Integrative agroforestry science perspectives

Integrative agroforestry science:
reflections and perspectives
Meine van Noordwijk
24-01-2017

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

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}

Building blocks:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland
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

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

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:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland

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

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

Building blocks:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland
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

Tradeoff Innovation
analysis
Monitoring Platforms for
change change
Conse- Scena-
quences rios
Global
National
Subnational
Landscape
Community
Household
Individual

Local Ecological
Knowledge
Modellers
Ecological
Knowledge
http://www.millenniumassessment.org
/ma/ASB-MA_statusreport_ver5.0.pdf
Building blocks:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland
Public/Policy
Ecological
Knowledge

Building blocks:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
• Boundary work,
• NSS
• Options, Contexts, Issues
& Goals
Brundtland
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

#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?

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:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland

1987
1992
Separate Rio
conventions
UNagenda2030:17Sustainable
DevelopmentGoals,adoptedin2015
Every step in UNFCCC has to deal
with “cobenefits” and “safeguards”

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

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

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

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

Building blocks:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland

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

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

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

Building blocks:
• ToC, ToP, ToIC
• Three knowledge
Issues & Goals
Brundtland
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)

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

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)

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

I. Theory of Place, pantropical extrapolation
domains and the places where we work
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ma/ASB-MA_statusreport_ver5.0.pdf

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)

Archeological sites & forest monitoring
plots are both determined by ‘accessibility’
Forest plot evidence for continued C sequestration may be response to past disturbance

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

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

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

Stage 6 (urban) under-. Stage 5
overrepresented

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.

II. Who cares about ‘evidence’? Political ecology,
behavioural economics, change as it happens
Active dis-
information

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’

“evidence is provided that it is possible to pre-emptively
protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate
change against real-world misinformation.”

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.

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

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

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

 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

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

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

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’

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…

IV. Supporting learning, self-selection, IDC’s,
bottom-up actions

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

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

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.

Further papers
(Coffee, Cacao, Oil
palm) forthcoming

V. ‘Cool trees’ the start and end of all
agroforestry research

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. “

Trees,forestsandwater:coolinsightsfora
hotworld.Ellisonetal.(2017)
Surface tempe-
rature distribu-
tion in a mixed
landscape with
forest.
Source:
(Hesslerová et
al., 2013).

Infiltration and
groundwater
recharge
relative to
canopy cover
Source: Ilstedt
et al. 2016

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&
?

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

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

Meine van
Noordwijk ICRAF
1993-2017
Integrative agroforestry science:
reflections and perspectives
1984
1987

%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:

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”

Integrative agroforestry science perspectives

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Integrative agroforestry science perspectives

Similar to Integrative agroforestry science perspectives (20)

More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF)

More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Integrative agroforestry science perspectives

Editor's Notes