This appendix describes activities to be undertaken both during Phase II and beyond and includes:

1. Vulnerability study

2. Virtual watersheds

3. Initial (tentative) list of candidates Policybriefs

4. Linking Activities 1 and 2 to Policybriefs

1.1       Pan-tropical

1.2       Regional/basin-scale models

1.3       Local hazard analysis (rule-based models)

1.4       Proposed pan-tropical analysis approach

1.5       References

2 Virtual watersheds - Plan for assessment of the sensitivity to land use change of key watershed functions

2.1       Biodiversity conservation and watershed functions in relation to land use change

2.2       Terminology used

2.3       Computation of range of variables for virtual watershed exercise

3 Initial (tentative) list of candidate policybriefs

4 Linking Activities 1 and 2 to Policybriefs

1 Vulnerability study

From the Activity 1 meeting (Dec 2002), the study will be performed at (roughly) three different scales:

1.1 Pan-tropical

(To be completed in Phase II)

a. Purpose: broad-scale overview, controlled experiments

b. 50 km spatial resolution

c. monthly time resolution

d. meteorology: New et al (1998)

e. soils characteristics: IGBP/FAO

f. land use dataset:

i. WWF potential ecosystem coverage (as pre-development scenario)

ii. IGBP 1992 land cover dataset (possibly 2000 if available)

1.2 Regional/basin-scale models

(To be setup, but not fully completed in Phase II)

g. Purpose: fine-scale reality check, address scaling issues

h. Spatial resolution ranging from 100 m (?) to 10 km

i. Daily and sub-daily time step

j. Regionally-derived meteorology, soils, land use time series

1.3 Local hazard analysis (rule-based models)

(will not be undertaken during Phase II)

k. Purpose: Application of principles to broader policy issues

l. Based on generalizations from parts 1 and 2 (in part, the matryushka graph)

m. Similar in spirit to Nelson and Chomitz forest/hydrology/poverty nexus (draft 2002)

i. A heuristic approach to identify watersheds at greatest risk of hydrologically significant land use change

1. large interface between forest and agriculture (1 km buffer zone)

2. over lay buffer zone with DEM: identify steep slopes

3. compare poverty statistics based on the relation with high risk watersheds

1.4 Proposed pan-tropical analysis approach

1. Analysis with long-term (35-year) mean monthly WBM runoff

a. Identify spatial patterns of strictly land use change

i. Where has the greatest and least DQ (change in hydrograph) occurred?

b. Identify how the shape of the annual hydrograph has changed.

2. Analysis with 35-year WBM time series

a. Evaluate number of times Q > threshold (bank full Q)

b. How does this differ between the two land use coverages

c. Evaluate how population vulnerability changes (population time series or snapshots?)

3. Use UNH/GRDC composite runoff fields

a. Incorporates the effects of engineering/withdrawals

b. Repeat above comparisons.

4. Sensitivity analysis

a. How much land use class (LUC) change must occur in order to get a statistically significant hydrologic signal

b. Need to define scenarios

i. Barren vs vegetated

ii. Forest vs agriculture

iii. Upland forest vs lowland forest

iv. Random agriculture vs concentrated agriculture

5. Summarize results by 15 relief classes (Meybeck et al, 2001)

a. Relief classes based on relief roughness index (function of max, min elevation) and max altitude

b. This starts us towards the local hazard identification

Caveats:

· won’t be able to identify sub-pixel land use class (LUC) heterogeneity

· won’t be able to incorporate changing phenology (assume each LUC is fully mature)

6. Finer scale modeling

a. Purpose: to compare effects of scaling on model results and interpretation

b. MMSEA or Central America at 8 km (6-minute) resolution with WBM

i. Use same input data as finer resolution.

ii. 6-minute network complete for Central America, but may not be complete for MMSEA region.

iii. Use same meteorology and PET for best comparison with 50 km analysis

1.5 References

· Chomitz, K. M. and A. Nelson, in preparation, The forest-hydrology-poverty nexus in Central America: an heuristic analysis.

