Workshop Trade-off Analysis - CGIAR_19 Feb 2013_Keynote Meine van Noordwijk

628 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
628
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • And one of the contributing factor that affects the unclear understanding of the relationships between ecosystem processes and the provisions is due to the heterogeneity of actors particularly in perceiving the ecological landscape. For example, Thus, the challenge is how to integrate this to the understanding … One way is through MAS model or framework to study social-ecological systems. It is a virtual laboratory for testing assumptions and theories of decision making. Thus, this leads to our last two questions …
  • The big challenge is at the interface of productivity growth and the resource base
  • The CGIAR has 4 goal statements as ‘system level outcomes’ that guide research investments across centres and CGIAR research programs
  • Workshop Trade-off Analysis - CGIAR_19 Feb 2013_Keynote Meine van Noordwijk

    1. 1. Analysis of Trade-offs in Agricultural SystemsIdentifying and quantifying trade-offs across temporal and spatial scalesbetween productivity, food security, profitability and ecological services Wageningen, February 2013II. Trade-offs at landscape & watershed level – an introduction Meine van Noordwijk
    2. 2. Planning, Incentives Geology Institutions People Tenure Land forms Climate Landscape Space multifunctionality VegetationFlora&fauna Hydrology Land Use Functions, Systems services Value chains Landscape -
    3. 3. Outline• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action for sustainagility (antifragility sensu Taleb)• Balancing CGIAR SLO 1+2+3 versus SLO 4• Tree cover transitions: role for agricultural intensification?• Buffer concepts quantified• Vegetation – climate beyond macro-climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    4. 4. 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
    5. 5. Theory of Change• Implement a rational pathway to achieve change that is deemed desirable by funders and accep- table by gatekeepers Question common Answers Answer open Questions Change of Theory Our daily struggle called science
    6. 6. Impact Pathway, Monitoring & Evaluation Van Noordwijk et al. (2011)
    7. 7. Sub-system interactions Rules Incentives Motivation Governance & Management Van Noordwijk et al. (2011)
    8. 8. Rules Incentives MotivationGovernance&Management
    9. 9. Regulate and/or rewardΣ 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
    10. 10. Urban Local folks govt Public/Policy Laws Ecological Knowledge Based on ‘categories’ direct Based on ‘processes’ ‘observables’ a) Multi-agent system (MAS) Local Modeler’s simulation Women Ecological Ecological Social models Knowledge scientists Knowledge b) Roles-playingMen Econo- games Lowland/ includes mists upland balance Eco- sheets logistsvan Noordwijk et al. 2001
    11. 11. Agreements with external agents (female) Desa Buat Laman Panjang Lubuk Beringin 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% Burnt area Burnt area Burnt ar 60% 60% 60% Oil palm Oil palm Oil palm 50% 50% 50% 40% Logged forest 40% Logged forest 40% Logged %% % d ndn ee aa d n e a rr r ll l 30% Rubber agroforest 30% 30% Rubber agroforest Rubber 20% 20% Forest 20% Forest Forest 10% 10% 10% Rice land Rice land Rice lan 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year Year Year Number of Stickers Desa Buat Laman Panjang Lubuk Beringin Agents ∑ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 16Green Rubber agents 2 4 5 4 3 2 20 14 12Save Harimaw 9 4 15 0 0 0 28 10Waterboard 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 8Oil palm 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 6Logging 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 m N o n e a g 4 s r t f .Total 70 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    12. 12. E. Options &incentives for D. (Dis)satisfaction G. Rating & ranking* H. Decision making* change* with status quo* I. Implementing* J. Other stakeholders F. Trusted B. Objectives* C. Indicators* inputs evaluation sources ofinformation*XYZ. Uncontrollablevariation & change A. Understanding of SES dynamics*Focus can be: plot, farm, land use system, landscape mosaic, subcatchment, …with associated ‘managers’ and ‘external stakeholders’
