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.

Integrative agroforestry science: reflections and perspectives

409 views

Published on

Integrative agroforestry science: reflections and perspectives -January 2017,Meine van Noordwijk

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integrative agroforestry science: reflections and perspectives

  1. 1. Integrative agroforestry science: reflections and perspectives Meine van Noordwijk 24-01-2017
  2. 2. I. Theory of Place, pantropical extrapolation domains and the places where we work II. Who cares about ‘evidence’? Political ecology, behavioural economics, change as it happens III. Social-Ecological Systems: are efforts to remove ‘endogeneity’ from ‘impacts’ futile? IV. Supporting learning, self-selection, IDC’s, bottom-up actions V. ‘Cool trees’ the start and end of all agroforestry research 10 Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits
  3. 3. A. Theory of Place B. Theory of change C. Theory of induced change Core Logged-over Secondary & Grassland Annual Mosaic landscape of agro- forest forest agro-forest & shrubs crops forestry, plantations, crops orchards, woodlots, homes Treebasalarea,carbonstock Degradation Defores- tation Agro-/Re- forestation Drivers, land use change Demography (migration) Logging, forest manage- ment (For) Agricultural (Ag) expan- sion Plantation development Agricultural de/re-treeing Agroforestation (Peri)urban (Ur) re-treeing %Treecover Log (Human Pop) Ag Ur For %Forestcover Time Nat Planted Changes of awareness, monitoring, analysis of options and scenarios Changes of land (use) rights, regulations of conversion, agricultural & urban planning Changes in economic incentives, market demand, profitability, taxation, certification Operational forest definition ventions Inter- Trees out- side forest}
  4. 4. Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits How much agroforestry is there? Where is it? http://blog.worldagroforestry.org/in dex.php/2013/04/08/tif-tof-and- totof-trees-or-universal-tree-rights/ Outside forest Inside forest Outside trees outside forest
  5. 5. Zomer et al. 2016
  6. 6. National scale evidence on the economic contribution of on-farm trees is lacking. • We use national household survey data on trees on farms reported across five African countries. • > 30% of all rural households reported having trees on their farms. • Trees on farms account for 6% of annual gross income on average for all rural households. • National context and forest proximity were consistent predictors of trees on farms
  7. 7. Investment, markets Capacity develop- ment Land use governance Inputs & technology 1 2 3 Agroforestry_1 A set of specific practices that combine trees, crops and/or livestock and aims for positive interactions. Primary task as ‘council’: documentation, inventory, capacity development, participatory D&D. Shift towards ‘research centre’ with tree improve- ment, technology testing, agroforestry systems Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits
  8. 8. Investment, markets Capacity develop- ment Land use governance Inputs & technology 1 2 3 Agroforestry_2 Landscape level interface of trees and farms, farmers and forest, tree domestication Forest use rights ecosystem services (ES), markets for tree products Landscape AF paradigm emerged in early ’90’s, soon after ICRAF enga- ged in SE Asia; Roger Leakey’s AF definition; ASB hypo- theses
  9. 9. Investment, markets Capacity develop- ment 3 Land use governance 1 2 Inputs & technology Landscape approaches A further step is the ‘agro- plus-forestry’ concept of all interactions and inter- faces, offer- ing integra- tion where policies got segregated
  10. 10. Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits Theory of change (ToC)Theory of change (ToC) Change of theory Theory of change of theory of change… Theory of induced change (ToIC) Choices among options in context targeting explicit goals Theory of place (ToP) Place of theory Theory of place of theory of change… ’learning’ Theory of everything Theory of anything
  11. 11. Tradeoff Innovation analysis Monitoring Platforms for change change Conse- Scena- quences rios Global National Subnational Landscape Community Household Individual
  12. 12. Local Ecological Knowledge Modellers Ecological Knowledge http://www.millenniumassessment.org /ma/ASB-MA_statusreport_ver5.0.pdf Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits Public/Policy Ecological Knowledge
  13. 13. Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, • NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits Cross- generational transfer & education Cultural, religious, philosophical traditions Praxis & tech- nology Politics of identity, cultural, gen- der & age differentiation Taxonomic & explanatory knowledge, wisdom Local know- ledge Geographi- cal sciences Social sciences Ecological sciences Biological sciences Techno- logical sciences Agronomical and forestry sciences System analysis & decision science Sustainability & global change sciences Economic sciences Legal and poli- tical sciences Scientific & modellers’ knowledge Health, education & social development Infractructure & eco- nomic development Land use planning and resource access National legislation & implementation guidelines Public discourse & deba- te ~ emerging issues International conventions & millennium/sustainable development goals Public/policy knowledge K2A
  14. 14. #4 #3 #1 #5 #6 #2 Nested scales decisions #1 Evidence of urgency: issues and goals #2 Evidence for a portfolio of options in context #3 Willingness to act: sovereignty, ownership #4 Overcoming vested interest: transparency #5 Ability to act: means of implementation #6 Options for bottom-up, empowered, continued innovation: agility sustained The national agroforestry policy of India: experiential learning in development and delivery phases Virendra Pal Singh, Rakesh Bhushan Sinha, Rita Sharma, Devashree Nayak, Henry Neufeldt, Meine van Noordwijk and Javed Rizvi. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Working paper 234 New Delhi (India) Engaging with national policy reform: where and how can “evidence” help?
