Prevailing Theories of Change(ToC) on ASB Partnership timeline: ToC -1: Shifting cultivation is a major driver of deforestation, modernizing agriculture saves forests.- before 1993. Intensifying agriculture to obtain higher yields per ha reduces land pressure on forest & deforestation (‘Borlaug hypothesis’) 1993-1995 ToC 2A: Tradeoffs between private and public benefits of land use can be quantified; knowing opportunity costs of environmental services frames policy; ToC 2B: Landscape mosaics (varying on segregated versus integrated axis) shape multi-scale outcomes; require Negotiation Support for change ToC 2C: Landscape mosaics require fair + efficient reward mechanisms and/or coinvestment in ES TOC 3A: Landscape-scale coinvestment in ES supports Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU as REDD++ alternative) ToC 3B: Multi-scale, multi-paradigm combi-nation of national com-modification and local coinvestment for land-based NAMA’s/LAAMA’s ToC 3C: Idem for Sustainable Development Goals;

1. IUFRO 2014 Salt Lake City: Session C-02 (193) From Understanding
Drivers To Gaining Leverage At The Tropical Forest Margins:
20 Years of ASB Partnership
Theories of Change & Change of Theory:
Twenty years of ASB Partnership for the
tropical forest margins
Meine van Noordwijk
Thanks to many in the audience
and elsewhere for sharing ideas

2. Theory of Change
• Rational and implementable pathways to achieve
change that is deemed desirable by funders and
acceptable by gatekeepers, accompanied by…
Question common Answers
Answer open Questions
Change of Theory
Theory of Change of Theory…

3. Theory of Change  Theory of Place
• Many development agencies
• Change is non-linear
have adopted a ‘theory of
and strongly depen-dent
change’ language as a more
on context,
modest and transparent step
history, stakeholder
beyond ‘log frames’ that
suppose the world is
processes and cross-scale
predictable and controllable
influences (top-down
Focus is still on desirable
+ bottom up),
• long-term change (‘impact’),
achieved via ‘outcomes’ that
can be monitored, but it
accepts that ‘boundary
work’ involves partners’
agendas and timeframes
beyond direct control
• A theory of place
provides a frame for
understanding context,
recognizing similarity
domains, inspiration

4. Theory of
Change
Policy
thresholds
Core Logged-over Secondary and Annual Grassland Mosaic landscape of agro-forest
forest agroforest crops forestry, plantations, crops
orchards, woodlots
2 3 4 5
Temporal
pattern, X-axis
Spatial
pattern,
X-axis
Institutional
challenge at
turning point
X-linkage of
actions in
landscape
Choice
of Y-axis
1
6
Tree basal area, carbon stock
Degradation
Defores-tation
Refores-tation
Operational forest definition
Theory of
Place

5. 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)

6. Theory of Change -1: Shifting cultivation is
a major driver of deforestation,
modernizing agriculture saves forests
. before 1993
Swiddening as
rotational
Shifting Tropical
Forest margins
Slash and Burn as
land clearing method
system
ASB–scientists rejected the ToC-1hypothesis
before the research started, but the name
‘slash-and-burn’ remained a red flag on a
bull for social scientists

7. Theory of Change 1: Intensifying agricul-ture
to obtain higher yields per ha reduces
land pressure on forest & deforestation
(‘Borlaug hypothesis’) 1993-1995
Global de-mand
for
food, fibre
(& fuel)
Land use with
low productivity
per unit land
X
How? Price mechanisms??
Land use with
high productivity
per unit land
X Continued
deforestation
How? Technical constraints??
Sustainable land
use
ASB – scientists rejected the hypothesis (“necessary but not sufficient condition”) as
too simplistic in 1995. Hypothesis re-emerged around 2000 as ‘land sparing’

8. Agroforestry
Agro- Crop fields, pasture vs Natural forest
Fores-vs
vs
Tree
Natural
vegetation,
biodiversity,
wilderness
Culture,
control, food
security,
profitability
Product value
chains
Tree crops

10. Theory of Change 2A: Tradeoffs between
private and public benefits of land use can
be quantified; knowing opportunity costs
of environmental services frames policy
Global demand
for food, fibre (&
fuel); returns to
land & la-bour;
C balance,
Biodiversity
Land use with
low productivity
per unit land
X
1995  current
How? Subsidies + Taxes
Land use with
high productivity
per unit land
X Continued
deforestation
How? Technical constraints??
Sustainable land
use
ASB – scientists quantified the tradeoff (“ASB matrix”) based on co-located,
interdisciplinary, globally comparative methods ; ’theory of place’ missed ‘landscape’

11. Watershed 1 Watershed 2
Which one will be ‘healthy’?

12. Hydrographs with decreasing flow persistence (Fp)
River flow in degrading watersheds become
more erratic as the Fp metric increases
Same rainfall, same total water yield

13. Theory of Change 2B: Landscape mosaics
(varying on segregated versus integrated
axis) shape multi-scale outcomes; require
Negotiation Support for effective change
Global demand
for food, fibre
(& fuel); returns
to land & la-bour;
C balance,
Biodiversity;
conflict; water
Land use with
low productivity
per unit land
X
2000  current
How? Tenure reform, PES,
Watershed Management
Land use with
high productivity
per unit land
X Continued
deforestation
Sustainable land
use
ASB – scientists explored negotiation support in landscapes with hot conflicts, found
tenure reform to be a crucial step, experiment with ‘payments & rewards’ for ES

