Are we working towards the world we want agroforestry - ravi prabhu - icraf

962 views

Published on

A presentation to the ICRAF Board of Trustees 2013 about the Intermediate Development Objectives of the CGIAR Consortium

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
962
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • From John Lynam:There is probably just a little too much reaction to and critique of the ISPC paper and not enough of where is CRP6 in defining its TOC and IDO's.  It would be useful if every point that is contested in the ISPC paper is answered with "and this is our approach". 2.  One possible framing is that the ISPC framing relies purely on sustainable intensification to meet both food security requirements and relieve pressure on deforestation.  Yet we know that in the forest margin areas more profitable farming systems, particularly in the Amazon and SEA, leads to further pressure on forests-- probably different in the Congo and W Africa, where the issue is stabilizing shifting agriculture, complemented with increasing return on tree crops.  If the CG accepts the importance of maintaining tropical forest cover, then work on managing forests has to complement work on sustainable intensification, that is in the forest margins.  The argument has to be brought down to the drivers in the different regions-- generic doesn't work.  However, this makes explicit where CRP6 works, ie the forest margins, where no other CRP's work except HumidTropics.  This risks reducing the scope of ICRAF's work, unless it is taken up in HumidTropics and Drylands; namely, a closer look at how ICRAF will deploy its work across the CRP's. 3.  The forest transition model assumes an inevitable conversion of forest to cropland, when the argument is exactly the opposite, intensify in the intensive agr margin and maintain and conserve in the extensive margin.  CRP6 can fudge by saying work is distributed spatially to capture the variation represented by the curve, but I think that confuses the conceptual framework.As ICRAF moves to integrating landscapes in all of this, there will be pressure to move to some type of classification or categorization system-- as at least a prioritization framework--, such as with agroecology (eg humid tropics, drylands, etc).  This will require some linkage between land use, say at a macro level, and landscape at at micro level, ie with a focus on functionality within a mosaic.  From me to John-          The current ISPC document takes us backwards, especially from the rather good theories of change paper-          It confuses and confounds outcomes of various kinds even as it establishes a hierarchy from research outcomes through IDOS and SLIDOs (I will use national policies to illustrate this – an example of a research outcome, a CRP 6 IDO and a System Level IDO)-          We have lost sight of the discussions at global level, and we are losing sight of the broader landscape and all the insights from the MEA and other system level assessments in the latest guidance-          I will (using Tom Randolph’s slide, which he presented to the Fund Council meeting inDelhi yesterday) illustrate that there are other, more promising, bottom up approaches. However-          They will also not deliver what we are looking for if the focus remains too narrowly on cropped landscapes (as it implicitly is in the ISPC document, but not elsewhere). We need an overarching theory of change and I am having difficulties finding it!-          I am not sure that CRP 6’s tree/forest transition curve is sufficiently robust or useful to provide a basis for developing IDOs or a theory of change. (In the version we use it is simply an artists stylized view of a landscape – it is not even an environmental Kuznets curve as the X-axis has nothing to do with GDP/income!) Anyway, it misses what I’ve called the urban trough as one of the main drivers of change today (a proxy for population)-          Meine’sMeinegram is interesting, but also confounding. It is better than the thinking from the ISPC though (that linear arrow!!)-          I will assert that our strategy puts us in a really good place to respond to anything that finally comes from the IDO shop, but I am also going to suggest that we need to continue our own thinking on this, because in some ways our insights are deeper than that of many others. 
  • Fig. 4. Hypothetical distribution of sites with respect to their production of agricultural goods vs. biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. The sites were plotted relative to a theoretical maximum local potential (green and purple boxes) for agricultural production of goods (x-axis) and for biodiversity in all ecosystems in the landscape mosaic (y-axis). Very high biodiversity is not consistent with very high production (orange) and no agriculture would exist at the origin of the bi-plot (yellow). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.) See van Noordwijk et al. (2006).
