CRP6 Seminar Bogor – taking stock in CRP6.3 & 6.5 ; 13 March 2013 Tree cover transitions and investment in multi- colored ...
Geological history, pat-       Global climate systemsterns & current activity       based on oceans, land                 ...
Planning, Incentives    Geology    Institutions People                                                   Tenure Land forms...
Which trees are part of “forest”, which onespart of the “agroforest”, or “agriculture”?
Tree cover transitions as uni-                                     fying concept for livelihoods,                         ...
SLO1                                                                   Rural income growth &                              ...
Tree cover transitions: so what?                    SLO1 Rural poverty                    SLO2 Food production            ...
Fruits ashealthy part of  diets
Essentially there are only two possibleconditions for any specific field of science:               At least some of the ev...
Identify and implement a rational                 pathway to achieve change that is                 deemed desirable by fu...
Three sessions reflect focal areas within    the landscape theme (CRP6.3):• 10.15-11.15     I. Tree cover transition data ...
The logarithm of human population density is agood predictor of the fraction of land area reported      as forest (across ...
For 29 Developing Countries reporting increases in fo-restarea (“beyond forest transition point”), the pattern matches    ...
A key assumption in the CGIAR is the Borlaug hypothesis that            ag yield increase will save forests…  There’s a li...
Forest transition points are less likelywhere the firewood footprint stillexceeds 0.15 ha p.p.
1. Tree cover in landscapes changes in quality, quantity and pattern in non-linear fashion;   depending on the operational...
Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying concept 1 Choice           across CRP6       of Y-axis                      ...
Stakeholder:1. Undisturbed natural forest                       Rainforest foundation2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural...
6. Drivers of tree cover transition are space/time dependent and knowledge on pastdrivers in a certain landscape cannot be...
A view from the modern   LU planners kitchen:From the “silo- approach”to (intensive) agriculture, production forestry and ...
Regulate and/or reward people * influence * concern                                                                      ...
10. Feedback mechanisms from beneficiaries of(certain types of) tree cover to the drivers/agentscan take multiple forms (r...
New tech-                       F. Support for technological innovation          G  nology                     A1. Land us...
http://www.espconference.org/ESP_Conference
New green economy, integrated rural-      urban development coalitions… GDP, national econo-  Economic development plannin...
Three sessions reflect focal areas within    the landscape theme (CRP6.3):• 10.15-11.15     I. Tree cover transition data ...
Seminar 13 Mar 13 - Opening Session - Tree cover transitions and landscape functions by MVannoordwijk
Seminar 13 Mar 13 - Opening Session - Tree cover transitions and landscape functions by MVannoordwijk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Seminar 13 Mar 13 - Opening Session - Tree cover transitions and landscape functions by MVannoordwijk

391 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Seminar 13 Mar 13 - Opening Session - Tree cover transitions and landscape functions by MVannoordwijk

  1. 1. CRP6 Seminar Bogor – taking stock in CRP6.3 & 6.5 ; 13 March 2013 Tree cover transitions and investment in multi- colored economy: hypotheses grounded in dataTree cover transitions and land-scape functions: does it matter? Meine van Noordwijk ICRAF
  2. 2. Geological history, pat- Global climate systemsterns & current activity based on oceans, land & atmosphere Flora and fauna and its biogeographyLand forms,vegetation,ecosystems,hydrology Initial human Late-stage hu- land use man land useLand use is predictable from Land use dominates over‘reading the landscape’ original terrain features
  3. 3. Planning, Incentives Geology Institutions People Tenure Land forms Climate Landscape Space multifunctionality VegetationFlora&fauna Hydrology Land Use Functions, Systems services Value chains Landscape -
  4. 4. Which trees are part of “forest”, which onespart of the “agroforest”, or “agriculture”?