14. Deforestation rate estimates depend more on operational
definitions of forest than that they change with time ;
data for Indonesia based on common satellite imagery

15. Theory of Change 2C: Landscape
mosaics require fair + efficient reward
mechanisms and/or coinvestment in ES
Global demand
for food, fibre
(& fuel); returns
to land & la-bour;
C balance,
Biodiversity;
conflict; water
Land use with
low productivity
per unit land
X
2005  current
How? Tenure reform, PES, Co-investment
Land use with
high productivity
per unit land
X Continued
deforestation
Sustainable land
use
ASB – scientists experimented with ‘payments & rewards’ for ES;

16. Why is land use what it is?
What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic in-centives,
motivation) for
modifying future change?
Who cares, who is affected by
or benefits from the changes
in tree cover and associated
ecosystem services? How are
stakeholders organized and
empowered to get leverage &
influence the drivers? Are
both genders empowered?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations? Gender specificity of
all the above?
So what? How do ecosystem
services (provisioning,
regulating, cultural/ religious,
supporting) depend on tree
cover and the spatial
organization of the landscape?
Gender specificity of appre-ciation
and dissatisfaction?
How are forests and trees
used? What land use pat-terns
with or without trees
are prominent in the land-scape
and provide the basis
for local lives and liveli-hoods?
What value chains are
based on these land uses?
Where are remaining forests
and planted trees? Since
when? How does tree cover
vary in the landscape (pat-terns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and
how has it decreased and
increased over time?
lSocio-ecological system dynamics

18. Theory of Change 3A: Landscape-scale
coinvestment in ES supports Reducing
Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU as
REDD++ alternative) 2008 current
Drivers Response/ feed-back
ASB – scientists experimented with ‘payments & rewards’ for ES;
options
Actors/
agents
Land use/
cover
Conse-quences
Livelihoods, provisioning &
profitability
G
G
G
G
G

20. Theory of Change 3B: Multi-scale, multi-paradigm
combination of national com-modification
and local coinvestment for
landbased NAMA’s/LAAMA’s 2011now
ASB – scientists contributed to REDD/readiness evaluation, REDD-ALERT analysis,
NAMA articulation  Sustainable Development Goals as target for integration

21. Theory of Change 3C: Multi-scale, multi-paradigm
combination of national com-modification
and local coinvestment for
Sustainable Development Goals; now 

22. ToC -1: Shifting
cultivation is a major
driver of deforestation,
modernizing agriculture
saves forests.
before 1993
ToC 1: Intensifying
agriculture to
obtain higher yields
per ha reduces land
pressure on forest
& deforestation
(‘Borlaug
hypothesis’)
1993-1995
ToC 2A: Tradeoffs
between private and
public benefits of land
use can be quantified;
knowing opportunity
costs of environmental
services frames policy;
ToC 2B: Landscape
mosaics (varying on
segregated versus
integrated axis) shape
multi-scale outcomes;
require Negotiation
Support for change
ToC 2C: Landscape
mosaics require fair +
efficient reward
mechanisms and/or
coinvestment in ES
TOC 3A: Landscape-scale
coinvestment in
ES supports Reducing
Emissions from All Land
Uses (REALU as REDD++
alternative)
ToC 3B: Multi-scale,
multi-paradigm combi-nation
of national com-modification
and local
coinvestment for land-based
NAMA’s/LAAMA’s
ToC 3C:
Idem for Sustainable
Development Goals;
now 

24. CGIAR system level objectives Competing Theories of Change
Goal 1. Raising rural income through
enhanced connectivity with global and
national markets, modified by integrated
approach to demographic, economic,
rural/urban and cultural transitions.
A. Rapid integration in global
markets,
B. Optimizing local
development pace and
connectedness
Goal 2. Closing yield and efficiency gaps
in agriculture and food systems. With
growing global demand for primary
production for food, fibre and energy,
current yield gaps (actual yields below
potential) and efficiency gaps (current
efficiency below potential) are a direct
concern, while in the long term an
increase in the potential is desirable/
necessary while simply maintaining
current levels is a challenge in the face of
climate change.
A. Scalable intensification
focused on increased input
use to reduce yield gaps,
B. Ecological intensification
with attention to efficiency
gaps and modified demand
patterns.

25. CGIAR system level objectives Competing Theories of Change
Goal 3. Improve nutrition security to
eliminate malnutrition and enhance
healthy and nutritious diets. Healthy
nutrition requires more than calories
provided by staple foods, especially
for young children. As dietary choices
change, new health issues emerge.
A. Genetically modified
staple food crops with
enhanced micronutrients
and vitamins,
B. Enhanced diversity of
food sources in an
agrodiversity approach
Goal 4. Achieve goals 1-3 without
further compromising environmen-tal
quality and the multiple other
functions of land, water and
biodiversity for human wellbeing,
while adapting to changing climates
and the avoiding getting too close to
the planetary boundaries
A. Land sparing by
maximizing agricultural
land productivity
B. Land sharing by optimi-zing
multifunctionality of
land