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.

Intensification landscapes gbg jun2016


Published on

Presentation by Anders Malmer, Director, SLU Global, held at the young researchers meeting on multifunctional landscapes, Gothenburg June 7-8, 2016.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Intensification landscapes gbg jun2016

  1. 1. Sustainable intensification – solution for all global challenges? Yes, No or both? SLU – Focali – SIANI meeting for young researchers “Multifunctional landscapes for food security, livelihoods and the environment” Gothenburg 7-8 June 2016 Anders Malmer Professor, Tropical forest ecology and management – soil science Director, SLU Global
  2. 2. Personal general reflexions and a case of synergies and trade-offs • Be structured and innovatie within your own dicipline and hypothesis • But also understand the larger role and ”landscape setting” of your own little quest. • Formulate and motivate from a broader perspective.
  3. 3. Coping with catastrofies, conflicts and wars or building resilient maturing societies? • Mitigation and adaptation for climate change • 70 % incresed food production • Better income and secure livelihoods • Increasing democracy • Water management – increased quantities and quality • Safeguard biodiversity • Increased employment • Growing energy demands – fossil-free Sustainable intensification of agriculture – cultivation, animal husbandry, forest Can LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT be useful to frame complex desired development?
  4. 4. Landscape frames: • Rural village or community area of intrest • Water catchment / watershed • Ecosystem services generation and delivery • Base for biodiversity land categories mosaic • Base for production and outcomes diversity (resilience for economic and climate/weather shocks) • Base for delivery of product volumes for refinement and value chain
  5. 5. Synergies and trade-offs in intensified landscape use? • Intensification and biodiversity? Rational production, mono cultures, few improved varieties, etc Or enrichment of degraded soil and vegetation? • Intensification and ”ecological/organic”? Mineral fertilisers, pest and weedicides, GMO, etc. Or ”Integrated fertility management”, biological pest mngmt, etc maintain subsistence farming and tree cone collection for a multitude of values… • Intesified agriculture and urbanisation? Fewer farmers is a prerequisite for more rational agriculture? But young people and women leaving gives lack of innovators?
  6. 6. Empiric base for ES understanding From Kuyah S., et al., 2016 “Trees in agricultural landscapes enhance provision of ecosystem services in Sub-Saharan Africa” International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management in press • 350 peer reviewed articles reffering to 205 sites/landscapes
  7. 7. Scale etc. of investigating ES Provisioning Regulating Supporting
  8. 8. For example: What are the empirics of synergies or trade-offs between trees, carbon and water management? (the basis for REDD+ and/or PES for water services) "It doesn't matter where you are in the world, when you grow trees on croplands, you use more water... …reduce the water available for drinking and irrigation, and harm local aquatic ecosystems.” Nature News, 22 Dec 2005
  9. 9. ”Down with trees” - Tree planting can exacerbate drought ” The Economist, 25 Jul 2005
  10. 10. This most comprehensive global review on re/afforestation effects on water was heavily biased towards sub-tropical and more northern areas.  None of the 504 observations from the 26 sites used occurred within ten degrees of the Equator.  Only two occurred within twenty.  Neither of the two tropical sites were dry (<1000mm), nor wet (>2000mm)  None was on degraded land and all for forest plantations.
  11. 11. Shvidenko et al. 2005 8 269 350 514 Plantations Closed forest Open / fragmented forest Other wooded lands Closed vs. open forest - Africa Million ha
  12. 12. Yes, Forest plantations use more water • Old growth forests are a mix of species and old and young individuals and gaps, while the new forest plantations are monocultures of fast growing species. • It is not only Eucalypts that use a lot of water – also indigenous poineer species in secondary forest use as much water (Fritzsche et al., 2006)
  13. 13. And yes, afforestation improves soil water infiltration Conclusions form meta-analysis; Ilstedt et al., 2007 Afforestation including agroforestry  2 to 5-fold increase in infiltration (relevant compared to rain intensities to result in more water to groundwater)
  14. 14. The current paradigm: ”Trade-off model” EvapotranspirationGroundwater rechargeCarbon Canopy cover HighLow
  15. 15. Groundwaterrecharge Transpiration Surface runoff Soil evaporation Groundwater rechargeInfiltration Canopy cover HighLow Optimum tree density model (Ilstedt et al Nature Scientific Reports 2016)
  16. 16. There are Opportunities Everywhere The total opportunity area is 2 billion hectares (WRI) Land restoration and/or sustainable intensification
  17. 17. Our flat model landscape in parkland agroforestry in Burkina Faso may be easier to understand than other more complex landscapes Mosaic landscape in terms of : Ecosystems, land-use, stakholders and stakeholder dependance areas, ownership, tenure, etc.
  18. 18. And coming transformations of landscapes’ effects on ES is so much more than biogeophysical empirics… 1900 2000
  19. 19. Relevant research and systematic (multidiciplinary) apporaches and their applications needed. Need to rely on process understanding but also to integrate on relevant scales where ”Landscapes” often relate well with ES, village and farm dependence area etc.
  20. 20. Thank you for your attention!
  21. 21. What is ecosystem services (ES)? • Provisioning: products like food, wood, genetic resources etc. • Regulating: trough ecological prcesses regulation of climate, water, weed, pethogenes etc. • Supporting: natural processes that support other ecosystem services (eg. primary production and nutrient cycling. • Cultural and non-material: spiritual, religious, aestetic, tourism The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
  22. 22. And how does ES relate to landscapes? • Provisioning ES relating directly to tenure, subsistence and market in traditionally manageble scales • Regulating ES involve landscapes, regions and the planet. Local impacts can have severe effects for stakeholders far away. • Supporting ES again mainly have more local effects and are possible to quantify on the local (plot, field etc.) scale • Cultural ES may come in all scales and are notoriously difficult to value as they are very subjective.
  23. 23. Are ES providers universally good to preserve and maintain to make everything better? For example: ”More trees in the landscape provide:”  Increased biodiversity (plants and animals)  More carbon to mitigate climate change  Restored and/or more productive soil  Groundwater management  More avaliable water in soils (climate adaptation, drought resistance  Additional income to farmers  Resilience to farmers (additional income and reserve food)  More stable local climate and more rain?? Are there universal laws as to how these co-benefits or synergies work? Or indeed, does relations vary across different landscapes involving trade-offs?