Tree cover transitions and land-scape functions: does it matter?
Meine van Noordwijk
ICRAF
CRP6 Seminar Bogor – taking stock in CRP6.3 & 6.5 ; 13 March 2013
Tree cover transitions and investment in multi-colored economy: hypotheses grounded in data
Geological history, pat-terns & current activity
Global climate systems
based on oceans, land
& atmosphere
Flora and fauna and its biogeography
Land forms,vegetation,ecosystems,hydrology
Initial human land use
Late-stage hu-man land use
Land use is predictable from ‘reading the landscape’
Land use dominates over original terrain features
Landscape Space
People
Land Use Systems
Institutions
Functions, services
Geology Land forms
Climate
Vegetation Flora&fauna
Hydrology
Value chains Landscape -
Planning, Incentives
mu
ltif
un
ctio
na
lity
Ten
ure
Which trees are part of “forest”, which ones part of the “agroforest”, or “agriculture”?
Old-growth
http://www.cifor.org/es/crp6/research-portfolio.html
Tree cover transitions as uni-fying concept for livelihoods, landscape and governance aspects
Partnership in responsive and adaptive research for/on/in development efforts, strengtheningcapacity
Zero net land degra-dation
SLO1 SLO2 SLO3 SLO4
Rio
co
nve
nti
on
s
M
illen
niu
m D
evel
op
men
t G
oal
s
Sust
ain
able
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Go
als
UNFCCC CBD UNCCD Aichi targets: areas, aware-ness, species, governance, incentives
Low emission development; Reduce vulnerability through adaptation R
ever
se n
ega
tive
tre
nd
Mai
nta
in &
acc
eler
ate
pro
gres
s
Rural income growth & empowerment at bottom of the gendered pyramid
Food supply growth > growth in demand; food price affordable at bottom of gendered pyramid
Nutritional aspects of health improve at bottom of gendered pyramid
(Agr
o-)
Eco
syst
em g
oo
ds
& s
ervi
ces
Landscape interactions:
SLO1 Rural poverty SLO2 Food production SLO3 Health & Nutrition SLO4 Natural Resource Management
Tree cover transitions: so what?
Trees as • Assets • Affordable bio- energy source • Income earners through products • Markers of land tenure claims
Trees as • (emergency) food • Staple (sago…) • Source of soil fertility for crops • Erosion control • Buffering climate & soil temperature
Trees as • Source of fruit, nutritional diver-sity health • Affordable bio- energy source • Medicinals • Clean water
Trees as •Markers of land tenure claims • Water recycling • Nutrient recy-cling • Carbon storage • Climate buffer
Direct vs Indirect
Profitability Sustainability
Fruits as healthy part of diets
Essentially there are only two possible conditions for any specific field of science:
At least some of the evidence is conflicting with the most compre-hensive of current theories
Current theory is aligned with all credible known facts
Theory of Change
Identify and implement a rational pathway to achieve change that is deemed desirable by funders and acceptable by gatekeepers
Question common Answers
Answer open Questions
Our daily struggle
called science
Change of Theory
New Theory of Change
Three sessions reflect focal areas within the landscape theme (CRP6.3):
• 10.15-11.15 I. Tree cover transition data and research choices in sentinel landscapes Facilitator: Peter Minang
• 11.15-12.15 II. Ecosystem service consequences of tree cover transitions
Facilitator: Terry Sunderland
• 13.15-14.15 III. Learning landscapes: finding solutions that reduce tradeoffs locally Facilitator: Ujjwal Pradhan
The logarithm of human population density is a good predictor of the fraction of land area reported
as forest (across different forest types)
We can identify countries that have
more than 10% extra, or more
than 10% forest deficit relative to what is expected
for their population density
For 29 Developing Countries reporting increases in fo-rest area (“beyond forest transition point”), the pattern matches
that of 83 other Developing Countries
However, FT patterns are less likely in countries that have more than 10% forest deficit
A key assumption in the CGIAR is the Borlaug hypothesis that ag yield increase will save forests…
There’s a little bit of evidence suporting it, but not a lot…
Forest transition points are less likely where the firewood footprint still exceeds 0.15 ha p.p.
1. Tree cover in landscapes changes in quality, quantity and pattern in non-linear fashion; depending on the operational forest definition used, tree cover transitions at certain scales show a ‘forest transition’ graph of decline followed by recovery (basic forest transition hypothesis)
2. Tree cover transitions in time can be understood as the resultant of time-variant processes, with increases in human population density (or rather the logarithm of it) linked to decrease of natural forest cover, and increases in HDI (or other economic indicators) linked to increases in tree cover (population density and welfare hypothesis)
3. The spatial pattern in quality and quantity of tree cover from urban areas with (surrounding) trees to areas with few trees and open-field agriculture towards remaining natural forest show more than coincidental resemblance with the temporal dynamics of hypotheses 2, as both patterns reflects benefits derived from tree cover relative to other land cover types (spatial forest transition hypothesis).
