Long term socio ecological research sites for crp6

1,396 views

Published on

Long term socio ecological research sites for crp6

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,396
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
264
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Long term socio ecological research sites for crp6

  1. 1. Long term socio ecological research sites for CRP6-opportunities & challenges Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Anja Gassner, a.gassner@cgiar.org
  2. 2. Crosscutting Sentinel landscapetheme  Follows key recommendation from the 2009 Stripe socialComponent Lead science review commissioned by the CGIAR Science CouncilCenter:  Builds on the CGIAR’s comparative advantage to conductCIFOR/ICRAF long-term, comparative researchComponent  Generates data about the drivers and impacts of land useCoordinator: change, as well as approaches to threats and benefits forAnja environmental resilience and the poorGassner/Manuel  Integrates research and impact pathways to exploit potentialGuariguata synergies across all CRP6 components
  3. 3. Issue bound
  4. 4. geographicallybound
  5. 5. Issue bound Sentinel landscape  Oil palm value chain: volumes of traded CPO and anticipated growth in production in both Indonesia and Malaysia (and other countries emerging in SSA – Cameroon, Nigeria, Liberia etc)  Shea nuts/cacao - recent restructuring of local and regional trade patterns associated with new technological opportunities of substituting cocoa butter with cocoa butter equivalents in the world’s chocolate industry  Migration patterns/population pressure Andes –West Amazon?
  6. 6. Main Purpose• Cross regional comparison• Integrating Biophysical & Social data• Long-term presence• Opportunity to test landscape hypothesis based on good understanding of landscape variation• Co-locating research activities (share resources) – Between Components – With Partners – With other CRP’s
  7. 7. Why should you be interested?60% of ICRAF’s work- 6.5 month of your working timeWill be related to research questions framedunder the CGIAR Research Program 6Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
  8. 8. Why should you be interested?A budget of 3.7 Million to be spend on: Baseline data Partnership connections Overall coordination Access to datasets Intelligent data management and data mining
  9. 9. Cross regional Comparison “Greening” and “browning” in the Sahel Vagen T, unpublished data 2012 1982:2006
  10. 10. The opportunity for your workDesign projects based on an prior informationabout spatial and temporal variance within alandscape• Which communities have improved their livelihood more than others?• What are degradation hotspots in the landscapes?• Can I compare my community to communities in other regions?
  11. 11. Opportunity for ICRAF/CRP6• Opportunity to test our hypothesis about the reciprocal relationship between tree cover and livelihoods across 6 landscapes• Opportunity to develop and test practical methods to integrate socioeconomic and biophysical data
  12. 12. Moving from exploratory to confirmatory methods! Theoretical Content of ModelHigh LowConfirmatory Analysis Exploratory Analysis Structural Equation Modeling Agent based Modeling Causal search Methods Discriminant Analysis CRP6 Baseline’s Regression Trees PCA, CCA, NMS Multiple Regression
  13. 13. The challenge for ICRAF/CRP6• Selection of a set of comparable landscapes for cross- regional comparisons• Integrating Biophysical & Social data• Long-term presence/ creating a panel data set• Integrating action research with long term monitoring
  14. 14. Cross regional ComparisonStep 1: The monitoring framework is to be constructed from environmental problems that are formulated as hypotheses or assumptionsStep 2 To verify these hypotheses and assumptions, relatively simple indicators or the more complex landscape functions are selectedStep 3: The data set to be analysed depends on the assessment methods applied.Step 4: The choice of adequate areas and representative test sites is essential for optimised monitoring programmesStep 5: The results are interpreted to verify hypotheses, to construct metadata and to propose measures supporting a sustainable landscape development.A Conceptual Framework for Integrated FunctionalLandscape Monitoring, Syrbe, Hierold, Bastian, Röder 2010
  15. 15. What are CRP6 ingredients?Objective: Enhancing the management and useof forests, agroforestry and tree geneticresources across the landscape from forests tofarms.Conceptual framework: forest and land usetransition curve
  16. 16. Conceptual framework
  17. 17. SL1 SL2 SL3 SL4 SL5 SL6 Tenure, rights and access regimes Regulatory frameworks affecting women participation Ethnic diversity and social equity Types of management approaches and land-uses Level of market development and schemes Functional diversity Drivers of change Multiple actors at different scales
  18. 18. • Existing data for baseline and historical; e.g. long- term human welfare, demographic and human health data, as well as time series biophysical data • Scientists from "X" CRP6 components interested co- locating research in this site. • Potential for optimized outcomes for livelihood and environmental benefits within the landscape and transferability beyond the landscape. • Existence of a network of reliable partners on the ground that we can add value too. • Relative political stability and accessibilityWhere all other criteria are equal preference will be given to sites that coincide with research areas of other CRPs !
  19. 19. 5 sites in Latin America5 sites in South East Asia1 site in Central Asia6 sites in Africa2 issue bound landscapes
  20. 20. Landscape ecology research design principlesa) Variations across landscapes  If too many factors differ it is not possible to attribute any cause and effect relationships  PSEUDOREPLICATIONb) Variation within landscapes  Geopolitical boundaries across the same agro- ecosystem  Institutional boundaries (in/outside protected areas  Before and after studies (before after logging moratorium)