  15. 15. Goals Contexts Issues Options Adaptive, learning loops 2.Analysisof issues,tradeoffs Income, food, energy, water, climate, biodiversity Education, gender, inequity, conflict, cooperation 5. Communicate, platforms for change 1. Monitor, observe 3. Innovate 4. Strategize, use scenarios . . . . . . . . . evidence questions Atmultiple,nestedscales 6. Agency, decisions Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits
  16. 16. 1987 1992 Separate Rio conventions UNagenda2030:17Sustainable DevelopmentGoals,adoptedin2015 Every step in UNFCCC has to deal with “cobenefits” and “safeguards”
  17. 17. Agroforestry buf- fering from cli- mate extremes, basis for adapta- tion + net emis- sion reduction Agroforestry as ‘green growth’ option, shift to service- based economy Agroforestry balancing productivity, local needs (diversity) & market- based food security Agroforestry buffering water flows, riparian integrity, mangroves (Peri)Urban trees, pro- tective (agro) forests, bio- energy Agroforestry as source of ecosystem services and protecting biodiversity Agroforestryreducingagforestconflicts,enhancingequity g g g g g g 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development http://www.world agroforestry.org/r egion/sea/publicat ions/detail?pubID =3479 SDG synergy in local context
  18. 18. Combination of: • Engineering of water retention & infiltration in the landscape • Increased GW extraction through wells and pumps • Water-efficient crops, improved crop varieties and management • Improved (fruit) tree germplasm • Local watershed mngmnt committee Proximity to urban market (Jhansi) History of collective action in water management Rocky outcrops with low productivity, source of water harvesting Social structure, demography, expectations Climate, soil, cropping patterns, manure use as fuel, livestock At start of interventions: Vulnerability to climate variability Declining buffering of water flows Drudgery in water acquisition Low crop productivity Youth migrates to cities Social capital declining Low diversity of local food supply
  19. 19. Green growth SDG: jobs! Peace, People, Poverty Jobs (livelihoods) Tax and consumer spending Envi- ron- ment Investment . Adjusted GDP- growth Fiscal policy International markets International conventions Basic model of a national economy with policy leverage domains Rights&res- ponsibilities
  20. 20. Global climate (net of fossil car- bon emissions, other GHG + ΔC stock, land and ocean feedbacks) SDG 16 Jobs in mining (resource extraction) Jobs in forest extraction Jobs in plantations Jobs in agriculture Jobs in manufacture Jobs in services (incl. trade, transport, health education, tourism) Green jobs (in natural resource management, renewable energy) Natural capital & Biodiversity (incl. forests, oceans, fresh water, energy stocks) Human. capital. Fixed assets Adjusted GDP- growth Education & health expenditure International markets & investment International conventions Demography, Equity (access, endowments), Transparency, Identity, Peace Rights&res- ponsibilities Employment~skills~ health&food,water, energysecurity Subsistence,selfreliantlivelihoods Infrastructure investment Social safetynet expenditure Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 1. End poverty; 2. End hunger; 3. Health and well-being; 4. Quality education; 5. Gender equality; 6. Water and sanitation for all; 7. Sustainable energy; 8. Decent work for all; 9. Technology to benefit all; 10. Reduce inequality; 11. Safe cities; 12. Responsible consumption; 13. Stop climate change; 14. Protect the ocean; 15. Take care of the earth; 16. Live in peace; 17. International partnership and means of implementation Tax and consumer spending SDG 4 SDG 5 SDG 6 SDG 10 SDG 11 SDG 13 SDG 15 SDG 17 SDG 10 SDG 5 SDG 7 SDG 8 SDG 12 SDG 3 Fiscal policy:  Investment in renewables and human capital  Crowding in pri- vate investments  Taxing negative externalities  Quality of spen- ding SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 9 SDG 14