    13. 13. Supply/demand  price & investment Underlying Business models, planning mechanisms  Direct Direct benefits Drivers gender value chains  Actors land use Le  Land cover ve change ra Scenario’s, Carrots, sticks, sermonsAdditionality relative to BAU ge  Environmental Displacement/leakage services Co-benefits Benefit distribution
    14. 14. 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- & Land use practices border tradetion & Δ behavioural in a landscape Waterflows AgTechLand use choices of context (quality,quantityzoning, land users 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
    15. 15. Outline• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action for sustainagility (antifragility sensu Taleb)• Balancing CGIAR SLO 1+2+3 versus SLO 4• Tree cover transitions: role for agricultural intensification?• Buffer concepts quantified• Vegetation – climate beyond macro-climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    16. 16. SLO1 Rural income growth & Millennium Development Goals empowerment at bottom of the gendered pyramidSustainable Development Goals (Agro-)Ecosystem goods & services Maintain & accelerate progress Partnership SLO2 Food supply growth > growth in demand; food in responsive and adaptive price affordable at bottom research of gendered pyramid for/on/in development efforts, Nutritional aspects of SLO3 health improve at bottom strengthening capacity of gendered pyramid Landscape interactions: Reverse negative trend UNFCCC CBD UNCCD Rio conventions SLO4 Low emission development; Aichi targets: areas, aware- Zero net land degra- Reduce ness, species, dation vulnerability governance, through incentives adaptation
    17. 17. Tree cover transitions as uni- fying concept for livelihoods, landscape and governance aspectsOld-growth http://www.cifor.org/es/crp6/research-portfolio.html
    18. 18. Which trees are part of “forest”, whichones part of the “agroforest”?
    19. 19. 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
    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. Spatially fine-grained and coarse patterns coexist and have advocates Op n en ta tio fie  re- and afforestation res ld agr ofo Fields,fallow, forest mosaic agr i cul tur eFarm fo- Plantations restry, Fields, agrofo- Forests rests & Parks deforestation f ore st m est o di for fica r al tion atu Integrate N Segregate
    22. 22. Synergies be-tween functions Pcrop Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod Land Crop pro- Concave likely duction Tree pro- No preference duction Co Carbon nv ex storage li k Watershed el y servicesBiodiversity Landscape beauty
    23. 23. Structured landscapes have predictable land use patternsPaddy - (semi)perma- Swidden – rotational Forest edge – source of Corenent rice fields in wet temporary food crops + timber & NTFP’s for local Forestplaces ~ irrigation/ fallow use and tradedrainage systems Expand paddy domain Fallow  Agroforest Market-driven logging Short (semi)domesticated by concessionairs that change fallows as part forest products of intensificationUse of fertilizer, pes- Permanent Intensified Industrial Industrialticides, short-cycle, open-field agroforest, tree crop timbershort-straw, HYV rice + crops Pas- tree crops plantation plantationvegetables/ palawija turePermanently cropped, ‘Transmi- Smallholder Large-scale tree (crop) Protec-technical irrigation gration’ Pas- tree crops / plantations tedagriculture //urbanizing towns ture homegarden area
    24. 24. Extensively used landscapePaddy - (semi)perma- Swidden – rotational Forest edge – source of Corenent rice fields in wet temporary food crops + timber & NTFP’s for local Forestplaces ~ irrigation/ fallow use and tradedrainage systems Expand paddy domain Fallow  Agroforest Market-driven logging Short (semi)domesticated by concessionairs fallows forest productsUse of fertilizer, pes- Permanent Intensified Industrial Industrialticides, short-cycle, open-field agroforest, tree crop timbershort-straw, HYV rice + crops Pas- tree crops plantation plantationvegetables/ palawija turePermanently cropped, ‘Transmi- Smallholder Large-scale tree (crop) Protec-technical irrigation gration’ Pas- tree crops / plantations tedagriculture //urbanizing towns ture homegarden area Fully intensified landscape components
    25. 25. Outline• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action for sustainagility (antifragility sensu Taleb)• Balancing CGIAR SLO 1+2+3 versus SLO 4• Tree cover transitions: role for agricultural intensification?• Buffer concepts quantified• Vegetation – climate beyond macro-climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    26. 26. The logarithm of human population density is a good 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