  21. 21. Challenge 2Integrating Biophysical & Social data
  22. 22. Research DesignSL1 SL2 SL3 SL4 SL5 SL6 Meta goals – driven by overall CRP6 research hypothesis SL1 SL2 SL3 SL4 SL5 SL6 Local & Local & Local & Local & Local & Local & regional regional regional regional regional regionalRelevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevantquestions questions questions questions questions questions
  23. 23. Integrating Biophysical & Social dataConceptual Frameworks developed forintegrating social science into the long-termecological research (LTER) sites:“Mitigation of pressures on biodiversity throughmodification of their underlying socioeconomicdrivers is thought to be the most effective anddurable option to reduce the rate of biodiversityloss”
  24. 24. Drivers-pressures-states-impacts-responses (DPSIR) approach
  25. 25. New tech- F. Support for technological innovation G nology A1. Land use policies, spatial development planning, roads A2. LU rights (e.g. community forest mngmnt) Livelihoods, provisioning & profitability G G Land Conse- G Response/ Actors/G Drivers use/cover quences & feedback agents changes functions options Biodiversity, Watershed G G functions, GHG Institutions, C. Suasion and institutional support emissions, Landscape identity, prid beauty e B2. PES and conditional ES incentives B1. Incentive structure through policy change (tax, subsidy etc) G = Potential gender specificity of analysis & targeting of interventions Modified from: Van Noordwijk, M., B. Lusiana, G. Villamor, H. Purnomo, and S. Dewi. 2011. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with driving forces and actors. Ecology and Society 16(1): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
  26. 26. Integrative Science for Society and theEnvironment (ISSE)An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecologicalresearch, Collins et al., 2011
  27. 27. Separating the drivers into press and pulse eventsAn integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecologicalresearch, Collins et al., 2011
  28. 28. Socioeconomic biodiversity pressures and driversHuman appropriation of netprimary production” (HANPP) is a measure of socioecologicalmaterial flows. (Haberl et al., 2001, Haberl et al., 2007a)
  29. 29. Boserup revisited in four comparative case studiesMarina Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011Research in Human Ecology • Social metabolism can be quantified in terms of energetic and material flows per time period, usually a year. • Different sociometabolic regimes have substantially different metabolic profiles • The higher the metabolic rate the higher the impact upon the environment.
  30. 30. Challenge 3Integrating action research with long term monitoring
  31. 31. Lantapan watershed : The strong presenceof ICRAF in this site is an advantage—it canfacilitate both formal and informalknowledge-sharing sessions and or advocacywork to reach out to policy. Sumbaja watershed : RUPES Project provides support to local communities to gain access to the Indonesian Government’s Community Forestry ProgramLake Victoria Basin:PRESA, therefore, directed its efforts intoalready ongoing processes by initiating theformation of a stakeholders’ consortiumwith the objective of making a case forpublicly-funded payments for environmentalservices.
  32. 32. SE TOU –landscape: Participatorymodeling to influence stakeholderstake on Integrated conservation anddevelopment project (ICDP) strategiesTri-National de la Sangha –Historical Lower Mekong: …. The intendedtrend analysis and scenario visioning outcome is to foster learning amongstto achiev the best outcomes for both conservation organisations andconservation and development. government departments, to better recognise and critically appraise the trade-offs that exist between conservation and development in forested landscapes, *…+ to learn from the current intervention experiences
  33. 33. AfricaSoils Sentinel Site based on the Land Degradation Surveillance Framework a spatiallystratified, hierarchical, randomized sampling framework Sentinel site (100 km2) 16 Clusters (1 km2) 10 Plots (1000 m2) 4 Sub-Plots (100 m2)
  34. 34. Characterize local variation inStep 1 conditions of tree cover, forest quality, livelihood options and environmental consequences Test the empirical value ofStep 2 ? a ‘forest transition’ conceptualization as spatial representation Interpret (model) the temporal trajectory of components of the sentinel landscapeStep 3 and their aggregate effects
  35. 35. We have a model of the drivers and pressures….. What to do with the model? Step 4B Step 4A Allow scenario After 5-7 years revisit testing in the sites and test the Small “action model predictions  sites” , minimising validate, refute or the spill over to improve model the larger (repeat steps 3 & 4) landscape
  36. 36. Purpose of June Workshop To remind the component teams of the advantage of co-locating research and to get a consensus on candidate landscapes and types of baseline data to be collected. To invite potential Partners to present CRP6 as the new CGIAR program that is willing to collocate research and funding to existing initiatives.
  37. 37. Outcome of June Workshop Selection of Sentinel Landscapes for CRP6 Identification of potential partnerships
  38. 38. After the June Workshop Selection of a few Sentinel Landscapes as pilots Identification of sites teams that will be responsible for data compilation (with support from ICRAF-RMG, ICRAF-GIU) and data collection Development of a set of research hypothesis “meta goal” that will guide the sampling frame for the baselines Decide on a minimum set of baseline data to be taken at each site Decide on methodological harmonization for data collection

×