  • Peak everything – cheap and abundant energy drives everything, when that goes much will collapse
  • Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Nagoya COP 10 REDD+ Hour
  • LennartOleson:
  • ToC document
  • Norton-Griffith, in preparation
  • Raswant & Ciannella presentation
  • Today, agriculture is mainly expanding in the tropics, where it is estimated that about 80% of new croplands are replacing forests26. This expansion is worrisome, given that tropical forests are rich reservoirs of biodiversity and key ecosystem services27. Clearing tropical forests is also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and is estimated to release around 1.131015 grams of carbon per year, or about 12%of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions28. Slowing or halting expansion of agriculture in the tropics—which accounts for 98% of total CO2 emissions from land clearing29—will reduce carbon emissions as well as losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services27. Agricultural intensification has dramatically increased in recent decades, outstripping rates of agricultural expansion, and has been responsible for most of the yield increases of the past few decades. In the past 50 years, the world’s irrigated cropland area roughly doubled18,30,31,while global fertilizer use increased by 500%(over 800% for nitrogen alone)18,32,33. Intensification has also caused water degradation, increased energy use, and widespread pollution32,34,35.Of particular concern is that some 70% of global freshwater withdrawals (80–90% of consumptive uses) are devoted to irrigation36,37. Furthermore, rain-fed agriculture is the world’s largest user of water13,38. In addition, fertilizer use, manure application, and leguminous crops (which fix nitrogen in the soil) have dramatically disrupted global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles39–41, with associated impacts on water quality, aquatic ecosystems and marine fisheries35,42.Both agricultural expansion and intensification are also major contributors to climate change. Agriculture is responsible for 30–35% of global greenhouse gas emissions, largely from tropical deforestation, methane emissions from livestock and rice cultivation, and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized soils29,43–46.We can draw important conclusions from these trends. First, the expansion of agriculture in the tropics is reducing biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and depleting critical ecosystem services. Yet this expansion has done relatively little to add to global food supplies; most production gains have been achieved through intensification. Second, the costs and benefits of agricultural intensification vary greatly, often depending on geographic conditions and agronomic practices. This suggests that some forms (and locations) of intensification are better than others at balancing food production and environmental protection11,47. From Foley et al. 2011
  • Are we working towards the world we want agroforestry - ravi prabhu - icraf

    1. 1. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Are we working towards the world we want? Overview statement on IDOs, SDs and CRPs
    2. 2. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Overview: unfinished business! We have fairly clear guidance from CO & ISPC on the framework The system level IDOs are still a work in progress (especially recent ISPC paper) The CRP IDOs are also a work in progress CRP 6 forest/tree transition curve is not a theory of change – we need more thought ICRAF is heading in the right direction to respond, but we aren’t there yet Skip the middle 
    3. 3. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    4. 4. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    5. 5. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    6. 6. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Rijsberman 2012, modified
    7. 7. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Aren’t we missing something?
    8. 8. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    9. 9. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    10. 10. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Obersteiner, CSA Conference Davis
    11. 11. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Obersteiner, CSA Conference Davis
    12. 12. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Production driven perspectives Rijsberman 2012, modified
    13. 13. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 ?? High input agriculture  High outputs. What costs? Achim Dobermann, modified
    14. 14. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 A simple input-output lens Input Low High Output Low Extractive Degrading? High Utopic? Industrial
    15. 15. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 HIGH-LEVEL CONSULTATION ON HUNGER, FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE POST- 2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA “…reducing global waste by half would mean radical progress on hunger and malnutrition in the most vulnerable populations.” “…support the use of a wider variety of crops to help feed the world, … of the thousands of cultivatable crops that exist, only seven provide 90% of the world’s food production.”
