Adaptation to Climate and Ecosystem Change

Luohui LiangInstitute for Sustainability and Peace

United nations University

2

14 UNU Centers ---world wide (ISP, EHS, WIDER, INWEH,etc.,) 22 Associated Institutions (AIT, ITC, ＧＮＥＲＩ， etc.,) Cooperating Institutions International Operating units Joint research projects with a network of faculty Financed by voluntary contributions - host countries and research

grants

Institute for Sustainability and Peace

•UNU-ISP became operational on 1st of January 2009 integrating former Environment and Sustainable Development and Peace and Governance Programmes at the UNU in Tokyo to create trans-disciplinary synergies that can more effectively address pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare.•Global change and sustainability

– Environmental change and change by human actions on Sustainability

•Peace and security•International cooperation and development

Sustainability & Adaptation

Climate and ecosystem is changing, adaptation to change is imperative for sustainability.“Adaptation is Sustainability in action ”Both global and local phenomena should be considered with global and local responsesFor 2009~ UNU-ISP will focus on: – Climate and ecosystem change adaptation research

Climate and Ecosystem Change Adaptation Research-CECAR-

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNFCC

UN Convention on Biodiversity

UNCBD

UN Convention to CombatDesertification

UNCCD

1. Coping with extreme flood2. CC adaptation1. Coping with extreme flood2. CC adaptation

1. Managing agricultural biodiversity

2. Sustainable Forest Management

1. Managing agricultural biodiversity

2. Sustainable Forest Management

1. Combating desertification

2. Capacity development

1. Combating desertification

2. Capacity development

University Network

Urban Risk Management

People, Environment, and Sustainable Livelihood

Existing programmes focusing on rapid and slow changes & responses)

Focus on three themes

Future strategy

Australian National University

Tsinghua University

University of Tokyo

Asian institute of Technology

Transboundary basins

Interactions between climate change, biodiversity and

desertification

Climate Change

Biodiversity Desertification

Impact of climate change on biodiversity

Climate change could alter distribution of speicas and their habitats and lead to migration of plants and animals if there are corridors

Role of biodiversity in climate change mitigation and adaptation

Forest and biodiversity sequester carbon and affect local climate

Biodiversity ensures ecosystem resilience to climate change

Impact of Climate change on desertification

Rising temperature increases evaportranstation and causes drought i

Decreasing precipitation leads to drought

Impact of desertification on climate

Desertification causes loss of vegetation and soil carbon and changes drylands from carbon sink into carbon source

Dust storms increase aerosols with cooling effect

Impact of desertification on biodiversityDesertification degrades habitats for biodiversity and leads to loss of

biodiversity

Role of biodiversity in combating desertificationLoss of drought- resistant biodiversity reduces resilience of

ecosystem to droughts.Vegetation protects soil from erosion and stabilizes slopes from

landslides.

Integrated approaches to UNFCCC, CBD, and CCD: Two

Examples 1. Climate change adaption

Downscale climate change projections and impactsAdjust the system of biodiversity protected areas, create corridors

for migration and incorporate ex-situ conservation if migration is not possible

Develop water harvesting and storage systems to manage water cycle affected by climate change

2. Sustainable land management to achieve co-benefits

Conservation and sustainable management of forests protect biodiversity habitats and sequester carbon in the vegetation

Sustainable agriculture enhances soil organic matter for carbon storage and conserve agrobiodiversity

Biodiversity and forests are harnessed to mitigate climate change impact

Establishing a University Network for Climate and Ecosystems Adaptation

Research2009 June Conference in Tokyo:

– Consultative meeting to discuss role of higher education in Adapting climate change

– Decisions:• Establish a University-Network: Climate and Ecosystems

Change Adaptation Research• Agree on TOR• Define structure

Case Study Outline

Introduction Research process Monograph of the study site Policy review Findings (& Results) Discussion and conclusions

Montane Mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA)

CENTER OF ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY of RICE

• Biodiversity Hotspots• International watersheds• Diverse transboundary

ethnic groups• Development behind the

lowland• Land use in transition

MMSEA: Bio-cultural diversity and international watershed

Shifting Cultivation in Transition

• Cropping phase: food security and balanced nutrition (a variety of crops (cereals, root crops, vegetables, etc);

• Fallowing phase: wood, non-wood forest products, and ecosystem services (soil regeneration, control of weeds and soil erosion, biodiversity conservation)

Land Use Mosaics of Different Stages of Fallows and Cropping

Study Sites in MMSEA

UNU set up a regional network to create new knowledge and alternative options for harnessing and up-scaling local knowledge and actions with positive impact into implementation of sustainable development policies.