  21. 21. Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits
  22. 22. Can intensification reduce emission intensity of biofuel through optimized fertilizer use? Theory and the case of oil palm in Indonesia. Footprints are minimized at around 80% of attainable yield
  23. 23. LERMs = ɣP ∑i Pi /Pi,ref + ɣR ∑j Rj /Rj,ref + ɣC ∑k Ck /Ck,ref Societal weighting of provisioning services With • Pi , Rj and Ck be the attainment (in any metric) of a range of provisioning (P), regulating (R) and Cultural (C) services provided by a landscape • Pi,ref ,Rj,ref and Ck,ref be the attainment (in the same metric) of such services in a landscape optimized for that specific service (often a ‘monoculture’) • ɣP,i , ɣR,j and ɣC,k be a weighting function for the importance of the three groups of ecosystem services LERM as the “Land Equivalent Ratio for Multifunctionality” indicates the efficiency of the tested configuration. If LERM > 1 the mixed system spares land relative to a segregated mosaic of monofunctional land uses. Societal weighting of regulating services Societal weighting of cultural services Plot-to- landscape scale metric for multifunc- tional land use Current vs reference services per unit land Current vs reference services per unit land Current vs reference services per unit land
  24. 24. LERMs = ɣP ∑i Pi /Pi,ref + ɣR ∑j Rj /Rj,ref + ɣC ∑k Ck /Ck,ref Societal weighting of provisioning services Societal weighting of regulating services Societal weighting of cultural services Plot-to- landscape scale Current vs reference services per unit land Current vs reference services per unit land Current vs reference services per unit land • “Yield gap” complements a special reduced form of LERM: only considering a single P, using as Pref the potential and/or attainable yield, and ignoring other services provided by a unit of land: Yield gap = 1 - LERM Includes water infiltration, GHG emissions
  25. 25. Building blocks: • Tree cover transitions • TiF, ToF and ToToF • Three AF paradigms • ToC, ToP, ToIC • Three knowledge systems: LEK, MEK, PEK • Boundary work, NSS • Options, Contexts, Issues & Goals • 17 SDG’s 30 years after Brundtland • Yield & efficiency gaps: Land Equivalent Ratios • Diversity deficits Institution and human decisions Biophysical structure or process • Natural forest • Complex multistrata agroforest • Simple agroforest • Simple-shade practices • Conservation agriculture • Alley cropping • Monocropping Function - Produce food and commodity - Manage water flows - Provide habitat and corridors for flora and fauna - Etc. Service -Provisioning -Regulating -Habitat -Cultural and amenity (agro- tourism) Human wellbeing (socio-cultural context) Benefit (food, raw material, clean(er) water, better water regulation, wildlife habitat and corridor Value (economic) (commodity price, premium price for organic products, incentives for agri-ecosystem services) Ecosystems and Biodiversity Feedback between value perception and use of ecosystem services Management / Restoration The use of services usually affect the underlying biophysical sources and processes Modified from Braat and De Groot (2012)
  26. 26. Diversity deficits: Villamor, G.B., Van Noordwijk, M., Le, Q.B., Lusiana, B., Matthews, R., Vlek, P.L., 2011. Diversity deficits in modelled landscape mosaics. Ecological Informatics 6: 73-82. Four interpretations: 1) What we don’t know might as well not exist, 2) In the real world where actual diversity is less than a potential state that is deemed desirable (hence we worry about loss of biodiversity and cultural diversity); 3) In oversimplified modelling of the real world and describing its rules and policies 4) In our recognition of the driving forces that are used to construct models and design policy responses.  Diversity of ecological contexts  Diversity of social contexts Diversity of actors  Diversity of land use decisions  Diversity of ecological responses  Diversity of social- ecological consequences & feedbacks  Diversity of diversity indices
