesian statistics, ARIES is able to explore the likely impacts of possible scenarios, and so hopefully will provide useful outputs for policy makers.ARIES does not only model ES provision but also the flow of the services to the beneficiaries, as a result we are able to identify areas of critical flow.
  • Consider this image,It is likely that the road is an area of critical flow – bringing natural resources from afar.The local resources can be mapped using participatory GIS. In this process, the villagers themselves can identify the locations of the ecosystem services they use (e.g. rivers and forests). They can also identify the beneficiaries and their locations (i.e. villages).And they may be able to indicate the flows of the resources to the beneficiaries. If flows occupy a small geographical space then this area can be regarded as critical.For example, if all these villages primarily relied on the central forest for timber, then the area surrounding it is vital and access to this area of great concern to the local villagersCritical areas of ES flow should be given the highest importance in future planning.
  • We propose to use a bow-tie framework to assess the risk various scenarios and policy decisions may have on food security.Numerous policy makers and business leaders are familiar with evaluating risk in this manner and the framework applies well to ESConsidering firewood provision, in the present situation the ES functions well.However, there may be conceivable threats of shocks to the system which result in a tipping point and a negative consequence.Through this framework we can assess the effectiveness of two types of controls to prevent this:Preventative policies, such as laws restricting firewood collectionLast stand policies to prevent loss of food security when the hazard does occur.
  • The project is working in collaboration with key governmental institutions, such as the Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry for Local Government and Rural Development in Malawi.The project has set up National Steering Committees in Colombia and Malawi with high-profile scientific researchers.We aim to provide key bits of information that are of use to policy makers.For example, mapping ES – we will ensure the maps we produce are of a scale relevant to policy makers and have indications of uncertaintyWe aim to provide indications on potential future changes as a result of population increase, policy changes and/or climate change. Ultimately we want trade-off decisions that are transparent and fair/equitable.

‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems through Trade-off Scenarios (ESPA ASSETS project)’, Presentation by Dr Kate Schreckenberg, University of Southampton. Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013. #MDRWeek. ‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystems through Trade-off Scenarios (ESPA ASSETS project)’, Presentation by Dr Kate Schreckenberg, University of Southampton. Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013. #MDRWeek. Presentation Transcript

  • World Water Day: Water Cooperation Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013 ‘Attaining Sustainable Services from Ecosystemsthrough Trade-off Scenarios (ESPA ASSETS project)’, by Dr Kate Schreckenberg, University of Southampton
  • Photo by Erwin Palacios (CI Colombia) © The Economist 2
  • To quantify the linkages between ecosystem services that affect– and are affected by – food security and nutritional health forthe rural poor at the forest-agricultural interface Photo by Erwin Palacios (CI Colombia)
  • United Kingdom: University of Southampton (PI Poppy) University of Dundee (Dawson)United States of America: Conservation International (Co-PI Honzak)Spain: Basque Centre for Climate Change (Co-PI Villa)Colombia: International Centre for Tropical Agriculture – CIAT (Co-PI Jarvis) Research centres, universities and NGOsMalawi: Chancellor College (Co-PI Chiotha) LEAD Southern and Eastern Africa plus Ministry of Forestry, Forest Research Institute of Malawi WorldFish Centre - Malawi Rhodes University South Africa
  • Lower Caquetá, Colombia Third site, Latin America High forest cover Low deforestation Zomba Plateau, Malawi High forest cover High deforestation Low forest cover Low deforestation Natural land use transition Forest replenishment period
  • The framework integrates the modelling tools and the DP-SIR approach to evaluatedrivers, pressures and impact on ES over multiple spatial and temporal scales. Long-Term Medium-Term Short-Term Drivers / Pressures State Impacts Food Security and Health Ecosystem Services Crises and Tipping Points Themes 1 and 2 Themes 1 and 2 Theme 2 ES modelling Environmental Impacts FeedMe ARIES Food Security Ecosystem service flows to beneficiaries Socioeconomic Health Impact surveys and PRA Economic Economic Impacts modelling Policies relating to e.g. economics, sector-specific, Setting of targets BowTie: risk management / environmental / priorities mitigation Theme 3 Theme 3 Response Local Regional National
  • Theme 1Drivers, pressures and linkages between food security,nutritional health and ecosystem services• Direct and indirect contributions of ecosystem services• Key drivers and pressures Photo by Malcolm Hudson (U. of Southampton)
  •  Household surveys and food diaries. Three or more waves of measurements per site. Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing. Poverty Food Security ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
  • Theme 2Crises and tipping points: Past, present and futureinteractions between food insecurity and ES at the forest-agricultural interface. http://blogs.reuters.com/p aerial-view-of-sumatra- blog/2010/08/12/an- hotographers-• Coping strategies• Future scenarios Photo by Simon Willcock (U. of Southampton)
  • • 3 key interactions: Water, Forest & People WATER PEOPLE FOREST
  •  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.
  • Theme 3The science-policy interface: How can we manage ES to reducefood insecurity and increase nutritional health?•Minimising risk offutureenvironmentalchange•Influencing policyto better manage ESconflicts, trade-offsand synergies tosustain food securityand health? Photo by Simon Willcock (U. of Southampton)
  • Hazard – Not enough FirewoodEcosystem – Natural Forest Threat – Over collection Control – Rules preventing over-harvesting Good/Service – Firewood Consequence – Increased Food Security Consequence – Decreased Control – Aid/Charcoal provision Food Security
  • Map different factors affecting ES Better Identify the factors with highest negative impact on ES (and which resource are more relevant for food security and nutritional health)management 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 Food Report on current and future impact of land use change onsecurity and sustainable provision of ES and food security nutritional health Provide input for policies that can counterbalance the most urgent needs of the population exerting pressure on ES
  • This presentation was produced by ASSETS (NE-J002267-1), funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation Programme (ESPA).The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and theNatural Environment Research Council (NERC), as part of the UK’s Living with Environmental Change Programme (LWEC). The views expressed here arethose of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funders, the ESPA Programme, the ESPA Directorate, or LWEC. 18
  • World Water Day: Water Cooperation Multidisciplinary Research Week 2013See the latest videos, interviews, pictures, tweets and viewsfrom the floor at:Website: www.southampton.ac.uk/multidisciplinaryBlog: http://blog.soton.ac.uk/multidisciplinary/tag/mdrweek/Youtube: Search #MDRWeek Follow us on Twitter @Multisoton #MDRWeek