    16. 16. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Finding the diversity dividend Jackson et al. 2013
    17. 17. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Cheap and abundant energy presently drives everything, when that goes we will face a decline Energy
    18. 18. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Expanding our input-output lens Input Soil Land Energy Water Ecosystem Species Processing / Knowledge, attitude, skills, behaviour, organizations, governance Conversion Efficiency, trade-offs, resilience, markets, value chains, etc. Output Food & Nutrition Wealth, equity O.Ecosystem Services Waste Hypothesis: without a systems frame, even a simple one like the one here, it is not possible to orient our research towards the world we want. The SLIDOs, CRP IDOs, Research Outcomes and Centre Strategies must embrace this Climate, Population
    19. 19. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Good governance Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Nagoya COP 10 REDD+ Hour
    20. 20. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Perceptions matter In California’s Central Valley: “…mitigation is largely motivated by psychologically distant concerns and beliefs about climate change, while adaptation is driven by psychologically proximate concerns for local impacts. This match between attitudes and behaviors according to the psychological distance at which they are cognitively construed indicates that policy and outreach initiatives may benefit by framing climate impacts and behavioral goals concordantly; either in a global context for mitigation or a local context for adaptation.” Haden et al
    21. 21. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 … and so does Power
    22. 22. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Big Six 58% of proprietary seed market $50 billion sales annually, $4.7b R&D Shand 2012
    23. 23. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Top Ten 28% of global food market Mulle & Rupanne 2010
    24. 24. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Discourses, partnerships ??
    25. 25. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Simplicity and complexity Human progress has been predicated on reductionism – making things as simple as possible and then improving them. Agriculture exemplifies this Complexity, especially dynamic adaptive complexity must be harnessed if we are to deal with wicked problems
    26. 26. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 What research investments will have most development impact? • Which interventions will reduce risk, increase security, and improve lives the most? • How to measure and monitor development outcomes? • What are the trade-offs between agricultural productivity and the environment? • What are the risks of intervention failure? • What is high value information? for improving intervention decisions? Keith Shepherd – value of information
    27. 27. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 ICRAF’s Science Domains Input Soil Land Energy Water Ecosystem Species Processing / Knowledge, attitude, skills, behaviour, organizations, governance Conversion Efficiency, trade-offs, resilience, markets, value chains, etc. Output Food & Nutrition Wealth, equity O.Ecosystem Services Waste “Waste” incl. externalities with regard to natural capital
    28. 28. Forests, Trees & Agroforestry IDOs Resilience to environmental and economic variability, shocks and longer term changes of rural communities enhancedthrough greater adaptive capacity to manage forests, trees and agroforestry Income from products and environmental services derived forests, trees and agroforestry systems enhanced Local institutions strengthened and collective action enhanced for improved agricultural and natural resources management Productivity, production and availability of foods and fuel from forests and agroforestry systems increased for poor rural people Policies supporting sustainable and equitable management of forests and trees developed and adopted by conservation and development organizations, national governments and international bodies. Forests, land and water resources and biodiversity protected and improved and net carbon sequestration increased in key target countries C sequestration increased and greenhouse gas reduced through improved agriculture and natural resources management Greater gender equity in decision making and control over forest and tree use, management and benefits are improved through women’s empowerment i o o o i i o i o I don’t I don’t
    29. 29. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Logic models Consist of a listing of Outputs: the product from activity delivered, e.g. how many people received training Outcomes: the change that occurs as a result of the activity within the lifetime of the programme, until recently also called variously objective or purpose, e.g. farmers are able to use new technology to grow crops Impacts: what will the end result be in the wider context, e.g. farmers use new technology to increasing productivity in crop growing, also called goal In its classic form the logical model does not provide insight into causality, that is, why a given output would lead to a given outcome and, in turn, a given impact ISPC ToC paper
