This document outlines an agenda for a session on data-driven networks for forest monitoring. The session will begin with introductions from 12:45-12:55. From 12:55-13:00, guiding questions for discussion will be presented. Robert Nasi will give an introduction to data-driven networks from 13:00-13:10. From 13:10-13:40 there will be 7-minute speed talks showing examples of analysis from ongoing networks. A roundtable discussion led by FAO and DfID on the guiding questions will take place from 13:40-14:15. The session aims to identify additional partners and receive feedback on how these networks can inform interventions and policy.

1. Welcome!

2. Outline of the session:
12:45- 12:55 - Who is in the room/ which networks
12:55- 13:00 - Guiding questions for the session
13:00- 13:10 - Introduction to data driven networks by Robert Nasi
13:10-13:40 - Speed talks, which show example analysis of data
from ongoing data-driven networks, highlighting the sentinel
landscapes and the LSMS datasets among others (7 mins each).
13:40-14:15 - Roundtable discussion led by FAO and DfID on the
guiding questions.
Additional objectives on the session:
1) Identify additional partners/collaborations for these initiatives
2) Receive feedback from participants on the use/utility of these
networks/analysis in terms of interventions, policy, etc

3. Guiding Questions/ Topics for Discussion:
• What are data-driven networks and what is their role in
forest monitoring/interventions/ etc.
• To what extent can this network be used to monitor
progress on the Sustainable Development Goals?
• Integration of structured and unstructured (e.g. crowd-
sourced) data.
• Processing and analysis of large or complex datasets.
• What are the drivers of deforestation and land
degradation? —> Social-ecological interactions.
• How can we increase the utility of these networks to
inform investments/interventions?

4. Pressing Social-Ecological Challenges
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT REVIEW 2013
MAKE AGRICULTURE TRULY SUSTAINABLE NOW FOR FOOD SECURITY
IN A CHANGING CLIMATE
U N I T E D N A T I O N S C O N F E R E N C E O N T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T
EMBARGO
The contents of this Report must not be
quoted or summarized in the print,
broadcast or electronic media before
18 September 2013, 17:00 hours GMT
Norbert Henninger
Mathilde Snel
Experiences with the
Development and Use
of Poverty Maps
where
poor ?
are the
World Resources Institute
10 G Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002 USA
www.wri.org
UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Service Box 706
4808 Arendal Norway
www.grida.no
Worl d
R e s o u rce s
I n s t i t u t e
UNEP
G R I D
A r e n d a l
change occurred naturally and Earth’s regu-
latory capacity maintained the conditions
that enabled human development. Regular
temperatures, freshwater availability and
biogeochemical flows all stayed within a rela-
tively narrow range. Now, largely because of
a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and
humans, the Holocene is expected to continue
for at least several thousands of years7
.
Planetary boundaries
To meet the challenge of maintaining the
Holocene state, we propose a framework
based on ‘planetary boundaries’. These
Figure 1 | Beyond the boundary. The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating
space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for
each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human
interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.
Atmospheric
Biodiversityloss
Changeinlanduse
Global
Phosphoru
s
Nitrogen
(biogeochemical
Stratospheric
Ocean acidifi
cation
Climate change
Chem
ical pollution
(notye
t quantified)
aerosolloading(notyetquantified)
ozonedepletion
freshwateruse
flowboundary)
cycle
cycle
the rule. Many subsystems of Earth react in
a nonlinear, often abrupt, way, and are par-
ticularly sensitive around threshold levels of
certain key variables. If these thresholds are
crossed, then important subsystems, such as a
monsoon system, could shift into a new state,
often with deleterious or potentially even
disastrous consequences for humans8,9
.
Most of these thresholds can be defined by
a critical value for one or more control vari-
ables, such as carbon dioxide concentration.
Not all processes or subsystems on Earth have
well-defined thresholds, although human
actions that undermine the resilience of such
processes or subsystems — for example, land
and water degradation — can increase the risk
that thresholds will also be crossed in other
processes, such as the climate system.
We have tried to identify the Earth-system
processes and associated thresholds which, if
crossed, could generate unacceptable envi-
ronmental change. We have found nine such
processes for which we believe it is neces-
sary to define planetary boundaries: climate
change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial
and marine); interference with the nitrogen
and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone
depletion; ocean acidification; global fresh-
water use; change in land use; chemical pol-
lution; and atmospheric aerosol loading (see
Fig. 1 and Table).
In general, planetary boundaries are values
for control variables that are either at a ‘safe’
distance from thresholds — for processes
with evidence of threshold behaviour — or
at dangerous levels — for processes without
472
472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 472472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 472 18/9/09 11:12:3918/9/09 11:12:39
The State of
Food Insecurity in the World
The multiple dimensions of food security
2013
REVIEW
Food Security: The Challenge of
Feeding 9 Billion People
H. Charles J. Godfray,1
* John R. Beddington,2
Ian R. Crute,3
Lawrence Haddad,4
David Lawrence,5
James F. Muir,6
Jules Pretty,7
Sherman Robinson,8
Sandy M. Thomas,9
Camilla Toulmin10
Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will
increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water, and energy, in addition to
the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food, as will the urgent requirement
to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a
further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and
during the 18th- and 19th-century Industrial and
Agricultural Revolutions and the 20th-century
Green Revolution. Increases in production will
have an important part to play, but they will be
constrained as never before by the finite resources
provided by Earth’s lands, oceans, and atmo-
sphere (10).
Patterns in global food prices are indicators of
trends in the availability of food, at least for those
who can afford it and have access to world mar-
kets. Over the past century, gross food prices have
generally fallen, leveling off in the past three dec-
ades but punctuated by price spikes such as that
caused by the 1970s oil crisis. In mid-2008, there
was an unexpected rapid rise in food prices, the
cause of which is still being debated, that subsided

