Noordwijk bonn sparing vs


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Noordwijk bonn sparing vs

  1. 1. Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of  deforestation and forest degradation 8 June 2011 Bonn June 2011, Bonn Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing”  hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and  meso level evidence from multifunctional land  use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA  use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA landscapes ‐ Meine van Noordwijk
  2. 2. Sparing versus Sparing versus Sharing• Agricultural Agricultural  • Multifunctiona Multifunctiona‐ intensification lity & associated  lity & associatedInput‐ or output‐ incentive systems p p based definition Trade‐offs between • Forest specific functionsMany definitions  & concepts
  3. 3. > >The holistic forest+tree view of the world The foresters view of the world The foresters’ view of the worldSource: Global 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)
  4. 4. BATANG TORU• Multifunctional landscape: forest‐ agroforest‐ agriculture gradient f i l di
  5. 5. Stakeholder:1. Undisturbed natural forest   Rainforest foundation2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest  Conservation agency3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 3 Cl d di b d l df4A. as 3 + agroforest     Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations  4B as 3 + timber plantations Ministry of Forestry4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops  UNFCCC definition4D as 4C + shrub  Modis data
  6. 6. Land use change in the tropics Planting trees to accelerate restoration phaseForest Degradation Restoration
  7. 7. Dewi et al. in prep.
  8. 8. cation of biota Centrifugal forces 0 0 0 f towards ‘pure’ pure conservation, Protected intensive animal, , ation & domestic area annual & tree-crop 33 Multifunctionality Game NTFP-zone production 33 33 attractor? ranches Se ect e Selective d logging ‘Forest’ world ‘Forest’ ‘Forest’ Timber- pulled towards 2 enrichedLand use intensifica forest f t opposites 67 Agroforest 67 67 Off-farm Fastwood Cut&carry C t& plantation l t ti Feed-based bioindustry On-farm Leys Open field 0 1 1 10 10 Cut&carry 10 crops 0 0 100 67 33 0
  9. 9. Agricultural intensification hypothesisRemote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed     Remote forest edge communities & PlanetASB fi are closed earth di ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB h th i i 1992 ASB findings in 1994 i 1994 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 be  This is true in  true in  ‘open’  open ‘closed’  ‘ l d’ economies economies
  10. 10. Sustainable logginghas proved to be afiction i Indonesiafi ti in I d i Intensiveplantations asalternativealternati e
  11. 11. Sharing – argument 1: there isn’t enough  space without multifunctionality
  12. 12. Sharing – argument 2: Many tradeoff functions are convex: multifunctionality  Convex tradeoff:  multifunctionality  multifunctionalityFun on 2 nctio 2 saves land saves land Concave tradeoff:  Concave tradeoff: specialization  p Function 1 i saves land
  13. 13. ASB-data: Minang et al., g , 2011hysteresis
  14. 14. Synergies be‐tween functions Pcrop  Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod Land Crop pro‐ Concave likely duction Tree pro‐ No preference p duction Carbon  storage Watershed servicesBiodiversity Landscape  Landscape beauty
  15. 15. Sharing – argument 3: Multifunctionality requires balanced economic incentivesPlot-levelPlot level Carbon stock Mg/ha stock, Landscape-level Landscape level Carbon stock Tg stock, Unknown territory i 2A 2B 1A Agroforests 1B Intensive tree crops Real world Real-world land use systems Open-field agriculture Net present value based Total economic value, k$ on product flows, $/ha
  16. 16. Sustainable Weighting of Economy‐Ecology Tradeoffs: Organized Reduction  or Stretching Our Use of  or Stretching Our Use of Resources? (SWEETorSOUR?)  This may be  Thi b societal optimum,  but requires SWEET b t i SWEET Production  Production Possibility  Frontier Getting here  may turn  SOUR
  17. 17. ACTORS IN THE LANDSCAPE & LIVELIHOOD ASSETS SWEET: not only  PES buyer &  PES buyer & seller… 2 van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society
  18. 18. ContextC + Mechanism M h i Outcome O t Asia and Africa network of learning sites & ImpactRealistic: Conditional:  •Per capita financial transfers  remain small but with tenurial Assessment of  performance‐based  security yimpacts of Δ Land  contracts •Reduced conflict over resource Use on ΔES access=> more options; less Pro‐poor: Pro poor: poverty Voluntary: process  V l •Co‐investment in steward‐ship, Assessment of multiple dimensions of poverty of negotiations rather than ‘PES’R&D efforts to reduce transaction costs, enhance and balance fairness + efficiency;Mainstreaming into Development Planning
  19. 19. Three paradigms within PES  Paradigm di CES :  COS :  CIS : (van Noordwijk &  commoditization of ES,  compensating or  coinvestement in  Leimona, 2010) e.g. C markets L i 2010) 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‐A Spatial & con Yes (national AFOLU) (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) N (l l l t&t ) No (local: plot&tree) N (l l l t&t )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
  20. 20. Sharing – argument 4: Removal of perverse  policies helps multifunctionality
  21. 21. With  current farm‐gate prices there is no benefit for farmers in growing timber trees on in growing timber trees ontheir land…  but under ‘social’ (national  economy) accounts benefits  are clear l
  22. 22. Sparing + Sharing + CaringSparing + Sharing + Caring• Agricultural Agricultural  • Multifunctiona Multifunctiona‐ intensification lity & associated  lity & associatedInput‐ or output‐ incentive systems p p based definition Trade‐offs between • Forest specific functionsMany definitions  Coinvestment  & concepts & & incentives