    30. 30. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 CRP6 IDO’s . 1. Reducing rural poverty 2. Improving food security 3. Improving nutrition & health 4. Sustainably managing natural resources System-level development outcomes . Decrease in and recovery from resource degradation Co-investments in maintaining/enhancing ES Increased efficiency in the use & conservationof natural resources System level impact targets (“SLO’s”) Functional tradeoff management and governance systems Resilient and adaptive rural – urban livelihood systems Human well- being linked to T forests, trees & agroforestry . Functional tree co- ver tran- sitions . Tradeoff management capacity . Increased socio- economic benefits Reduced livelihood vulnerability & risk Enhanced benefits for women ++* Reduced deforestation & ES degra- dation Increased net carbon storage Increased sustainable use & con- servation Text to be updated… 1. Enhance contribution of forests, trees and agroforestry to income, food security and nutrition 2. Forest and tree resources are conserved and used more sustainably, to enhance current and future options 3. Maintain or enhance ecosystem services from landscapes with forests, trees and agroforestry 4. Increase socio-ecological resilience and adaptive capacity of local livelihoods 5. Reduce emissions of GHG and increase C stocks 6. Policies and markets favor investments that support sustainable natural resource management 7. Women are better empowered and gender equality in decision making and control over resource use, management and benefits is improved 1 2 34 5 6 7 CRP6 metrics CRP6 metrics Meine vN 2012
    31. 31. Beyond the tree transition curve Urbantrough Embrace complexity through a systems perspective Take multiple scales, diversity and fine scale variation into account Research outcomes: Knowledge, understanding, evidence, skills and capabilities about how to manipulate the nature of tree cover, species and products for multiple benefits in agricultural landscapes IDOs: Attitudinal, behaviour, efficiency change among key partners & stakeholders GDP
    32. 32. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Step 2+3 Step 1 Yield Gap After Roger Leakey’s work Diversity dividend can be achieved through addition of structure, life form, spp. Concept of sustainable intensification must include all dimensions of diversity and respond to fine scale variation at nested scales
    33. 33. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 ICRAF’s Science Domains Coherent, impact-oriented research agenda to champion the role of trees in transforming lives and landscapes Provide gender and socially differentiated answers to complex problems across different agro-ecologies, sectors and political spheres • Systems approach • Nested spatial and temporal scales • Roles and operational goals clearly defined • Will map to IDOs … once we know which ones
    34. 34. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Roles: information, evidence, practice ICRAF’s six roles help deliver: Synoptic information • Complex systems require an integration of information • Seeing is believing! Hard evidence • Rigorous, science to reduce ambiguity and controversy • Timely evidence to guide decision making Good practice • Emergent interactions of good practices at nested scales is what we are seeking
    35. 35. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    36. 36. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    37. 37. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Conclusions Many of the elements needed are in place Our strategy is positioning us to respond well, (implicitly) embodies theory of change • Need more attention to water, economic and social dimensions • Need more inter-connection among our research outcomes • Need to stipulate better their conditions for success at investment scales Need better (definitional) clarity from ISPC and CO
    38. 38. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Thank you! MvN 2013
    39. 39. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Bonus slides
    40. 40. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Research Outputs to Global Development Goals MDGs - SDGs 12-18 years CGIAR SLOs CRP goals Common IDOs + Target statements + Theory of Change CRP-specific IDOs + Target statements + Theory of Change 9-12 years CRP Impact Pathway #1 ToC1; Δ behaviour  direct benefit 3-yr milestones 0-12 years CRP Activities + Outputs (research, capacity building, engagement) 0-12 years CRP Impact Pathway #2 ToC2; Δ behaviour  direct benefit 3-yr milestones CRP Impact Pathway ToC; Enabling Environment 3-yr milestones Tom Randolph 25/4/2013
    41. 41. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 ISPC on Theories of Change Incorporating non-linearity to research planning Embedding learning mechanisms about research uptake and impact into the research process Regular review and updating of the TOCs Assessing counterfactuals on the impact stream by monitoring Developing a communication strategy for discourse and engagement with stakeholders Directing the research benefits to those intended, including women.
