The new agrarian change?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
3 likes•1,686 views
A presentation by Liz Deakin at ATBC on the 14th July 2015.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to The new agrarian change?
Similar to The new agrarian change? (20)
More from CIFOR-ICRAF
More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The new agrarian change?
- 1. Liz Deakin, Mrigesh Kshtryia, Frédéric Baudron, Terry Sunderland Association for Tropical Biology Conference – Honolulu, 14th July 2015 The New Agrarian Change? Exploring the dynamic interplay between forest conservation, food security and commodity production in tropical forest landscapes
- 2. Photo credits: CIFOR Agrarian change in tropical forest landscapes
- 3. Natural vegetation ‘Secondary’ vegetation Agricultural land Agrarian change in tropical landscapes Agricultural modification Treecover Photo credits: CIFOR
- 4. Land sharing Photo credits: CIFOR Agrarian change in tropical landscapes Treecover Natural vegetation ‘Secondary’ vegetation Agricultural land Land sparing
- 5. Land sparing & land sharing Vs. Food productionBiodiversity conservation Photo credits: CIFOR • Many opinions, responses and discussion on the land sharing / land sparing debate (e.g. Green et al. 2005, Fischer et al. 2011, Ziegler et al. 2011, Phalan et al. 2011, 2014, Clough et al. 2011, Ewers 2009, Baudron et al. 2014, Perfecto & Vandermeer 2010 and others) • Full complexities of multi-functional landscapes not considered by only looking at trade offs between biodiversity conservation and agricultural yields
- 6. Land sparing & land sharing: moving forward Agriculture – Biodiversity Nexus • Land use strategies aimed at balancing agriculture and biodiversity conservation must also consider socio-economic constraints and trade- offs, as well as trade offs with biodiversity conservation (Grau et al. 2013, Fischer et al. 2014, Lee et al. 2014) • More food production does not automatically lead to better food security and better livelihoods for rural communities ? Photo credits: CIFOR
- 7. Addressing the agriculture-biodiversity nexus Food security Ecosystem services Nutrition Sustainable livelihoods Access to markets Poverty alleviation Wild food & products Project Aim: Advance our understanding of agricultural landscapes as socio-ecological systems ? Photo credits: CIFOR
- 8. Food security Ecosystem services Nutrition Sustainable livelihoods Access to markets Poverty alleviation Wild food & products What effect does agrarian change have on social AND ecological responses in tropical forest landscapes? Underlying drivers behind land use change? Community perceptions of land use change? Project Aim: Advance our understanding of agricultural landscapes as socio-ecological systems ? Photo credits: CIFOR Addressing the agriculture-biodiversity nexus
- 9. Study Sites
- 10. FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover Experimental Design A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone 1 2 3
- 11. Photo credits: CIFOR Experimental Design FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest products A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone 1 2 3
- 12. Photo credits: CIFOR Experimental Design FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover E.g. Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest resources E.g. Rubber agroforestry system Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest products Extensive coffee agroforesty A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone 1 2 3
- 13. A landscape-level approach, with a nested 3-level hierarchical design: 1. A landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change 2. Three land use ‘zones’ in each landscape, a gradient of agricultural modification 3. Villages or settlements within each zone Experimental Design FOREST (CONTROL) ZONE 1 ZONE 3ZONE 2 Agricultural modification (simplification and intensification of commodities) Treecover E.g. Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest resources E.g. Rubber agroforestry system E.g. Oil palm monoculture Subsistence farming, high dependency on forest products Extensive coffee agroforesty Intensive oil palm monoculture 1 2 3
- 14. Field Methods In each zone the following methods were used: Household Surveys Focus Group Discussions Key Informant Interviews Farm Productivity Surveys Biodiversity Surveys Yield measurements Farm inputs (e.g. fertilizer, labour) Production targets Resource flow mapping Wealth ranking Food / cash calendars Nutrition assessments Ecosystem service mapping Community perceptions Tree plots Bird point counts Invertebrate trapping METHODS BiodiversityRelative poverty Nutrition Food securityEcosystem services Livelihoods Agricultural production RESPONSES
- 15. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
- 16. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
- 17. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
- 18. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession
- 19. Study site: Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia Primary forest Rubber agroforestry Oil palm plantation Oil palm concession Photo credits: Dominic Rowland
- 20. Food security Ecosystem services Nutrition Sustainable livelihoods Access to markets Poverty alleviation Wild food & products • A LOT OF DATA ANALYSIS! • Provide empirical evidence to examine socio-economic trade offs within land sparing / sharing debate • Advance our understanding of agricultural landscapes as socio- ecological systems • There is much more to food security than increasing agricultural production….. ? Photo credits: CIFOR Next steps….
