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
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
What is Deforestation?e.g. C Cameroon• Varied deforestation reported by various sources- sometimes significant• Depending on what definition of forest is adopted?
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?????
How true is Borlaug? -GlobalH i B l ? Gl b l Rudel et al., 2010
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.,
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
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).
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)
Change in cereal production due to change in areaand yield Sub- Saharan Africa Asia
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Therefore•Intensification of agriculture i a necessary i l is but not sufficient condition for forest protection(ASB-Indonesia, 1995; ASB- Brazil, 2001)
Sparing vs SharingSegregate vs I tS t Integrate t• Sparing/segregate • Sharing/integrate intensification multifunctionality m ltif nctionalit hypothesis hypothesis