5. Pressing Social-Ecological Challenges
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT REVIEW 2013
MAKE AGRICULTURE TRULY SUSTAINABLE NOW FOR FOOD SECURITY
IN A CHANGING CLIMATE
U N I T E D N A T I O N S C O N F E R E N C E O N T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T
EMBARGO
The contents of this Report must not be
quoted or summarized in the print,
broadcast or electronic media before
18 September 2013, 17:00 hours GMT
Norbert Henninger
Mathilde Snel
Experiences with the
Development and Use
of Poverty Maps
where
poor ?
are the
World Resources Institute
10 G Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002 USA
www.wri.org
UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Service Box 706
4808 Arendal Norway
www.grida.no
Worl d
R e s o u rce s
I n s t i t u t e
UNEP
G R I D
A r e n d a l
change occurred naturally and Earth’s regu-
latory capacity maintained the conditions
that enabled human development. Regular
temperatures, freshwater availability and
biogeochemical flows all stayed within a rela-
tively narrow range. Now, largely because of
a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and
humans, the Holocene is expected to continue
for at least several thousands of years7
.
Planetary boundaries
To meet the challenge of maintaining the
Holocene state, we propose a framework
based on ‘planetary boundaries’. These
Figure 1 | Beyond the boundary. The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating
space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for
each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human
interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.
Atmospheric
Biodiversityloss
Changeinlanduse
Global
Phosphoru
s
Nitrogen
(biogeochemical
Stratospheric
Ocean acidifi
cation
Climate change
Chem
ical pollution
(notye
t quantified)
aerosolloading(notyetquantified)
ozonedepletion
freshwateruse
flowboundary)
cycle
cycle
the rule. Many subsystems of Earth react in
a nonlinear, often abrupt, way, and are par-
ticularly sensitive around threshold levels of
certain key variables. If these thresholds are
crossed, then important subsystems, such as a
monsoon system, could shift into a new state,
often with deleterious or potentially even
disastrous consequences for humans8,9
.
Most of these thresholds can be defined by
a critical value for one or more control vari-
ables, such as carbon dioxide concentration.
Not all processes or subsystems on Earth have
well-defined thresholds, although human
actions that undermine the resilience of such
processes or subsystems — for example, land
and water degradation — can increase the risk
that thresholds will also be crossed in other
processes, such as the climate system.
We have tried to identify the Earth-system
processes and associated thresholds which, if
crossed, could generate unacceptable envi-
ronmental change. We have found nine such
processes for which we believe it is neces-
sary to define planetary boundaries: climate
change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial
and marine); interference with the nitrogen
and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone
depletion; ocean acidification; global fresh-
water use; change in land use; chemical pol-
lution; and atmospheric aerosol loading (see
Fig. 1 and Table).
In general, planetary boundaries are values
for control variables that are either at a ‘safe’
distance from thresholds — for processes
with evidence of threshold behaviour — or
at dangerous levels — for processes without
472
472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 472472-475 Opinion Planetary Boundaries MH AU.indd 472 18/9/09 11:12:3918/9/09 11:12:39
The State of
Food Insecurity in the World
The multiple dimensions of food security
2013
REVIEW
Food Security: The Challenge of
Feeding 9 Billion People
H. Charles J. Godfray,1
* John R. Beddington,2
Ian R. Crute,3
Lawrence Haddad,4
David Lawrence,5
James F. Muir,6
Jules Pretty,7
Sherman Robinson,8
Sandy M. Thomas,9
Camilla Toulmin10
Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will
increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water, and energy, in addition to
the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food, as will the urgent requirement
to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a
further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and
during the 18th- and 19th-century Industrial and
Agricultural Revolutions and the 20th-century
Green Revolution. Increases in production will
have an important part to play, but they will be
constrained as never before by the finite resources
provided by Earth’s lands, oceans, and atmo-
sphere (10).
Patterns in global food prices are indicators of
trends in the availability of food, at least for those
who can afford it and have access to world mar-
kets. Over the past century, gross food prices have
generally fallen, leveling off in the past three dec-
ades but punctuated by price spikes such as that
caused by the 1970s oil crisis. In mid-2008, there
was an unexpected rapid rise in food prices, the
cause of which is still being debated, that subsided
Calls for Interdisciplinary &
Systematic Approaches