- 21. Acknowledgements Co-investigators: Mrigesh Kshtryia (CIFOR) Terry Sunderland (CIFOR) Frédéric Baudron (CIMMYT) Collaborators, PhD and Masters students: Sarah Gergel & Ian Eddy (University of British Columbia) Unai Pasquel & Ignacio Polomo (BC3) Samson Foli (University of Amsterdam) Abdoulaye Rabdo (CIFOR Burkina Faso) Ronju Ahammad (Charles Darwin University) Dominic Rowland (London School of Tropical Hygiene & Medicine) Rio Leonald (Bogor Agricultural University) Stella Asaha (Pan African Institute for Development) Kondwani Yobe Mumba & Davison Gumbo (CIFOR Zambia) Jean-Yves Duriaux (CIMMYT Ethiopia) Funding: DfID, UK USAID Halimun Salak National Park landscape, Indonesia Photo credit: CIFOR
Editor's Notes
- This schematic diagram is a simplified way of looking at a mosaic landscape undergoing processes of Agrarian Change, taking into account decreasing forest cover and increasing levels of agricultural modification. As you move across this gradient of agricultural modification, areas of natural vegetation largely decrease and patches of secondary vegetation and agroforestry systems emerge, as well as patches of agricultural land, and a further transition occurs as result of intensively cultivated agro-commodities, often in the form of agricultural monocultures such as wheat, maize and oil palm.
- To date much of the work examining sparing and land sharing strategies has largely focused on looking at the trade offs between biodiversity conservation and food production. And many opinions, responses and discussion regarding the land sharing land sparing debate have been brought to the table over a number of years now However, the full complexities of multi-functional landscapes are not been considered by only examining the trade offs between biodiversity conservation and agricultural yields And the land sharing / land sparing debate needs to move on from solely looking at trade offs between yield and biodiversity
- It has recently been recognized that land use strategies aimed at balancing agriculture and biodiversity conservation must also consider socioeconomic constraints and trade-offs, as well as trade offs with biodiversity conservation. Therefore, addressing the nexus of agricultural production, food security and biodiversity conservation is of high importance and is very timely There is a real lack of information on human impacts of agrarian change in forested areas, particularly with regards to socio-economic effects of intensification and market integration processes And its important to recognize that more food production does not automatically lead to better food security and better livelihoods for rural communities Limitas of the sharing/sparing debate: More complex than trade-offs between biodiversity and yields Does not consider other system components, especially sociio-economic elements Focusses on food crops, although LUC often driven by markets and land tenure Ignores issues such as patch interactions, microclimatic effects of patches, and source-sink dynamics In particular, there is a dearth of information on human impacts of contemporary agrarian change in forested areas, particularly with regards to socio-economic effects of intensification and market integration processes. Grau et al. (2013) and Fischer et al. (2014) have recently highlighted that land use strategies aimed at balancing agriculture and biodiversity conservation must also consider socioeconomic constraints and trade-offs.
- So in light of this, the main aim of our study is to advance our understanding of agricultural landscapes as social-ecological systems, and to move the land sharing/land sparing debate forward from solely examining trade-offs between food production and biodiversity
- We aim to address this knowledge gap by examining the social dimension to the land sparing/land sharing debate, by considering agricultural production trade-offs with other system components such as food security, nutrition, local livelihoods and poverty levels, AS WELL AS ecological biodiversity and ecosystem service metrics.
- So over the last 18 months we’ve set this project up in 6 different countries and have identified landscapes in each country exhibiting both land sharing and land sparing scenarios. The case study countries we will examine are Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Zambia
- And in each focal country, a focal landscape exhibiting changing land use practices and agrarian change has been identified to conduct the study. We’ve applied a nested experimental design where in each landscape, there different land use zones have been identified, representing a gradient of agricultural modification and decreasing tree cover and with local communities present in each of these zones.
- The suite of land use blocks or zones are representative of changes in land use practice and have a dominant land use. An example gradient of land use may be an area with best available forest cover and dependency on forest products coupled with subsistence agriculture, an agroforestry system (a mix of forest cover and crops), and a monoculture/intensive cash crop system (e.g. wheat or palm oil).