Case Study in Laos: Laksip Village, Luangprabang

1.Understand implications of land use policy in sustainable development,

2.Assess to what extent and how the traditional land use and formal land arrangements have contributed to development of alternative land use,

3.Synthesize research findings and available knowledge into the sustainable development of SC in Lao PDR and MMSEA region.

Outline

Introduction Research process Monograph of the study site Policy review Findings (& Results) Discussion and conclusions

Research Process (1)

Timing Research Activities

August 08 Review and compilation of secondary data

Oct-Nov 08 Survey 1 Census survey (biophysical and social economy)

December 08

Training of Trainers (12-18 Dec)

Jan-Feb 09 Survey 2 Land use survey, land ownership survey, historical events, relocation of Huaynokpit,

24-26 May 09

Mid-term evaluation workshop

Research Process (2) cont’d

Date Activities

Oct-Nov 09 Survey 3(1) Village monograph, (2) Extent and driving force of land use change

December 09 Survey 3 (continued)Consequences of land use change

23-26 December 09

Study visit to Xishuangbanna (China) on impact of cash cropping: the case of rubber

Feb 2010 Reporting and policy workshop

Outline

Introduction Research process Monograph of the study site Policy review Findings (& Results) Discussion and conclusions

Historical background

• Laksip Village was established in 1962 by 3 families• Huaytong village merged with Laksip in1976-77•Nasone village merged with Laksip in 1982-83•Huaynokpit moved to Laksip in 1996-97•LUPLA was implemented in 1985•Laksip land incorporated Huaynokpit land based on agreement dated 27/4/1999

Land cover and land use based on land use zoning

Land use types Area (ha) %Conservation forest 400 23Protection forest 786 45Production forest 5 0.3Agricultural land 547 31.25Construction/housing 6.80 0.40Cemetery forest 0.80 0.05Total 1746 100

Socio-demographic characteristics

• Number households: 95 Households• Number families: 90 families • Total population: 450 persons • Divided in 3 groups: Khmu: 89% (80 families) Laoloum:11 (9 families) Hmong: 1% (1 family)

On-farm component (%)

Maize

J obs tear

Vegetable

Teak

Livestock

banana

Village economy: on-farm

Off-farm component (%)

NTFP

Handicraft

Trading

Labouring

Village economy: off-farm

Outline

Introduction Monograph of the study site Policy review Research process Findings: Discussion and conclusions

Relocation policy

• Huyatong in 1976 and Nasone in 1982• Main purposes:Access to infrastructure & public healthSmall and remote villages should merge to

more accessible and larger village• Land still belongs to their ownership

(relocated only)

Land use planning & Land allocation programme

• LUPLA was implemented in 1995• Main purposes: Promote sedentary production to replace shifting cultivation Protect forest through land allocation• Achievements: 2 steps completed:

Demarcation of village boundary Delineation of agriculture and forest lands

Allocation of land to households is still based on traditional custom.

Watershed conservation policy

• Huaynokpit in 1996

• Main purpose: Protect headwater areas as the village was located at headwater of Luangprabang & Xienngeun districts

• Relocation based on their choice. In fact the villagers could chose to move to Densavanh village where more land was available, but most chose Lak Sip.

FAO Project (1985-1991)

• Main purposes:Assist PAFO & DAFO in management of natural

resources (forest, land & water)Promote SLM practices to replace shifting agriculture

• Establish nurserys for production of tree seedling production, especially teak

• Demonstrate SLM practices (terracing, agroforestry, hill side ditch, alley cropping and animal raising) by training

Outline

Introduction Research process Monograph of the project site Policy review Findings and results:

• Land use change • Consequences

Discussion and conclusions

Existing Land Uses of Laksip Village

Local Land Use Classification Areas (ha) %

Conservation forest (Pasagnuan) 274.00 15.70

Sacred forest (Pasaksit) 126.00 7.40

Dense forest (Padong) 82.00 4.50

Young forest (Paon) 5.00 0.35

Old fallow land (Palaokae) 531.40 30.50

Rotated fallow land (Din hai mounvien) 321.00 18.50

Teak garden (Suan maysak) 312.00 17.60

Banana-pine apple garden (Suan kuay, maknut) 4.45 0.30

Shiting cultivation (Hai) 79.50 4.50

Fish pond (Nongpa) 1.35 0.09

Cemetery (Pasa) 0.80 0.05

Construction land 8.5 0.5

Total 1746 100

Land Use Zoning

Land use zoning type Areas (ha) %

Conservation forest 400.00 23.00

Protection forest 786.00 45.00

Production forest 5.00 0.3

Production/Agricultural

land

547.00 31.25

Construction/housing land 6.80 0.40

Cemetery forest 0.80 0.05

Total 1746 100

Change in Land Use Zoning1995 1999 (with addition of

Huaynokpit village)