    27. 27. For 29 Developing Countries reporting increases in fo-rest area (“beyond forest transition point”), the pattern matches that of 83 other Developing CountriesHowever, FT patterns are less likely in countries that have more than 10% forest deficit
    28. 28. 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…
    29. 29. Increasinglog PopDens decreasesforest cover Increasing Ag Land Suitability increasesforest cover IncreasingCereal Yield (weakly) increasesforest cover
    30. 30. Forest recovery is correlated with Forest decline is correlated withOverall pattern dominated by humid forest, dry forest data deviate
    31. 31. Some evidence for Central America suggests thatRecovery part of the FT curve correlates with Human Development Index (HDI)There’s a In the global data set however, country level HDI does not add much clarity to the pattern
    32. 32. There is someindication of acurvi-linearrelation betweenHDI and theforest coverexcess/deficit
    33. 33. Pre- post FTIncrease in HDI replacesfirewood footprint by foot-print based on forest fibre
    34. 34. Forest transition points are lesslikely where the firewood footprintstill exceeds 0.15 ha p.p.
    35. 35. Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade and the global displacement of land use.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, XXXX
    36. 36. Outline• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action• Tree cover transitions: role for agricultural intensification?• Buffer concepts quantified• Vegetation – climate beyond macro-climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    37. 37. Social stressors originating within and among community/iesPersistence Shielding Economic stressors Climatic stressors: 4 networks due to market means, variability and fluctuations & policy change Market shifts Landscape 1 access & 2 buffers & insurance 3 filters Pover- ty? Resource 5 accessibility Innovation 6 support Access to under- Access to new markets, utilized resources for satisfying new types of innovative use demandChange sustainagility
    38. 38. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Publications/files/manual/MN0048 -11/MN0048-11-1.pdf
    39. 39. Outline• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action• Balancing CGIAR SLO 1+2+3 versus SLO 4• Tree cover transitions: role for agricultural intensification?• Buffer concepts quantified• Vegetation – climate beyond macro-climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    40. 40. Exogenous Atmospheric concentrations of variabiliyAtmos-phere short- and longlived greenhouse gasses GHG emissions Climate Anthropogenic systems Impacts of actual Mitigation & predicted sys n clim ial ate s o otent climate change on s Human actions . tem human and eff er p ecosystems Oth ect Adaptation Human quality of life Vulnerability
    41. 41. Rainbow water, the missing colourRainbow =Recycled Atmospheric Inputs Now Benefitting our Water-suppl• Blue water: traditionally hydrology Rainbow wa- studies water flow in rivers, its use for ter closes the irrigation, industrial & domestic uses hydrological water shortage & floods cycle, adds• Grey water: added focus on pollution, the concept cleansing and re-use water shortage of terrestrial relates to ‘quality’ evapotranspi-• Green water: realized that water use in ration as ‘upper watersheds’ is increased by ‘recycling’ forests & trees
    42. 42. Rainbow water Atmospheric transportRainfall triggeringconditions Precipi- evapotranspiration tation Green water ET There are in- teresting but controversial ideas that fo- rests generateBlue water wind that trans-streamflow Soil & ground-water ports water buffering vapour…
    43. 43. % of rainfall derived from ‘short cycle’ Ellison D, Futter MN, Bishop K, 2011.On terrestrial origins(recalculated from Basilovich et al.) the forest cover–water yield debate: from demand- to supply- 37% 58% 30% 68% side thinking. Global Change Biology, doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2486.2011.02589.xApproximatelya third comes from ‘local’ 42% sources 40% 22% 41% 46% 1) Mackenzie river basin, 2) Mississippi river basin, 3) Amazon river basin, 4) West Afri-ca, 5) Baltics, 6) Tibet, 7) Siberia, 8) GAME (GEWEX Asian Monsoon Experiment) and 9) Huaihe river basin.