  27. 27. Approximately 100,000 species of trees (1/4 of total plants), spread over ~ 250 plant families (woody perennials in 6 of 11 divisions of Chloroplastida: Angiospermae, (incl. monocots, eudicots), Magnoliophyta, Gnetophyta, Pinophyta (=Coniferae), Cycadophyta, Pteridophyta) Trees are not a taxonomic entity, but a life form choice in many families You & me Animal diversity is dominated by beetles Genetic diver- sity concepts have shifted substantially in recent decade(s)
  28. 28. Biodiversityparadox: Urban consumers have more and more choice of foods, derived from farms that get less and less diverse Shop-keeping unit (SKU) diversity far exceeds landscape biodiversity
  29. 29. I. Theory of Place, pantropical extrapolation domains and the places where we work http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ma/ASB-MA_statusreport_ver5.0.pdf
  30. 30. Theory of Place depends on scale, e.g. Indonesia as a country is a point in the centre of the curve, but zooming in to district scale it displays the full spectrum van Noordwijk, M. and G.B. Villamor. 2014. Tree cover transitions in tropical landscapes: hypotheses and cross-continental synthesis. GLPnews, 10: 33-37. (Open Acess)
  31. 31. Archeological sites & forest monitoring plots are both determined by ‘accessibility’ Forest plot evidence for continued C sequestration may be response to past disturbance
  32. 32. 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 0 5 10 Fractionofglobalvalue Country rank Tropical timber (trade) Coffee (prod.) Rubber (prod.) Cacao (prod.) Palm oil (prod.) Roundwood exports Based on FAO-Stat data for 2014
  33. 33. 20% tree cover in areas with highest human population density Dewi et al. in review Stages of tropical tree cover transi- tions at sub-watershed level
  34. 34. Water tower configuration (~ Arabica coffee) has high human population and major ‘issues’ with downstream effects of forest loss (Per)Humid has relatively low human population density Extrapolation domains for studies relating people, forests and tree crops: validity of a tropical landscapes portfolio Sonya Dewi1,*, Meine van Noordwijk1,2, Muhammad Thoha Zulkarnain1, Adrian Dwiputra1, Glenn Hyman3, Terry Sunderland4, Ravi Prabhu1, Vincent Gitz4 and Robert Nasi4
  35. 35. Stage 6 (urban) under-. Stage 5 overrepresented
  36. 36. The portfolio of sentinel landscapes of the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) research program provides a 5% sample of area, 8% of people, 9% of tree cover and 10-12% of potential tree crop presence across the tropics, with quantified biases across zones, transition stages and HDI.
  37. 37. II. Who cares about ‘evidence’? Political ecology, behavioural economics, change as it happens Active dis- information
  38. 38. On which picture do you see more people? 20 Jan 2017 21 Jan 2017 Kellyanne Conway denies Trump press secretary lied: ‘He offered alternative facts’
  39. 39. “evidence is provided that it is possible to pre-emptively protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate change against real-world misinformation.”
  40. 40. Pico Behavioural economics really internalizing externalities at emotional core of decision making Monetaryfungibility $$ do NOT get us a new planet $$ do NOT buy real happiness Individual & household decisions on scarce resourcesMicro Environmental economics: internalizing externalities of individual decisions for common goods Meso National scale decisions on scarce resourcesMacro Ecological economics: planetary boundaries put hard constraintsGiga Van Noordwijk, M., Leimona, B., Jindal, R., Villamor, G.B., Vardhan, M., Namirembe, S., Catacutan, D., Kerr, J., Minang, P.A., Tomich, T.P., 2012. Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37, 389- 420.
