Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byCIFOR-ICRAF
Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6
The document focuses on CRP6, which integrates forests, trees, and agroforestry within a framework addressing livelihoods, landscapes, and governance while emphasizing the importance of tree-based economic and environmental transitions. It outlines various strategies for sustainable management of natural resources, including understanding the drivers and consequences of forest transitions, and highlights opportunities for improving livelihoods through agroforestry. Key components involve collaboration among global initiatives and stakeholders to optimize policies and practices for multifunctional landscapes that support biodiversity conservation and rural poverty reduction.
More Related Content
Similar to Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6
Sentinel Landscapes and Component 3: links in the CRP6
- 1. CRP6: Forests, Treesand Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance
- 3. ICRAF’s GRP6 (Policiesand incentives for multifunctional landscapes with trees that provide environmental services) AND CIFOR’s Domain 4 (Managing the trade-offs between conservation and development at the landscape scale) form the primary basis for CRP6.3:
- 4. Globally applicable concepts,hypotheses Global policy development Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC Every place is unique
- 5. Sentinel landscape design? Can it run?
- 7. SES SEPES Socio-ecological-politi- cal-economy systems
- 8. CGIAR Strategic ResultsFramework SLO1. Reducing SLO2. Increasing SLO3. Improving SLO4. Sustainable rural poverty food security nutrition and health management of natural resources Measurables include Measurables include Measurables incluide Measurables are increased income changing levels of metrics of healthy resource use per unit from farm and non- production, price and growth, particularly of production, resto- farm activities, per- access to affordable in children, and ration and conserva- mitting investment in food by the urban and dietary intake, tion of ecosystem health, education and rural poor. nutrient up-take and services and reduced other poverty-redu- consequent health impacts of climatic cing activities. effects. change & shocks. CRP6.1 helps redu- CRP6.5 looks at ‘ex- CRP6.1 (supported by CRP6.2 and CRP6.3 cing rural poverty, tensification’ and 6.2) has attention to focus on resource through tree-based economic investment fruit trees and (biodiversity) conser- livelihoods; it includes in agriculture and medici-nals in various vation and ecosystem poverty in forest mar- forestry as a driver of stages of services gins and of forest- tree cover transitions. domestication, as CRP6.4 researches dependent people CRP6.1 contributes contributor to nutri- ecosystem-based CRP6.4 includes rural agroforestry techno- tional quality and adaptive responses vulnerability to cli- logies for food pro- health management and REDD financing mate change duction
- 9. Redirecting development pathways towards environmental integrity Positive incentives are needed to reward rural poor for the environmental services they can/do provide
- 10. Dominant DIVERGENT model UrLand of territorial configuration (i.e. land sparing) Quality UrLand NatLand Rural Matrix Cheap massive Landscapes (highly profitable) Rural-urba and livelihoods urban housing n Ag Land Control of water Elite migraton excess and Suburban Rural-urban migrants scarcity residence Low Quality Food Elite Rural provi-sioning Ecotourism NatLand poor Wage laborers AgLand Fortress type Eco- servants Cheap massive Marginalized conservation Elite(highly profitable) CONVERGENT model against masses Organic industrial food agribussiness (i.e. land sharing) Control of erosion and water García-Barrios et. al. 2009. Bioscience excess and scarcity and 2010 La Jornada del Campo.
- 11. Forest and treecover transitions: a unifying concept across CRP6 X-linkage of Temporal Spatial Institutional actions in pattern pattern challenge landscape
- 12. > The holistic forest+tree view of the world (combines both ‘forester’ and ‘agroforester’ point-of-views) Source: Global tree cover inside and outside forest, according to the Global Land Cover 2000 dataset, the FAO spatial data on farms versus forest, and the analysis by Zomer et al. (2009)
- 13. CRP6 Forests, Treesand Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance Component 3: Landscape management for environmental services, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods 1. Understanding drivers of forest transition 2. Understanding the consequences of forest transition for environmental services and livelihoods 3. Learning landscapes: dynamics of multifunctionality
- 14. Building on ajoint history CIFOR Domain 4 + ICRAF GRP 6 Starting new joint projects: Recently approved: Approval expected soon: Sustainable Sulawesi Sustainable Rural Development through High Supported by CIDA Value Biocarbon Approaches: building multifunctional landscapes and institutions in West and East Africa Supported by Finland
- 15. SLO4. Sustainable managementof natural resources
- 16. Feedback Loops Addedto Four Conceptual Models Linking Land Change with Driving Forces and Actors http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/