Total land area

433 ha (100%) 1746 ha (100%)

Agricultural land

136 ha (31%) 547 ha (31%)

Forest land 281 ha (65%) 1100 ha (60%)

Other land uses

16 ha (4%) 99 ha (9%)

Rice Cultivation and Teak Plantation from 1995 to 2008

Rice vs Teak

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1995 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Years

ha Rice

Teak

Rice is followed by teaks

Change in the Fallow Length

Average fallow and cropping periods for the fields under annual crops at village level

0

2

4

6

8

10

1970 1990 1995 2003 2009

Yea

rs Cropping p.

Fallow p.

Changes in Land Management

1970s PresentAnnual Crops One crop, rice mainly Three crops (rice, maize, job’s

tear) intercropped with teak

Fallow period > 5 years 2 years

Tools Matchete and planting stick

Matchete, hoe, planting stick

Tillage No-tillage Some tillage with hoe

Farming system Rice-based shifting cultivation

Cash crops-based short fallow, teak plantation

Policy Drivers of Land Use Change

• Relocation policy, 1976-82– Huaytong & Nasone were relocated to Lak Sip.

• Development projects (1986)– Teak nursery technique introduced in the village by the

FAO project.• LUPLA (zoning),1995

– Delineation between forest and agricultural lands– Forests were closed from timber production, timber

needs have to be met with expansion of teak plantation• Watershed conservation policy,1996

– Huaynokpit was relocated for watershed conservation

Socio-economic Drivers of Land Use Change

• Market demand for cash crops– Price of teak in the market: 300US$ per cubic meters

• Comparative advantages of teak over rice production (labor saving and economic profit)

– Rice per ha: 228 days’ labour, net return of -3,800,000 kip (negative)– Teak per ha: 135 days’ labour, net return of 144,819,500 kip

• Teak plantation as a saving and investment for:– Children, education– General expenses– House construction– Emergency, etc

• Increasing availability of off-farm jobs (factory, and hotel construction) in Luang Prabang

Reasons to Plant Teak

Increasing Role of Off-Farm in Annual Income

On farm

Off farm

1990 2003 2009

Environmental Consequence of Land Use Change

• More than 20% of forest areas restored;• Agrodiversity remains unchanged;• Wild life and NTFPs declined;• Land degradation

– Crop yield decreased • Watershed service declined

– Evapo-transpiration increased – Rain infiltration reduced– Periodic flush floods and low base flows – A sudden lowering of the water level of the stream with expansion

of teak since1985 • Soil carbon storage in teak plantation: 20-30 tonne/ha

Forest Restoration in Former Houaynokpit Village

Rain Water Infiltration Reduced

During the Rainy Season in 2009

Land Cover Runoff Infiltration

Upland Rice 19% 81%

Fallow: 1, 2 3 or 4 Years

5% 95%

Teak on 35% Slope 43% 57%

Teak on 59% Slope 55% 45%

(Anneke de Rouw, 2010)

Economic Consequence of Land Use Change

• Off-farm labor has increased at expense of resting time;

• Income change/trend of farmers has increased by 70%;

• Farming system: traditional rice-based system has been replaced by cash crops based system.

Social Consequences of Land Use Changes

• Labor division:– Husbands and young adults work for off farm– Women and children work on farm

• Time allocation (getting busier)• Safety net (teak plantation)• Food security: increasing dependency on

markets

Average Time Allocation (days per year)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2003

Day

s/ye

ar

Resting time

Non- farm activities

Collecting andhuntingLivestock farming

Treeplantation

Vegetale cutivation

Annual cultivation

Outline

Introduction Monograph of the project site Policy review Research activities Findings & Results Discussion and conclusions

Discussion and conclusions (1)

1. Traditional land management system Rice-based subsistence Shifting cultivation with fallow of more than 5 year No-tillage Traditional land tenure

2. Course and the sequence of changes in the policy related to land use management

Relocation policy LUPLA Watershed conservation policy FAO project

Discussion and conclusions (2)

• Present land use pattern– Cash crops based– Three cropping + teak plantations– Rice + short fallow (2 years)– 60% of land is under protection

• Land use changes– Expansion of teak plantations and reduction of subsistence crops (rice

areas in particular)– Forest areas remain high:

local classification: 58% while zoning 68%– Cultivation period extended from 1 year with no-tillage to 3 years with

some tillage– Fallow period shortened from 6 to 2 years– Cultivation areas: actual use 23% within zoning 31%, but location of

actual use and zoning does not match fully.