  41. 41. Problem 3: Asymmetry; People are often risk averse, sensitive to the way (+ or -) a comparison is presented Expected utility hypothesis E(x) = ∑ xi pi Expected utility is sum of all possible values xi multi- plied with their probability pi. Problem 1: People are notoriously poor in estimating probabilities, especially when they are exposed to strongly filtered information Problem 2: People are not good at comparing values that differ in time course: strong preference for immediate gratificationDaniel Bernouilli (1700, Groningen). 1738. Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. [Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk] PhD in Anatomy & Botany, Mathematician, Physicist, Hydrodynamics (blood pressure), Probability & Statistics (censored data), Impact quantification of smallpox vaccination
  42. 42. Internalizing externalities •Individual expected utility of alternate decisions is aligned with societal utility, through a combination of ‘polluter pay’ + ‘stewards are rewarded’ rules: carrots and sticks. • Individual and local community ‘norms of behaviour’ change, in response to respect, responsibility, scrutiny, social controls and new (green and clean) business opportunities: carrots, sticks & sermons But, legal opportunity costs of less ES friendly choices may need to be off-set at infinitum. 1 2 Co-investment paradigms involve respect, sharing risk, voluntary agreements
  43. 43. Millions of years of selection pressure shaped our basic brain: we feel good in a group where there is perceived fairness, sharing and social policing of norms of behavior. The start of agriculture, sedentary life-styles and cities created the concept of property rights, accu- mulation of wealth, con- flicts, efficiency, poverty Fairness + Efficiency
  44. 44.  People utilize and make decisions on their lands to satisfy their needs within their emerging local institutions  External demand and access to markets for ecosystem products and services modify feeds backs to their land use decisions http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sites/default/fi les/u884/Ch1_IntroCoinvest_ebook.pdf Marketable goods & services
  45. 45. ES Governance SupportingEvolutionary Provisioning Marketable goods & services Physical security, shelter Food & water security Health Income Enterprise Social relations ID Identity, self-realization Climate Water Geomorphology • erosion/ sedimentation • landslides Nutrients Fire Vegetation & flora Fauna Biogeography Influence & lateral flows Physical security, shelter Food & water security Health Income Enterprise Social relations ID Identity, self-realization CulturalRegulatory Combinations of direct regulations, incentive-based mechanisms and advocacy at various levels ES metric Engineering Green accounting Access, LU regulation Natural capital and ES monitoring Fairness & efficiency Efficiency Payments, rewards, incentives, tax Fairnessperception Respect, recognition, suasion
  46. 46. Who cares about the real value of ecosystem services of agroforestry? # Governments (supported by public opinion leaders) who take SDG’s seriously and want the asset base to be secured # Private sector entities with long-term vision but close watch on current bottom-lines # Project proponents who want investment in projects that transform lives & landscapes; PES? What type of understanding, evidence and data would it take to shift opinions and behaviour Workplans for CAFRI + other institutions Opportunities to collect information, use case studies, apply new methods, involve stakeholders in ‘action research’ I II IIIIV
  47. 47. III. Social-Ecological Systems: are efforts to remove ‘endogeneity’ from ‘impacts’ futile? Central to current ‘impact evaluations’ is that it seeks to separate ‘treatment’ effects from ‘self-selection’
  48. 48. Medical research: beyond ‘self-selected’ medication Natural resource management and governance Units of analysis Clearly defined: individuals (or mother-child combinations) Nested/overlapping scales, fuzzy system boundaries Stratification, domains of similarity Well-defined medical diagnos- tics, age, sex, body-weight index, as co-variants No generally accepted ‘theory of place’ descriptors and diagnostics of issues to be resolved Treatments Initial ‘dose-effect’ relations, followed by tests of ‘fine- tuning’ criteria Strongly interconnected subsystems, dependency on national regulations, international agreements Double-blind experiments Feasible as ‘gold standard’, strong ‘placebo’ effects Not