  5. 5. Tree cover transitions as uni- fying concept for livelihoods, landscape and governance aspectsOld-growth http://www.cifor.org/es/crp6/research-portfolio.html
  6. 6. SLO1 Rural income growth & Millennium Development Goals empowerment at bottom of the gendered pyramidSustainable Development Goals (Agro-)Ecosystem goods & services Maintain & accelerate progress Partnership Food supply growth > in responsive SLO2 growth in demand; food and adaptive price affordable at bottom research of gendered pyramid for/on/in development efforts, Nutritional aspects of strengthening SLO3 health improve at bottom capacity of gendered pyramid Landscape interactions: Reverse negative trend UNFCCC CBD UNCCD Rio conventions SLO4 Low emission Aichi targets: Zero net development; areas, aware- land degra- Reduce ness, species, dation vulnerability governance, through incentives adaptation
  7. 7. Tree cover transitions: so what? SLO1 Rural poverty SLO2 Food production SLO3 Health & Nutrition Direct vs Profitability Indirect Sustainability SLO4 Natural Resource ManagementTrees as Trees as Trees as Trees as• Assets • (emergency) food • Source of fruit, •Markers of land• Affordable bio- • Staple (sago…) nutritional diver- tenure claims energy source • Source of soil sity  health • Water recycling• Income earners fertility for crops • Affordable bio- • Nutrient recy- through products • Erosion control energy source cling• Markers of land • Buffering climate • Medicinals • Carbon storage tenure claims & soil temperature • Clean water • Climate buffer
  8. 8. Fruits ashealthy part of diets
  9. 9. Essentially there are only two possibleconditions for any specific field of science: At least some of the evidence is conflicting with the most compre- hensive of current theories Current theory is aligned with all credible known facts
  10. 10. Identify and implement a rational pathway to achieve change that is deemed desirable by funders andTheory of Change acceptable by gatekeepers Question common Answers Answer open Questions Change of Theory New Our daily Theory of struggle Change called science
  11. 11. Three sessions reflect focal areas within the landscape theme (CRP6.3):• 10.15-11.15 I. Tree cover transition data and research choices in sentinel landscapes Facilitator: Peter Minang• 11.15-12.15 II. Ecosystem service consequences of tree cover transitions Facilitator: Terry Sunderland• 13.15-14.15 III. Learning landscapes: finding solutions that reduce tradeoffs locally Facilitator: Ujjwal Pradhan
  12. 12. The logarithm of human population density is agood predictor of the fraction of land area reported as forest (across different forest types) We can identify countries that have more than 10% extra, or more than 10% forest deficit relative to what is expected for their population density
  13. 13. For 29 Developing Countries reporting increases in fo-restarea (“beyond forest transition point”), the pattern matches that of 83 other Developing Countries However, FT patterns are less likely in countries that have more than 10% forest deficit
  14. 14. A key assumption in the CGIAR is the Borlaug hypothesis that ag yield increase will save forests… There’s a little bit of evidence suporting it, but not a lot…
  15. 15. Forest transition points are less likelywhere the firewood footprint stillexceeds 0.15 ha p.p.
  16. 16. 1. Tree cover in landscapes changes in quality, quantity and pattern in non-linear fashion; depending on the operational forest definition used, tree cover transitions at certain scales show a ‘forest transition’ graph of decline followed by recovery (basic forest transition hypothesis)2. Tree cover transitions in time can be understood as the resultant of time-variant processes, with increases in human population density (or rather the logarithm of it) linked to decrease of natural forest cover, and increases in HDI (or other economic indicators) linked to increases in tree cover (population density and welfare hypothesis)3. The spatial pattern in quality and quantity of tree cover from urban areas with (surrounding) trees to areas with few trees and open-field agriculture towards remaining natural forest show more than coincidental resemblance with the temporal dynamics of hypotheses 2, as both patterns reflects benefits derived from tree cover relative to other land cover types (spatial forest transition hypothesis).4. Institutional change from a ‘forest’ to an ‘agrarian’ regime of tenure and control is essential for the transition from decline towards increase of tree cover to occur (agroforestation or tenurial reform hypothesis)5. What happens in one part of the tree cover transition is linked at driver and/or actor level to other parts of the landscape as A) profitability of tree planting depends on access to tree and forest products elsewhere, B) migrational flows modify human population density in sink and source areas, etc.), C) landscape-wide rules instigated to address specific issues in parts of the curve (e.g. ‘illegal logging’ control) affect actors elsewhere (landscape linkage hypothesis; the ‘sparing’ hypothesis that agricultural intensification saves forests is a special form of it)
  17. 17. Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying concept 1 Choice across CRP6 of Y-axis 6Core 2 3 4 5 Temporal Spatial Institutional X-linkage ofpattern, X- pattern, challenge at actions in axis X-axis turning point landscape