6. 1
Sentinel Landscapes 2014
Sentinel Landscapes
RESEARCH
PROGRAM ON
Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry
Edited by:
Tor-G. Vågen, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Leigh A. Winowiecki, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
Assessing social-ecological
indicators of land health
across landscapes
Leigh Winowiecki, Tor-Gunnar Vågen,
Anja Gassner, Rhett Harrison, Brian
Chiputwa, David Harris, all landscape
coordinators and data collection teams
l.a.winowiecki@cgiar.org

7. Ten Sentinel Landscapes (SL) in the Global Tropics

8. Example Research Questions - SL
Does a variation in tree cover/ quality affect any of the four
system level outcomes?
reduction in poverty, increased global food security,
improved nutrition, better management of natural
resources
What explains spatial and temporal variation of tree cover?
What is the relationship between tree density and diversity
and land health status

9. Sentinel Landscapes
Social-Ecological Frameworks
• Integrated Analysis (http://www1.cifor.org/sentinel-landscapes/
home.html)
• IFRI surveys (http://www.ifriresearch.net)
• Household surveys
• Land health surveys
landscapeportal.org
• Institutional Mapping

10. Land Degradation Surveillance Framework (LDSF)
Tor-G.Vågen (World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF))
LeighWinowiecki , LulsegedTamene Desta (International Centre forTropical Agriculture (CIAT))
Jerome E.Tondoh (World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)) v4 - 2013
the Land Degradation Surveillance Framework
LDSF
Field Guide

11. 0" 100" 200" 300" 400" 500" 600" 700"
Bushland"
Cropland"
Forest"
Grassland"
Other"
Shrubland"
Thicket"
Wooded"grassland"
Woodland"
Vegetation Structure- LDSF data
2547 Plots

12. TreeDensityincultivatedand
non-cultivatedplots

13. Assessments of Land and Soil Health:
Erosion Risk across Burkina Faso/Ghana -
change over time

14. Co-location of HH and Land Health Surveys
Example from Burkina Faso

15. Co-location of HH and Land
Health Surveys
Example from Indonesia: Merangin

16. Potential for Agroforestry: Tree Density in Cultivated
(1) and Non-cultivated (0): Indonesia

17. Livelihood Strategies: Indonesia SL
Borneo/Sumatra: Similar livelihood strategies, but very different
land sizes > differences in intensification potential
Off-farm only
Off and On-farm
On-farm only
• High variation in rural livelihood
strategies within and across
landscapes
• High variation in the % of the site that
is cultivated

18. In East Africa, farms with lower SOC values and higher erosion
prevalence rely more on off-farm income on average.
Linking Food Deficient Months with Land Health Indicators

19. Thank you!
Moving Forward
• Global analysis of the key
drivers of land/soil health
across landscapes
• Linking social-ecological
metrics