feasible, reliance on ‘counterfactuals’ Options to scale- up ‘success’ Public finance and insurance companies (if cost<benefit) Recipe-based scaling up bound to fail as differences in context matter Risks mitigated Unrecognized negative side- effects; inefficient expenditure Diversity support may lead to lack of ‘fairness’, bureaucratic efficiency There has been a long-standing perception that research on integrated natural resource management issues has a lower return on investment than research on ‘technologies’ that may be more closely mirror the standards for separating ‘self- selection’ from ‘replicable, objective’ observables that helped the medical field deal with many major illnesses (and create some new ones…) Medical research: beyond ‘self-selected’ medication Natural resource management and governance Units of analysis Clearly defined: individuals (or mother-child combinations) Nested/overlapping scales, fuzzy system boundaries Stratification, domains of similarity Well-defined medical diagnos- tics, age, sex, body-weight index, as co-variants No generally accepted ‘theory of place’ descriptors and diagnostics of issues to be resolved Treatments Initial ‘dose-effect’ relations, followed by tests of ‘fine- tuning’ criteria Strongly interconnected subsystems, dependency on national regulations, international agreements Double-blind experiments Feasible as ‘gold standard’, strong ‘placebo’ effects Not feasible, reliance on ‘counterfactuals’ Options to scale- up ‘success’ Public finance and insurance companies (if cost<benefit) Recipe-based scaling up bound to fail as differences in context matter Risks mitigated Unrecognized negative side- effects; inefficient expenditure Diversity support may lead to lack of ‘fairness’, bureaucratic efficiency Maybe we need to accept that we can ‘quantify change’, analyze contextual factors, stimulate cross- learning, allow spread & adaptation, rather than bullet-proof ‘adoption’ of proven recipes by voiceless objects of policy change. ToIC’s need to become more empirical and more soundly rooted in ToC’s as ‘counterfactuals’, with ToP’s that allow better contextualization…
  49. 49. IV. Supporting learning, self-selection, IDC’s, bottom-up actions
  50. 50. macroclimate Food, fibre Energy Service sectors Human wellbeing microclimate renewables CO2 CH4 N2O rain CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CO2 H2O Nation-based AFOLU accounting as part of NDC’s Nation-based fossil fuel use accounting as part of NDC’s Unresolved blue carbon global accountability Unresolved accountability for emissions embodied in industrial, forest-product and agricultural trade “Individually determined contributions” based on foot- prints & lifestyles Self-regulation by private sector
  51. 51. Supporting sectors Products Grains Roots & tubers Oil Fruits & Vegetables Mushrooms Dairy Fish Meat Fuels Fibre … Landuses Forest Agroforest Mixedmosaic Horticulture Open-fieldAg Pasture Wetlands Openwater … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supply side Demand side Area fraction ΔCarbon stocks N2O, CH4 emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GHGfootprintsperunitfoodproduct Inputmanufacture Processing Waste/recycling Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climatesmartconsumers Highincome Uppermiddleincome Lowermiddleincome Lowincome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global food system emissions Global land use emissions AFOLU accounting of GHG emissions Consumerbasedaccounting Foodassector Individually Determined Contributions Nationally Determined Contributions ∑ Imports = ∑ Exports
  52. 52. Certification Sustainability initiatives, standards, and certification of adherence Issue-attention cycle: dynamics of discourse & ‘solutions’ Status and trends in ecosystem services, human wellbeing Swingpotential: footprintofproducts Best Median Worst Standardsvaryinginambition Global value chains Power Market structure Quality standards (mandatory, voluntary) Governance Supply & demand 3. Pressures from the public evoke private sector and governmental sustainability initiatives to converge and shift existing standards. 1. Public discourse on sustainability concerns and associated actions is part of one or more issue-attention cycles. 2. The way sustainability standards, initiatives and certification emerge, depends on global value chain and its intermediaries. 4. Sustainability initiatives, standard settings and certification only provide partial solutions for ecosystem service and social problems.