    42. 42. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Where are we with CRPs? Currently represent to a considerable extent, on-going research bound by contractual agreements brought together under common umbrella They need to transition towards a more coherent and focused program building around the components that most clearly targeted the System Level Outcomes
    43. 43. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 ISPC guidance on IDOs
    44. 44. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 ISPC guidance on IDOs
    45. 45. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    46. 46. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Tenure effects can over ride other drivers ….. Impact Unadj Freehold Tenure Effect Net Returns to Land ($ ha-1 y-1) $198 $397 2.0 Tree Crops (ha km2) 2.3 12.9 5.6 Plantations and Woodlots (ha km2) 3.1 12.7 4.1 Hedgerows (km km-2) 5.2 23.6 4.5 Norton-Griffith, in preparation
    47. 47. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    48. 48. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Science Domains in Research Division with CRP 6 (showing 6.1&6.3 especially)
    49. 49. Forests, Trees & Agroforestry themes Smallholder production systems and markets Management and conservation of forests and trees Landscape management Climate change adaptation and mitigation Impacts of trade and investment Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) System Level Outcomes (SLOs) Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5 Cross-cutting themes: Gender Communications Sentinel Landscapes Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment
    50. 50. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    51. 51. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Why do we have (SL)IDOs? To connect between the CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) and the high level SLO objectives • At the System-level there should be agreement on a prioritized set of IDOs that are logically linked to the SLOs • CRP-level IDOs are expected to correspond with the System-level IDOs and to be supported by carefully constructed impact pathways • theory or theories of change describe the assumptions underlying the impact pathways
    52. 52. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 To meet the biofuel demand in 2050, land used for biofuel production would increase from 30 to around 100 Mha in 2050 (IEA, 2011) •Global land potentially available for bioenergy crop production in 2050 is 440 Mha (Doornbosch and Steenblik, 2007) •Not included in these figures are 4,200 Mha of saline areas and other land unsuitable for rainfed cultivation. •Major potential for expansion: Africa and Latin America
    53. 53. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Getting the hierarchy right Global goals: SDGs, UNFCCC, CBD (Aichi Targets), UNCCD, Global Compact CGIAR SLIDOs = CRP IDOs – common sets? CRP IDOs CRP & ICRAF Research Outcomes
    54. 54. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    55. 55. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    56. 56. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 “…building blocks for change are cross- sectoral, complementary and synergistic, and that no one-size-fits all solution exists.” sustainable and resilient food production and consumption requiring improved access to more nutritious diets, Improved local food availability, efficient food distribution systems, and reduced waste and loss; overcoming challenges of over- and under- nutrition to provide “good” nutrition for all, access to safe drinking water, hygiene and sanitation, and education; agents for transformation, including small producers, family farmers, indigenous peoples and consumers at all levels; and developing catalytic steps, including gender- equal investments, and guarantees for small farmer investment opportunities and market access. HIGH-LEVEL CONSULTATION ON HUNGER, FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE POST- 2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
    57. 57. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Agricultural land use: food/non-food Foley et al.
    58. 58. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Enhancing the management and use of forests, agroforestry and tree genetic resources across the landscape from forests to farms CRP 6 FTA of Global Forest Cover46% 1.3 Billion ha of closed forests 500 Million ha of open and fragmented forests 500 millionpeople living in or close to forests
    59. 59. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 The apparent challenge SD >>
    60. 60. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 SD >> e<<d The real challenge?
    61. 61. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    62. 62. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    63. 63. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    64. 64. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    65. 65. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 What other guidance are we getting? UNDG initiated 11 multi-stakeholder thematic consultations on: hunger, nutrition and food security; energy; addressing inequalities; governance; health; population dynamics; conflict, violence and disasters; education; environmental sustainability; and water, including on water resources management, wastewater management, and water quality
    66. 66. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 Framework to guide actions on FS & N increasing agricultural resilience to climate change and economic shocks; promoting good governance, reducing inequality and emphasizing rights-based approaches; accelerating progress in eradicating hunger and malnutrition, with an explicit emphasis on gender equality; and Integrating food-based responses with public health interventions at all levels
    67. 67. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013 “… any goal should deal with food security and nutrition not separately but together, as the former is about quantity and the latter about quality.” HIGH-LEVEL CONSULTATION ON HUNGER, FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE POST- 2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
    68. 68. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013
    69. 69. 57th Board of Trustees Meeting April 29-May 3 2013

    ×