Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Minang sbsta bonn_11_sparing-sharing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Minang sbsta bonn_11_sparing-sharing

226

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
226
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SPARING vs SHARING: ADDRESSING AGRICULTURAL DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION REFLECTIONS ON SPARING Peter A Mi P Minang ASB Partnership at ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Side Event UNFCCC SBSTA Side Event, Bonn June 8, 2011
  • 2. Agriculture as driver of REDD • Increased demand for food, fiber and fuel for rising population • = clearing of forested lands • 80% of farm establishments in 1980s & 90s in developing countries came from intact forests • With 3-4x more G G t 3 o e GHG emissions than temperate areas
  • 3. What is Deforestation?e.g. C Cameroon• Varied deforestation reported by various sources- sometimes significant• Depending on what definition of forest is adopted?
  • 4. Can Intensification spare forests forREDD? Borlaug Hypothesis!!!! • Higher Yield = more food on same land area • Therefore sparingg more land for forest conservation • Therefore potentially resolve Agriculture – REDD Rudel et al., 2009 conflict?????
  • 5. How true is Borlaug? -GlobalH i B l ? Gl b l Rudel et al., 2010
  • 6. How true is Borlaug? -Global IIH i B l ? Gl b l• Only between 1980 – 85 (sustained decline in prices & increased yield in 70s) we see evidence of intensification leading to f f reduced yields• Two pathways:• i. Increased Yields + Inelastic demand = lower prices= POSSIBLE DROP IN AREAS• ii Increased yields + elastic demand = ii. INCREASE IN AREAS CULTIVATED• (Rudel et al 2009) al.,
  • 7. Agricultural intensification hypothesis Remote foresti edge communities & fi di earth are ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB h th i 1992 ASB Planet i 1994 ASB findings in 1994closed systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems… More intensive agriculture at forest  margins can save forest at equal total  margins can save forest at equal total agricultural production Or… speed up  forest conversion  to profitable  to profitable agriculture This may This is true be true in in ‘open’ ‘closed’ ‘ l d’ economies economies
  • 8. How true is Borlaug Global III? Borlaug-• Agric production in Developing countries increased by 3.3 - 3.4 / yr in last 20 yrs; But deforestation increased agric area by f only 0.3% / yr (Angelsen, 2010)• BUT Regional specificities worth noting• In Africa, 70% of increased output in food production is derived from expansion of harvested area, while globally, only 22% is due to expansion of harvested areas (Chomitz, 2006).
  • 9. How true is Borlaug -Global IV? Global Lambin and Mefroidt, 2011• Some six countries have succeeded in increasing both Agric g g 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 1 ) f d l d S 17)
  • 10. Change in cereal production due to change in areaand yield Sub- Saharan Africa Asia
  • 11. How true is Borlaug- LOCAL?Some ASB evidence(ASB-Indonesia, 1995; ASB- Brazil, 2002) • In Jambi and Lampung urban investments in tree crops & Migration: = Intensification = Higher returns to land = attract migrants • R l ti profitability (O Relative fit bilit (Opp. Cost) of alternative land uses and labour shortages hampering adoption of more intensive land uses in Acre and Rondonia in Brazil
  • 12. Indonesia-Jambi: Indonesia Jambi: Jostling for profits (ASB-Indonesia Tommich et al., 1995)• Local smallholder farmers migrants loggers farmers, migrants, loggers, large-scale tree crop estates- oil palm, rubber, cocoa, cocoa coffee (including industrial timber plantations) and•GGovernment sponsored resettlement schemes d l h in Central Summatra accelarated deforestation• Years of economic growth also created huge pool of absentee landlords (Urban investors) competing for tree crop estates• The 1997 currency collapse made land y p conversions to tree crops profitable
  • 13. In the 1990’s loss of  natural cover increased  natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C‐ stock’/low economic  value land; tree (crop)  planting was 28% of the  loss of natural forest  l f lf areaAfter 2000 planting of After 2000 planting oftree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C‐stock/low economic stock/low economicvalue land decreases
  • 14. Brazil:(ASB Brazil- Vosti et al., 2002)• Pedro Peixoto-Acre and Theobroma- Rondonia• Built mainly between late 60s and 80s through government sponsored Migration policies• ASB Research since 1994
  • 15. Cattle profitability and labour shortages p y gpreventing adoption of alternatives• Deforestation by settlers primarily for pastures despite strengthening of rules and regional market links, incomes etc• Extensive Livestock prod- f d favored b d by relative profitability and l b d labour constraints
  • 16. Looking ahead through scenarios g g
  • 17. Reflections I: what does intensification mean?• Increasing yield per hectare( possibly with increase costs in labour and capital inputs;• Increasing cropping intensity (i.e. two or more crops) per unit of land or other inputs (e.g. water);• Change land use from low value crops or low-value commodities to high value market priced commodities (Pretty et al 2011) al.
  • 18. Reflections- II R fl i• Borlaug hypothesis • Intensification in areas largely not true in already cleared (non many cases forested)• Intensification not • Trees on farms and areas magic bullet- outside forests = viable Potentially counter pathway for REDD intensification, intensification REDD & reducing poverty• Multiple policy instruments • Increase economic Needed benefits from forest conservation – P i Payments/ / Rewards for ES
  • 19. Therefore•Intensification of agriculture i a necessary i l is but not sufficient condition for forest protection(ASB-Indonesia, 1995; ASB- Brazil, 2001)
  • 20. Sparing vs SharingSegregate vs I tS t Integrate t• Sparing/segregate • Sharing/integrate  intensification multifunctionality m ltif nctionalit hypothesis hypothesis
  • 21. THANK YOUWWW.ASB.CGIAR.ORG

×