    44. 44. Pfrom Et/Pvan der Ent RJ, SavenijeHHG, Schaefli B, Steele-Dunne SC, 2010. Originand fate of atmosphericmoisture overcontinents. WaterResources Research 46, E/PW09525,
    45. 45. Why India and China should invest in draining the Sudd andletting the water evaporate in Egypt in stead… and why West Africa should be opposed to it
    46. 46. Deforesting Myanmarwill reduce rainfall in China
    47. 47. S. Africa policiesregarding Euca-lyptus water usecannot be di-rectly transfer-red to E. Africa
    48. 48. Dryland agricultural areas where more than 50% of rainfall is derived from terrestrial recycling SahelKeys PW, van der Ent RJ, Gordon LJ, Hoff H, Nikoli R and Savenije HHG,2012. Analyzing precipitationsheds to understand the vulnerability ofrainfall dependent regions, Biogeosciences, 9, 733–746
    49. 49. Outline• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action for sustainagility (antifragility sensu Taleb)• Balancing CGIAR SLO 1+2+3 versus SLO 4• Tree cover transitions: role for agricultural intensification?• Buffer concepts quantified• Vegetation – climate beyond macro-climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    50. 50. Work in progress:A global portfolioof CRP6 Sentinel landscapes
    51. 51. Sentinel landscape design? Can it run?
    52. 52. Four (nested) ways to think about landscapes and primary stratifiers Landscape reorganization Topose- at river road transition quence Linear– road- based Topose- quence Poly-centric von Thuenen circlesDendritic–river based
    53. 53. 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-man land use land useLand use is predictable from Land use dominates over‘reading the landscape’ original terrain features
    54. 54. Stratified Remote sensing + household groundtruthing, (HH) survey space-based +focusgroucharacterization of p vegetation, soil, discussions etc.Natural terrain boundaries, watersheds (FGD’s) Administrative delineations & statistics& hydrological data, ecological zonesRange of methods to analyze knowledge, objectives, dissatisfaction, options for change, constraints & abilities to change.
    55. 55. Pantropical CGIAR domain ConclusionsCriteria and process used to Representativeness & bias on make selection key dimensions Pantropical set of “sentinel landscapes” ConclusionsCriteria and process used to Representativeness & bias on make selection key dimensions Conclusions Internal variation in each sentinel landscapeCriteria and process used to Representativeness & bias on make selection key dimensions Conclusions Observation clustersCriteria and process used to Representativeness & bias on make selection key dimensions Conclusions Observation points Methods bias control processing Conclusions Data-sets
    56. 56. Spatial planning tool, inclusive of opportunity costs analysis for “mitigtion” planning, actions that can change land cover, local economy etc Next steps: LUMENS, Land use for multiple environmental serviceshttp://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Publications/files/booklet/BL0040-12.PDF
    57. 57. Conclusions• Landscape & watershed: linking kowledge with action for sustainagility (antifragility sensu Tradeoffs Taleb) exist at nearly all• Balancing CGIAR SLO 1+2+3 vs SLO 4 scales we look at, we• Tree cover transitions: role for need (and agricultural intensification? have…) a• Buffer concepts quantified broad portfolio of• Vegetation – climate beyond macro- tools climatic effects: colours of water• Sentinel landscapes as research tools
    58. 58. Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance Key tradeoff questions in CRP6 Tools: 1.CGIAR SLO1+2+3 vs 4 Global data sets 2.Forest vs People Spatial analysis 3.Sparing, sharing, caring Sentinel landscapes 4.Buffers vs intensification Multiple-knowledge appraisals 5.Tree cover transitions vs ES functions Tree-Soil-Crop models 6.Tree water use vs climate influence System tradeoff plots 7.Terrestrial C stock vs Income Policy Analysis Matrix Agent-based models 8.Motivations to reduce emissions Role-Play Games 9.Small vs large scale investors Participatory LU plans10.Subsistence & markets by gender roles Learning landscapes

    ×