Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Agrarian change in tropical forests: A change for the better?

358 views

Published on

A presentation by Terry Sunderland and team on 3 December 2016 at the second annual meeting of the FLARE (Forests and Livelihoods: Assessment, Research, and Engagement) network, Edinburgh.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Agrarian change in tropical forests: A change for the better?

  1. 1. Agrarian change in tropical forests: A change for the better? Terry Sunderland & team FLARE, Edinburgh 3rd December 2016
  2. 2.  Agricultural expansion remains major driver of deforestation  Transformation of natural systems has resulted in significant environmental degradation  Global food system is in crisis (Global Nutrition Report 2016)  Belief that biodiversity conservation and agriculture cannot co-exist  Ca.60% of world’s food originates from diverse small-holder farming systems in complex landscapes  Agro-ecological approaches being advocated (e.g. IPBES 2016)  Need strong evidence-based for implementation Context
  3. 3. Agrarian Change Project: Research goals  An integrated landscape approach to explore the livelihood and dietary implications of land-use change and agrarian change processes in six multi-functional landscapes.  Provide insights into how globally conceived land-use strategies (e.g. land sharing/land sparing trajectories) manifest locally and how they are embedded into local histories, culture, and political and market dynamics.
  4. 4. Natural vegetation ‘Secondary’ vegetation Agricultural land Agrarian change in tropical landscapes Agricultural modification Treecover Photo credits: CIFOR
  5. 5. Land sharing Photo credits: CIFOR Agrarian change in tropical landscapes Treecover Natural vegetation ‘Secondary’ vegetation Agricultural land Land sparing
  6. 6. Study Sites
  7. 7. FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover Experimental Design A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone 1 2 3
  8. 8. Photo credits: CIFOR Experimental Design FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest products A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone 1 2 3
  9. 9. Photo credits: CIFOR Experimental Design FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover E.g. Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest resources E.g. Rubber agroforestry system Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest products Extensive coffee agroforesty A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone 1 2 3
  10. 10. A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone Experimental Design FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover E.g. Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest resources E.g. Rubber agroforestry system E.g. Oil palm monoculture Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest products Extensive coffee agroforesty Intensive oil palm monoculture 1 2 3
  11. 11. Field Methods In each zone the following methods are used: Household Surveys Focus Group Discussions Key Informant Interviews Farm Productivity Surveys Biodiversity Surveys Yield measurements Farm inputs (e.g. fertilizer, labour) Production targets Resource flow mapping Wealth ranking Food / cash calendars Nutrition assessments Ecosystem service mapping Community perceptions Tree plots Bird point counts Invertebrate trapping METHODS BiodiversityRelative poverty Nutrition Food securityEcosystem services Livelihoods Agricultural production RESPONSES
  12. 12. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
  13. 13. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
  14. 14. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
  15. 15. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
  16. 16. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession Photo credits: Dominic Rowland
  17. 17. Photo credits: CIFOR Initial results…..
  18. 18. Predicted Dietary Changes Two hypotheses: Alternative Hypothesis : • Loss of forest access and traditional agriculture is adequately compensated for by increased household income and better access to markets • Same or increased dietary diversity • Increased consumption of expensive foods such as meat and dairy Forest loss hypothesis: • Loss of forest access and traditional agriculture results in poorer diets • Dietary diversity decreases • Consumption of fruits, vegetables and animal source foods decreases • Increased consumption unhealthy sugars, fats and processed foods Increased agrarian change Increased agrarian change Dietary Diversity Fats, sugars, processed foods, ASF Fruits and vegetables
  19. 19. Actual changes in diets Two different patterns: Sustained Decrease: • Decrease in HDDS across zones 1-3 as agrarian modification increases: e.g. Indonesia Bangladesh and Ethiopia • Driven by reduced frequency of consumption of most food groups • Suggests income from cash crops and market access does not fully compensate for loss of traditional agriculture and forest access Sustained Increase: • Increase in HDDS across zones 1-3 as agrarian modification increases: e.g. Cameroon, Burkina Faso & Zambia* • Driven by increased frequency of consumption of most food groups • Suggests income from cash crops and market access compensates for loss of traditional agriculture and forest access Increased agrarian change Increased agrarian change * Burkina Faso almost follows this pattern with some differences including Dietary Diversity Fats, sugars, processed foods, ASF Fruits and vegetables
  20. 20. Implications for diets • Forest loss and agrarian modification precipitates a rapid nutrition transition • Classic nutrition transitions often follow an ‘expansion phase’ followed by a ’substitution phase’ • Expansion phase = more food (seen in communities where hunger and food insecurity was previously a problem) • Substitution phase = transition to energy rich foods (oils, fats, sugars, processed carbohydrates, ASF) • In Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Zambia, there is increased consumption of all food groups: Suggests that increased income and market access leads to an expansion phase • In Indonesia, Bangladesh and Ethiopia, diets are poorer because of reduced overall consumption of most food groups: Suggests the opposite of an expansion phase, with loss of forest foods but not being replaced by market sources • Agrarian change does not have to lead to poorer diets, but can certainly do so unless attention is paid to dietary consequences
  21. 21. “Areas of swidden/agroforestry, natural forest, timber and agricultural tree crop plantations were all associated with more frequent consumption of food groups rich in micronutrients. The swidden/agroforestry land class was the landscape associated with more frequent consumption of the largest number of micronutrient rich food groups. Swidden cultivation in is often viewed as a backward practice that is an impediment to food security in Indonesia and destructive of the environment. If further research corroborates that swidden farming actually results in better nutrition than the practices that replace it, Indonesian policy makers may need to reconsider their views on this land use”. Ickowitz et al., 2016
  22. 22. Country-level results: summary impacts on poverty and livelihoods  Indonesia: Major dietary transition towards processed foods which has major impact on nutrition and health status  Bangladesh: Agroforestry seen as an important livelihoods strategy but only for those with secure tenure  Ethiopia: Loss of forest has actually led to increased poverty due to loss of common grazing land and access to fuelwood  Cameroon: Annexation of land for oil palm concessions has resulted in land displacement and encroachment into protected areas. Threatens future regional food security.  Zambia: Heavy policy emphasis on agriculture for food security at expense of forests. Loss of safety-net function  Burkina Faso: Recurring droughts are increasingly common and income from forest products (timber, fuelwood and NTFPs) are important safety-net to purchase food during dry periods. Continued forest loss will further jeopardise future adaptation strategies
  23. 23. Conclusions  Across study regions, loss of forest to agriculture does not necessarily result in direct livelihoods benefits  Diets inevitably transition with access to income and markets, but not necessarily for the better  Landscape mosaics are better at achieving multiple benefits, including ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation, so landscape configuration is important  Land sparing/sharing paradigm does not necessarily play out in reality as it implies some level of “grand design”  Contribution of forest products has been dramatically underestimated for both diets and income
  24. 24. www.landscapes.org www.cifor.org @TCHSunderland

×