Discussion and conclusions (3)

• Drivers of land use change– Policy: relocation, FAO, LUPLA, watershed conservation– Socio-economic: market demand, comparative advantages,

saving, off-farm jobs• Consequences of land use change

– Environmental: forests restored, crop diversity, reduction of wildlife and NTFPs, land degradation (yield decline), reduction of water sources,

– Economic: diversified from on-farm to off-farm, from subsistence to cash crops, income increased,

– Social: work load increased, increasing dependence of food security on market

Thank You

Tea (Camellia sinesis）• “ Tea” plants are categorized as one species, C.

sinensis.• C. sinensis has two varieties, sinensis and

assamica.• C. sinensis var. sinensis is called Chinese type,

has small leaves and bush type tree. • Variety Assamica is called Assamese type, tall tree

with big leaves. It is widely found in Yunnan, China.

• The origin place of tea plant is possibly around Yunnan, China.

Case of the Bulang Ethnic Community

• Population: 111,000– China: 96,000– Myanmar: 14,000– Thailand: 1,400

• Language: Austro-Asiatic/Mon-Khmer

• Traditional tea cultivator: early domestication of tea in Yunnan.

Manjing

Manjing Bulang Village

Tea Forests Tea Terraces

Local people call “tea forests” as “tea in forests (林下茶 )”, while “tea terraces” as “tea on terraces (台地茶 )”.

Biodiversity in Tea Forests

• Rare and endangered plant species: 15• Plant species in the Category III of the

State Protection List: 11• Some tree species: Toona ciliata,

Dalbergia fusca var. enneandra, Premna szemaoensis, Calophyllun polyanthum, Helicia terminalis, and Cinnamomum mollifolium are difficult to find in natural forests, but still exist in the tea forests

• No. of species based on sampling survey: – Natural forests: 241– Tea forests: 244– Tea terraces: 84

(Qi, et al, 2005)

Soil conservation and carbon sequestration in Tea Forests

• Weeding for mulching• Harvesting rich forest

litters and manure• Preserving a large

number of other trees to check soil and water erosion without a need of terracing.

Cultural Value of Tea Forests

• The Bulang proverb says “Pa-ai-neng is our ancestor, who have left us the bamboo house and the tea as the crutch for our livelihoods”.

• Respect for the oldest tea tree in each family plot as the crutch for the family livelihoods.

• Tea drinking is part of their daily life. Tea is also used as vegetable and medicine

Festival of “Tea Ancestor”

Offering to “Tea Ancestor” in the tea forests for happiness

Decline and revival of tea forests

• 1970’s-80’s: Tea terraces were introduced and promoted as advance technology to replace “outdated/low productive” forest fallows and tea forests. Traditional culture associated with tea cultivation was neglected.

• 1990’s to present: tea forests is favored over tea terraces, and restored; traditional culture associated with tea forests is revived.

Comparison of Tea Terraces and Tea Forests (1)

Items Tea Terrace Tea Forests

1. Planting method Felling trees and terracing for tea

Inter-planting tea in the forests

2. Sources of fertilizers Chemical fertilizers Cattle manure, humus layer formed of forest litters

3. Control of insects Pesticides Biological control of insects: pest resistant cultivar, natural enemies, allelopathy, etc.

4. Management Complex, labor intensive

Simple, tradition of the Bulang well known to local people

5. Water, soil, biodiversity Destructive Friendly

6. Production cost High Low

(adapted from Xiang, et al, 2008)

Comparison of Tea Terraces and Tea Forests (2)

7. Tradition (production, living) Incompatible Compatible

8. Quality of tea Chemical residuals Green products without chemical contaminants

9. per ha yield (fresh leaves) 3750 kg 2250kg

10. Market price low (20-30 yuan/ kg) high (100-200 yuan/kg)

11. Income Low High

12． Peasants’ preference Not preferred (wish to change the tea terraces into tea forests)

Preferred

13． Sustainability Low High

Revival of Customary Institutions for Tea Forests

• Village Rules restored and formulated for conservation of tea forests

• Traditional culture for worshipping the “Tea Ancestor” as well as the “Soul of Tea” revived.

Revival of Traditional Tea Gardens: Converting Tea Terraces to Tea Forests

Branding “阿百腊 (Abaila)”, the tea from Tea Forests