- 17. Landscape management options Livelihoods in context 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Local Producti Conser Enviro. Adapting Trade Improving on vation Services & & Livelihoods, Drivers Tree cover transitions and forest quality ilding Enviro. Services, External systems and reducing invest Governance use emissions ment Institutions, gender, capacity strengthening & partnerships Global actors and value chains The components of CRP6 share common goals and networked impact pathways
- 18. SLO4. Sustainable managementof natural resources Theme 6.3.1. Understanding patterns and drivers of forest (tree cover) transition in decline and restoration phases Recognition by government agencies and in public debate of tree cover and forest transitions as a basis for realistic land use and development planning and institutional reform of land use regulation
- 19. Theme-level outcome Verifiable indicator Policy documents use quantitative tree cover criteria and multiple forest types, rather than merely binary 'deforestation/ Recognition by government reforestation' data agencies and in public debate of tree cover and forest CRP6 tools and approaches to transitions as a basis for multi-layered driver analysis realistic land use and are adopted for development planning and international/national/local institutional reform of land policy development use regulation Institutional support and interest in Agroforestry Policy Initiative and Forest Landscape Restoration
- 20. CRP 6.3.1 Outputtargets • 6.3.1.1 Empirical data sets of quantitative and qualitative tree cover transitions across major … • 6.3.1.2 Empirical data on changes in spatial pattern of tree cover within landscapes in relation to segre.. • 6.3.1.3 Methods for monitoring and quantifying tree cover refined and linked to data uncertainty • 6.3.1.4 Proximate and ultimate drivers of land use and tree cover change: inference from spatial… • 6.3.1.5 Policy levers and negotiation opportunities to influence drivers of tree cover transitions, rehabilitation and/or agroforestry transformation
- 21. -24 A. Trees used as history book leiocarpus where climate records are -25 scarce or unreliable δ18 C -26 -27 1999 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year 26 A. leiocarpus S. birrea 25 24 Evergreen Anogeissus δ18O 23 22 leiocarpus in 21 Burkina Faso 20 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year
- 22. Tree cover transition Widening:area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared
- 23. Examples of thingswe do 6.3.1 In the 1990s, loss of natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C- stock’/low economic value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the loss of natural forest After 2000, planting of tree crops equals 90% of concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C-stock/low economic value land decreases
- 24. Coarsening of pattern:segregate
- 25. Examples of thingswe do 6.3.1 deforestation re- and afforestation Fields,fallow, forest mosaic Farm Plantations forests, Fields, agro- forests forests & parks Integrate Segregate
- 26. CRP 6.3.2 Outputtargets • 6.3.2.1 Tools for and case studies of quantifying buffering of water flows and other hydrological ES.. • 6.3.2.2 Tools for and case studies of understanding biodiversity-based environmental services across.. 6.3.2.3 Not just carbon? Quantified tradeoffs be- tween C stocks and other environmental services.. • 6.3.2.4 Gender, age and wealth-specific appreciation of tree cover transitions in relation to demo- .. • 6.3.2.5 Tested tools and governance mechanisms for adaptive landscape management of ecology- • 6.3.2.6 Policies for the agriculture-forestry interface and strategies for sustaining food security, ecologi-..
- 27. CRP 6.3.3 Outputtargets • 6.3.3.1 Network of ‘active learning landscapes’ on RES/PES mechanisms maintained and enhanced • 6.3.3.2 Synthesis from action research sites, identi- fying principles, methods and processes for advan.. • 6.3.3.3 Identification of improved modalities and approaches to effectively support conservation in.. 6.3.3.4 Participatory models for reserve manage- ment: resource use rights, threats to targeted … 6.3.3.5 Impact studies testing assumptions of the CRP6.3 theory of change and output-outcome- impact pathways.
- 29. Quantification of landcover & Sentinel terrestrial C balance; driver landscapes as analysis REDD+/REALU spatial integration Drivers of CRP6 research CRP6.3.1 CRP6.4.1 Livelihood options and CRP6.5.1 their ES tradeoffs International trade and investment as driver of change CRP6.1 Consequences CRP6.3.2 = some key CRP6.2 interactions Forest-based biodiversity within CRP6 & genetic resource conservation; sustainable forest management in CRP6.4.1 practice CRP6.3.3 Learning Mitigation and adaptation at landscape scale; REDD+ as landscapes basis of funding landscape investments
- 30. Quantification of landcover & Sentinel and terrestrial C balance; sparing vs. benchmark sharing discussion landscapes of Drivers other CRPs CRP6.3.1 CRP7 Green vs blue water relationships & CRP 1.1, ecosystem services Consequences 1.2, 1.3 CRP5 CRP6.3.2 = links CRP2 to other Institutions and CRPs collective action CRP6.3.3 CRP7 Learning Mitigation and adaptation at landscape scale; sparing vs. landscapes sharing discussion at local level
- 31. Sentinel landscape design? Monitoringchange & attributing it to ‘drivers’ Stimulating change Can it run?