4. Institutional change from a ‘forest’ to an ‘agrarian’ regime of tenure and control is essential for the transition from decline towards increase of tree cover to occur (agroforestation or tenurial reform hypothesis)
5. What happens in one part of the tree cover transition is linked at driver and/or actor level to other parts of the landscape as A) profitability of tree planting depends on access to tree and forest products elsewhere, B) migrational flows modify human population density in sink and source areas, etc.), C) landscape-wide rules instigated to address specific issues in parts of the curve (e.g. ‘illegal logging’ control) affect actors elsewhere (landscape linkage hypothesis; the ‘sparing’ hypothesis that agricultural intensification saves forests is a special form of it)
Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying concept across CRP6
Temporal pattern, X-
axis
Spatial pattern, X-axis
Institutional challenge at turning point
X-linkage of actions in landscape
Core
Choice of Y-axis
1
2 3 4 5
6
1. Undisturbed natural forest 2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest 4B. as 3 + timber plantations 4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub
Rainforest foundation
Conservation agency
Modis data
Ministry of Forestry
Forest ecologist
UNFCCC definition
Stakeholder:
6. Drivers of tree cover transition are space/time dependent and knowledge on past drivers in a certain landscape cannot be directly extrapolated towards the future; yet there may be predictability in the succession of drivers (driver change hypothesis) 9. Appreciation of tree cover and its associated ecosystem services varies with gender, wealth, cultural backgrounds, ecological knowledge and exposure to extreme events, leading to diversity of opinion and preferences for status quo and possible changes in tree cover (‘diversity of stakes’ hypothesis; includes gender specificity)
7. Land use types that are part of the tree cover transition differ in effectiveness of ‘provisioning’ and ‘environment-al’ goods and services, labour absorption and profitability (tradeoff hypothesis, ASB Matrix) 8. Tree cover of all types and in all stages is positively associated with buffer functions in an ecological, social and economic sense, with the spatial pattern and degree of integration linked to human resilience and adaptive capacity in the face of climate and market variability (integration, buffer and resiliency hypothesis)
A view from the modern LU planners kitchen:
From the “silo- approach” to (intensive) agriculture, production forestry and conservation areas set-
aside, we can cook a landscape that is more
palatable than any of the ingredients, by adding
local preferences, using a variety of tools
Polit
ical
pro
min
en
ce
p
eop
le *
infl
uen
ce *
co
nce
rn
Stage of the issue cycle
Scoping Stakeholder Negotiation Implemen- Re-eva-
analysis response tation luation
Is it a problem?
Cause-effect mechanisms
Who’s to blame?
What will it cost?
Regulate and/or reward
Implement & monitor
Evaluate, re-assess
Who’ll have to pay?
What can be done to stop, mitigate, undo or adapt?
How much and where?
Who will monitor compliance? Litigation
Tomich et al. 2004
10. Feedback mechanisms from beneficiaries of (certain types of) tree cover to the drivers/agents can take multiple forms (rules, incentives, suasion, investment in value chains and technology) and needs to be evaluated in the interaction between instruments rather than as specifically targeted approaches (‘no silver bullet’ hypothesis) 12. Public discourse on aspects of tree cover transition and the relevance of interventions follows a policy issue cycle, with different opportunities for knowledge-based analysis to support and influence the emergence of transparent, effective, efficient and fair solutions, linking platforms of political will to actionable knowledge (impact pathway hypothesis)
11. Dynamics of tree cover changes can be influenced by multistakeholder negotiation support processes, that recognize multiple knowledge, perceptions, stakes, power and influence (Negotiation support hypothesis; includes gender specificity)
New tech-nology
F. Support for technological innovation
Institutions, identity,
pride
Drivers
B1. Incentive structure through policy change (tax, subsidy etc)
A2. LU rights (e.g. community forest mngmnt)
B2. PES and conditional ES incentives
Response/ feedback options
Biodiversity, Watershed functions, GHG emissions,
Landscape beauty
Actors/ agents
Land use/cover changes
Conse-quences & functions
Livelihoods, provisioning & profitability
A1. Land use policies, spatial development planning, roads
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/
C. Suasion and institutional support
G
G G
G
G
G
G = Potential gender specificity of analysis & targeting of interventions
G
http://www.espconference.org/ESP_Conference
Land use zoning, use and property rights
Human popula-tion & Δ
Mar- ket access, tax,subs.
Management& behavioural
choices of land users
Food, fibre, income Harvestable products
Provisioning services Regulating, supporting & cultural services
Land use practices in a landscape
context
Human & environmental health&well-being
Commodity-product- ser-vice value chains, x-border trade
Waterflows (quality,quantity, regularity)
Macro-&me-so climate Biodiversity
Happiness monitoring
Economic development planning
Environmental & wellfare targeted planning
GDP, national econo-mic growth or decline
Natural ca-pital ac-counting
Sust
ain
ab
le d
evel
op
men
t m
etri
cs
AgTech
New green economy, integrated rural-urban development coalitions…
Three sessions reflect focal areas within the landscape theme (CRP6.3):
• 10.15-11.15 I. Tree cover transition data and research choices in sentinel landscapes Facilitator: Peter Minang
• 11.15-12.15 II. Ecosystem service consequences of tree cover transitions
Facilitator: Terry Sunderland
• 13.15-14.15 III. Learning landscapes: finding solutions that reduce tradeoffs locally Facilitator: Ujjwal Pradhan
Top Related