sparing vs. sharing: addressing drivers of df … vs.pdfsparing vs. sharing: addressing drivers of...
Post on 12-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of d f t ti d f t d d tideforestation and forest degradation
8 June 2011, Bonn
Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing” hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and meso level evidence from multifunctional land use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA landscapes ‐Meine van Noordwijk
Sparing versus SharingSparing versus Sharing• Agricultural • Multifunctiona‐gintensification lity & associated
i ti tInput‐ or output‐based definition
incentive systems
Trade‐offs betweenbased definition
• ForestTrade‐offs between specific functions
Many definitions & concepts
h f ’ f h ld
>> >
The foresters’ view of the worldThe holistic forest+tree view of the worldSource: Global tree cover inside and outside forest according to the Global Land Cover 2000Source: 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)
BATANG TORU• Multifunctional landscape: forest‐
agroforest‐ agriculture gradientagroforest agriculture gradient
1. Undisturbed natural forest 2 Undisturbed + sust logged natural forest
Rainforest foundation
Conservation agency
Stakeholder:
2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest 4B 3 i b l i
Conservation agency
Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations 4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub Modis data
Ministry of ForestryUNFCCC definition
Land use change in the tropicsLand use change in the tropics
Planting trees to accelerateaccelerate restoration phasephase
Degradation RestorationForest
Dewi et al. in prep.
of b
iota
0 0
Centrifugal forces towards ‘pure’of
bio
ta
0 0
Centrifugal forces towards ‘pure’
stic
atio
n o
33
Protectedarea
pconservation,
intensive animal, annual & tree-cropfst
icat
ion
o
33
Protectedarea
pconservation,
intensive animal, annual & tree-cropf
& d
omes
33 33 ‘Forest’
areaGame
ranchesNTFP-zone
Selective logging
‘F t’
annual & tree-crop production‘Forest’ world
Multifunctionalityattractor?
& d
omes
33 33 ‘Forest’
areaGame
ranchesNTFP-zone
Selective logging
‘F t’
annual & tree-crop production‘Forest’ world
Multifunctionalityattractor?
sific
atio
n
67
67
ForestAgroforest
Timber-enriched
forest‘Forest’ pulled towards 2
opposites
sific
atio
n
67
67
ForestAgroforest
Timber-enriched
forest‘Forest’ pulled towards 2
opposites
use
inte
ns
67
AgroforestFastwoodplantation
Off-farm Cut&carry
Feed-based bioindustryus
e in
tens
67
AgroforestFastwoodplantation
Off-farm Cut&carry
Feed-based bioindustry
Land
u
100 67 33 0
100
100
Open fieldcrops
Leysbioindustry
On-farm Cut&carryLa
nd u
100 67 33 0
100
100
Open fieldcrops
Leysbioindustry
On-farm Cut&carry
Agricultural intensification hypothesisASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994
systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…
More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total
agricultural productionagricultural production
Or… speed up forest conversionforest conversion to profitable agriculture
This may be true in
This is true in ‘open’
‘closed’ economies
‘open’ economies
Sustainable logging has proved to be ahas proved to be a fiction in Indonesia I t i Intensive plantations as alternative
Sharing – argument 1: there isn’t enough h l f lspace without multifunctionality
Sharing – argument 2: Many tradeoff f l f lfunctions are convex: multifunctionality
Convex tradeoff:
2
Convex tradeoff: multifunctionality
ction saves land
Func Concave tradeoff:
specializationFunction 1
specialization saves land
ASB-data: Minang et al.,
2011
hysteresis
Pcrop Ptree CstoreWsh Biod LandSynergies be‐tween functions
Crop pro‐duction
Concave likely
Tree pro‐duction
No preference
Carbon storage
Watershedservices
storage
servicesBiodiversityLandscapeLandscape
beauty
Sharing – argument 3: Multifunctionalityb l drequires balanced economic incentives
Plot-level Carbon stock, Mg/ha Landscape-level Carbon stock, Tg
Unknown territory
2A 2B
1A
1BAgroforests
Intensive tree cropsReal-world land
use systems Open-field agriculture
Intensive tree crops
Net present value based on product flows, $/ha
Total economic value, k$
Sustainable Weighting of Economy‐E l T d ff O i d R d iEcology 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
ACTORS IN THE LANDSCAPE & LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
SWEET: not only PES buyer &
SWEET: not only PES buyer &
2
seller…seller…
van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society
Context + Mechanism OutcomeContext
Realistic:
+ Mechanism
Conditional:
Outcome& Impact
•Per capita financial transfers Asia and Africa network of learning sites
Assessment of impacts of Land Use on ES
performance‐based contracts
remain small but with tenurial security•Reduced conflict over resource access > more options; lessUse on ES
Pro‐poor: Assessment of multiple di i f t
Voluntary: process of negotiations
access=> more options; less poverty•Co‐investment in steward‐ship, rather than ‘PES’dimensions of poverty
g rather than PES
R&D efforts to reduce transaction costs, enhance and balance fairness + efficiency;+ efficiency;Mainstreaming into Development Planning
Three paradigms within PES Paradigm CES COS CISParadigm
(van Noordwijk & Leimona, 2010)
CES :
commoditization of ES, e.g. C markets
COS :
compensating or opportunities skipped,
CIS :coinvestement in stewardship, risk &
ConditionRequires A + B
e.g. public fund allocations
Requires B + C( )
benefit sharing
Requires C (A helps as well)
A. Spatial & con‐ceptual ES boun‐
Yes (national AFOLU)No (subnational REDD)
daries clear? No (local: plot&tree)
B. All rightholders identified & in agreement
Yes (national constitu‐tion, UNFCCC rules)Yes? (subnat /sectors)
Yes (national constitu‐tion, UNFCCC rules)Yes? (subnat /sectors)agreement Yes? (subnat./sectors)
No (local: plot&tree)Yes? (subnat./sectors)No (local: plot&tree)
C. All stakeholders engage in adaptive
Yes? With nested MRVYes?With nested MRV
Yes? With nested MRVYes?With nested MRVengage in adaptive
learningYes? With nested MRVYes? Possible locally
Yes? With nested MRVYes? Possible locally
Conclusion National scale only Subnational scale Local plot&tree scale
Sharing – argument 4: Removal of perverse policies helps multifunctionalitypolicies helps multifunctionality
With current farm gate pricesWith current farm‐gate prices there is no benefit for farmers in growing timber trees on their land…
but under ‘social’ (national economy) accounts benefits y)are clear
Sparing + Sharing + CaringSparing + Sharing + Caring• Agricultural • Multifunctiona‐gintensification lity & associated
i ti tInput‐ or output‐based definition
incentive systems
Trade‐offs betweenbased definition
• ForestTrade‐offs between specific functions
Many definitions Coinvestment& concepts
Coinvestment & incentives
top related