- 32. Four tables todiscuss…. • 1. How to reconcile development/intervention and monitoring/non-intervention objectives across time and space • 2. Describing, understanding patterns of change and local/global drivers of ‘forest transition’ • 3. Consequences of change in tree cover for a) livelihoods, b) ecosystem services • 4. What can be done: governance options, learning landscapes
- 34. SLO4. Sustainable managementof natural resources Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree cover transition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services and adaptive policy Local resource managers in tree-based multiple use landscapes use cost-effective and replicable tools and approaches to appraise likely impacts of changes in land- use on watershed functions, biodiversity and carbon stocks as well as on the economic productivity of the landscape
- 35. SLO4. Sustainable managementof natural resources Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree cover transition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services & adaptive policy Land use planners and practioners use principles and methods resulting in clearer and more transparent recognition of conservation and development trade-offs in land and rights allocation, as well as adjustments to economic incentives
- 36. Verifiable Theme-level outcome indicator Local resource managers in tree- Documented use based multiple use landscapes use of tools and cost-effective and replicable tools approaches and approaches to appraise likely developed, tested impacts of changes in land-use on and/or promoted watersheds, biodiversity and carbon by CRP6 partners stocks as well as on the economic productivity of the landscape Land-use planners and practitioners Documented use principles and methods resulting application of in clearer and more transparent participatory land- recognition of conservation and use planning for development trade-offs in land and forest margin rights allocation, as well as settings, integrated adjustments to economic incentives with tenure reform
- 37. Synergies between functions Pcrop Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod Land Crop production Concave likely Tree production No preference Carbon storage Watershed services Biodiversity Landscape beauty
- 39. Examples of thingswe do 6.3.2 Sustainable Weighting of Economy-Ecology Tradeoffs: organized reduction or Stretching Our Use of Resources (SWEETorSOUR)? This may be societal optimum, but requires SWEET Production Possibility Frontier Getting here may turn SOUR
- 40. Actors in thelandscape and livelihood assets 2 van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society
- 41. SLO4. Sustainable managementof natural resources Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes where innovative response and policy options are being tested Local and external stakeholders negotiate and have access to a range of conditional and performance- based arrangements that support the provision and maintenance of environmental services and biodiversity in productive landscapes
- 42. SLO4. Sustainable managementof natural resources Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes where innovative response and policy options are being tested Opportunities for win-win solutions in restoration contexts are fully used, while the hard tradeoffs are recognised and contest over them is replaced by negotiation
- 43. Theme-level Outcome Verifiable indicator Stakeholders negotiate and National policy have access to a range of formulation and new conditional and performance- action research based arrangements that undertakings refer to support the provision and multiple PES paradigms maintenance of environmental that were derived from services and biodiversity in RUPES and PRESA productive landscapes experience Opportunities for win-win Documented progress solutions in restoration contexts on tenure reform and are fully used, while the hard negotiated joint tradeoffs are recognised and management regimes in contest over them is replaced conservation and by negotiation restoration contexts, that refer to CRP6 approaches and results
- 44. Where would youlike to see more trees?
- 45. Participatory resource mappingfollowed by simulation board game with agents of change: seeking contracts for logging or oilpalm conversion, or agreements on forest protection and ecolabelling (Photographs: Grace Villamor)
- 46. Tradeoff at landuse system level Opportunity cost at landcape scale opportunity cost, $/t CO2e, Slope indicates Emission reduction poten- Carbon stock, tC/Ha emissions per tial for given C price gain in $/ha I II e.g. ADSB reports e.g. ASB-II Cumulative emissions reports of 2007/8 1990’s NPV, $/Ha Dynamic land use scenario model Agents with C stock variation in (increasing) resource base, moti- vation, live- III lihood stra- IV tegies. Rural income Rural income interacting (declining) (increasing) with rules & policies C stock e.g. FALLOW Agent-based land use change model (decreasing) scenarios
- 47. Hypothesis of PESreplacing social motivation to protect ES Effort to protect/enhance ES Baseline Schematic results of ES experiment No Medium Strong loss of social motivation 0 low medium high External financial rewards
- 48. Price condition forinter-generational increase in altruism: Individual Social Group ( Benefits - Costs )+( )( cohe- sion )> 0 Benefits - Costs Loss of social cohesion (‘relatedness’) term implies shift from group to individual ‘benefit–cost’ considerations
- 49. Balancing act isneeded Efficiency Fairness Free and prior informed consent
- 51. 3. National economiesin global market context 1.Patch-level cyclical succession K: Approach CarrCap Stored capital LU-system properties Ω:Crash r: Exp 2.LU adoption dynamics Growth α:Reorganize Interlinkage Living landscapes Nesting of three non-linear dynamic systems: 1) patch-level tree growth and decay, 2) landscape level adoption and abandonment of tree-based production systemns, and 3) national economies as part of global markets and policy interventions
- 52. Rights to defineforest Five different ways of classifying forest: 1. By ecosys- 2. By vegetation 3. By land use 4. By ‘owner’ 5. By ‘co-management tem service & its C-stocks category regime’ Conservation + 10% State National Park watershed Forest Protected Area protection Forest forest Restoration conces- Emis- domain sion sion GHG 53% Other + Community-forest C capture Production disputed forest forest lands Village forest Benefit-sharing Convertible Logging concession forest Plantation contract Official conversion from forest to non-forest land status: ‘planned Mixed agroforest, deforestation’ private forests, community Non-forest land uses landscapes with (APL) trees
- 53. 10% TREE coverin agricultural lands… Enough to qualify as forest? Meadow 1996 2006 Fallow XP 2011 Vineyard Land cover change…. 3101 Fremont Drive, Sonoma, California, United States