  53. 53. Further papers (Coffee, Cacao, Oil palm) forthcoming
  54. 54. V. ‘Cool trees’ the start and end of all agroforestry research
  55. 55. Global Environmental Change 2017: Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world David Ellison1,2, Cindy E. Morris3,4, Bruno Locatelli5,6, Douglas Sheil7, Jane Cohen8, Daniel Murdiyarso9,10, Victoria Gutierrez11, Meine van Noordwijk12, Irena F. Creed13, Jan Pokorny14, David Gaveau9, Dominick V. Spracklen15, Aida Bargués Tobella1, Ulrik Ilstedt1, Adriaan J. Teuling16, Solomon Gebreyohannis Gebrehiwot17,18, David C. Sands4, Bart Muys19, Bruno Verbist19, Elaine Springgay20, Yulia Sugandi21, Caroline A. Sullivan22 “…the effects of forests on climate at local, regional and continental scales must be moved to the center of land and water management so that the appropriate management of forests can bridge the conventional distinction between these paradigms. The enhanced understanding of the dynamics of water, energy and carbon synergies would greatly improve climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. “
  56. 56. Trees,forestsandwater:coolinsightsfora hotworld.Ellisonetal.(2017) Surface tempe- rature distribu- tion in a mixed landscape with forest. Source: (Hesslerová et al., 2013).
  57. 57. Infiltration and groundwater recharge relative to canopy cover Source: Ilstedt et al. 2016
  58. 58. Natural forest activerestoration Salience: 2 1 3 Exposure Hazard: Flood human frequency presence & duration Vulnerability: Victims, dama- ge and its economic value Q = P - E - ∆S Credibility: Directly obser- vable hydrograph Topography & engineered river channel, reservoirs, flood plain (and its subsi- dence), dykes, drainage, storage, extractions 4 Climate variability and change Rainfall & Epot as space/time pattern Avoided flood damage as perceived Ecosystem Service 5 6 Hillslope/landscape Drainage vs retention Buffer and filter effects ‘Effective rainfall’ Land cover: oNatural forest oForest-derived oPlantations oTree-based Ag oOpen-field Ag oDegraded lands oSettlements Spatialconfiguration Watershed functions: pathways, water use and flow buffering Riparian vegetation Buffer and filter effects 7 8 Ecosystem structure  Ecosystem function // watershed management Spatialconfiguration Patch-level Rainfall interception Infiltration Surface filter effects Soil macroporosity (decline & buildup) Water storage and use for transpiration 7D 7C 7A 7B Avoideddegradation& ?
  59. 59. Atmospheric concentrations of short- and longlived greenhouse gasses Atmos- phere Climate systems Anthropogenic GHGemissions Impacts of actual & predicted climate change on human and ecosystems Adaptation Mitigation Vulnerability Human actions . Human quality of life Exogenous variabiliy
  60. 60. van Noordwijk M, Kim Y-S, Leimona B, Hairiah K, Fisher LA, 2016. Metrics of water secu- rity, adaptive capacity and agroforestry in Indonesia. Current Opinion on Environ- mental Sustainability 21: 1-8
  61. 61. Meine van Noordwijk ICRAF 1993-2017 Integrative agroforestry science: reflections and perspectives 1984 1987
  62. 62. %ofzone-specificC-stock Log (HumanPopDens) Exported C-rich products Imported C-rich products Footprint corrected Purely Ag Urban Net immigration emigration Proposed performance metric for jurisdictional entities: foot-print adjusted relative C-stock Including the consumption and production side of landscape performance, we propose a metric that relates current landscape C stock to the reference of natural vegetation in the ecological zone, that gives credit for all produce that leaves the landscape (whether food, wood, fodder or fibre) and balances that with the external footprint of the landscape:
  63. 63. Accounting rules: Landbased C-stock change Activity-based recurrent GHG emissions: + Paddy rice + Enteric fermentation + Peatland use + N-fertilization Waste landfills Industrial processes Cement production Fossil fuel use inc. transport CO2 CH4 N2O ++/-- . . . ++ . . ++ . ++ . . . . ++ . ++ + + + ++ + . . ++++ . . ++ . ++ Nationstates:national communications+NDC’s International Citizens,consumers, privatesectorvaluechains Accountability “Emissions embodied in trade” remain major challenge Forests & Agri- culture/Forest interface: Stock change attribu- tion issues: “Individually Determined Contributions” Food systems: Footprint ac- counting rules: “Indirect land use change”

×