  18. 18. Stakeholder:1. Undisturbed natural forest Rainforest foundation2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest Conservation agency3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest4A. as 3 + agroforest Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations Ministry of Forestry4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops UNFCCC definition4D as 4C + shrub Modis data
  19. 19. 6. Drivers of tree cover transition are space/time dependent and knowledge on pastdrivers in a certain landscape cannot be directly extrapolated towards the future; yetthere may be predictability in the succession of drivers (driver change hypothesis)7. Land use types that are part of the tree cover transitiondiffer in effectiveness of ‘provisioning’ and ‘environment-al’ goods and services, labour absorption and profitability(tradeoff hypothesis, ASB Matrix)8. Tree cover of all types and in all stages is positivelyassociated with buffer functions in an ecological, socialand economic sense, with the spatial pattern and degreeof integration linked to human resilience and adaptivecapacity in the face of climate and market variability(integration, buffer and resiliency hypothesis)9. Appreciation of tree cover and its associated ecosystem services varies with gender,wealth, cultural backgrounds, ecological knowledge and exposure to extreme events,leading to diversity of opinion and preferences for status quo and possible changes intree cover (‘diversity of stakes’ hypothesis; includes gender specificity)
  20. 20. A view from the modern LU planners kitchen:From the “silo- approach”to (intensive) agriculture, production forestry and conservation areas set- aside, we can cook a landscape that is morepalatable than any of the ingredients, by addinglocal preferences, using a variety of tools
  21. 21. Regulate and/or reward people * influence * concern Who will monitor Who’ll have to pay? compliance? Litigation Political prominence What will it cost? Implement & monitor What can be done to stop, mitigate, undo or adapt? Evaluate, re- assess How much and where? Who’s to blame? Is it a Cause-effect problem? mechanisms Scoping Stakeholder Negotiation Implemen- Re-eva- analysis response tation luation Stage of the issue cycle Tomich et al. 2004
  22. 22. 10. Feedback mechanisms from beneficiaries of(certain types of) tree cover to the drivers/agentscan take multiple forms (rules, incentives, suasion,investment in value chains and technology) andneeds to be evaluated in the interaction betweeninstruments rather than as specifically targetedapproaches (‘no silver bullet’ hypothesis)11. Dynamics of tree cover changes can be influenced by multistakeholder negotiation supportprocesses, that recognize multiple knowledge, perceptions, stakes, power and influence(Negotiation support hypothesis; includes gender specificity)12. Public discourse on aspects of tree covertransition and the relevance of interventions followsa policy issue cycle, with different opportunities forknowledge-based analysis to support and influencethe emergence of transparent, effective, efficientand fair solutions, linking platforms of political willto actionable knowledge (impact pathwayhypothesis)
  23. 23. New tech- F. Support for technological innovation G nology A1. Land use policies, spatial development planning, roads A2. LU rights (e.g. community forest mngmnt) Livelihoods, provisioning & profitability G G Land Conse- G Response/ Actors/G Drivers use/cover quences & feedback agents changes functions options Biodiversity, Watershed G G functions, GHG emissions, Institutions, C. Suasion and institutional support Landscape beauty identity, pride B2. PES and conditional ES incentives B1. Incentive structure through policy change (tax, subsidy etc) G = Potential gender specificity of analysis & targeting of interventions Modified from: Van Noordwijk, M., B. Lusiana, G. Villamor, H. Purnomo, and S. Dewi. 2011. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with driving forces and actors. Ecology and Society 16(1): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
  24. 24. http://www.espconference.org/ESP_Conference
  25. 25. New green economy, integrated rural- urban development coalitions… GDP, national econo- Economic development planning mic growth or declineMar- Food, fibre, income  Harvestable products Commodity- Sustainable development metricsket access, product- ser-tax,subs. Provisioning services vice valueHuman Management chains, x-popula- & behavioural Land use practices border tradetion & Δ choices of in a landscape WaterflowsLand use land users AgTech context (quality,quantity,zoning, Regulating, supporting regularity)use and & cultural services Macro-&me-property so climaterights Human & environmental health&well-being Biodiversity Environmental & wellfare targeted planning Natural ca- Happiness pital ac- monitoring counting
  26. 26. Three sessions reflect focal areas within the landscape theme (CRP6.3):• 10.15-11.15 I. Tree cover transition data and research choices in sentinel landscapes Facilitator: Peter Minang• 11.15-12.15 II. Ecosystem service consequences of tree cover transitions Facilitator: Terry Sunderland• 13.15-14.15 III. Learning landscapes: finding solutions that reduce tradeoffs locally Facilitator: Ujjwal Pradhan

×