· Maybeck, M., P. Green and C. Vorosmarty, 2001. A new typology for mountains and other relief classes: an application to global continental water resources and population distribution, Mountain Research and Development, 21 (1): 34-45

· New, M., M. Hulme, and P. Jones. 1998. Representing twentieth century space-time climate variability. Part II: Development of 1901-1996 monthly grids. J. Climate 13: 2217-2238.

2 Virtual watersheds - Plan for assessment of the sensitivity to land use change of key watershed functions

Contributions from Meine Van Noordjiwk (16/07/2003) and Ellen Douglas (25/07/2003)

2.1 Biodiversity conservation and watershed functions in relation to land use change

Both B and W vary dramatically across the globe – but most of the variation represents ‘inherent properties’ (such as rainfall) that cannot be directly influenced (at least not at local scale). Where the focus of the project is primarily on ‘sensitivity to land use change’, we need to tease the ‘outcome’ apart into a component that reflects the background due to factors such as climate, geology and landform from the parts that have probably changed (usually in a negative direction) by change from historical natural vegetation (often a form of forest) to the current type of land cover (often a mosaic of different land use types), and is likely to change in future with further land use change.

Figure 1. Outcomes of dynamic landscapes that can represent ‘environmental service functions’ in the perception of external stakeholders depend on natural capital + human actors (see section 2.2 for definitions).

Basic elements of the system under consideration: in interaction with the ‘natural capital’ that was inherited with the area, actors in the (rural) landscape influence the dynamics of the landscape, primarily to obtain direct benefits. The resultant landscape has outcomes that are of importance to outside stakeholders and beneficiaries, and can represent ‘functions’ in their perspective. If these functions are sufficiently important it may be relevant for these stakeholders to ‘provide rewards’ for the actors in the landscape to induce them to keep providing the service – with the term rewards referring to a broad array of mechanisms ranging from tenurial security, direct payments and tax incentives, to higher prices for products. These ‘rewards for environmental services’, however, generally require a form of brokers or intermediaries and involve transaction costs that do not arrive at the level of the ‘environmental service providers’.

The degree to which ‘biodiversity’ and ‘watershed function indicators’ are affected by land use change in similar ways, can be split into a sensitivity of both B and W to

· progressive loss of forest cover (Figure 2 gives the ‘null hypothesis’ for these changes, showing parallel overall trends and substantial differences in details), and

· to the spatial organization (pattern) inside the landscape.

Figure 2. Null hypothesis of the general trends in the three classes of environmental service functions B(iodiversity), C(arbon) and W(atershed functions) during progressive land use change, taken relative to a forest baseline.

Figure 3. Sensitivity to ‘land use change’, as represented in the difference in outcome between completely ‘natural forest’ (F) and completely ‘non-forest’ (nonF) condition of a landscape, and sensitivity to spatial organization of the landscape as reflected in the maximum width of the envelope surrounding outcomes for all possible landscape configurations

On the interface of activity I and II, we will use global datasets to derive a ‘stratified sampling’ scheme for the assessment of sensitivity of key watershed function indicators (‘total water yield’ and ‘buffering’) to land use change (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Flow diagram of assessment of the sensitivity to land use change of ‘total water yield per unit rainfall’ and ‘buffering of riverflow’ for the BNPP project. Global data sets will be used to set up a stratified sampling scheme for (sub)watersheds; the key parameters for representatives for these strata will be used to parameterize the SpatRain and GenRiver models. Primary model outcomes will be processed to derive the overall size of the land use sensitivity of the two key parameters, the position of the current cover on this scale, and the sensitivity of the outcome to ‘pattern’ inside the sub watershed.

The outcome indicators can be assigned to the strata that these sub watersheds are supposed to represent, and a global map can be defined that will allow us to see where ‘above average sensitivity of watershed functions to land use change’ coincide with ‘areas of above-average biodiversity value’ and ‘areas of above average rural population density.

2.2 Terminology used

The basic interaction between the components of the system we consider is displayed in Figure 1. We will here use the following terms:

Dynamic landscapes: geographically determined areas where human extraction and management of resources (vegetation, soil, water, fauna, mineral resources) takes place, often in a patchwork or mosaic of different intensities (including forestry, agriculture, animal husbandry, mining), that changes with time.

Outcomes: conditions within the landscape or lateral flows of water, air, organisms or products out of the landscape; outcomes can include the continued local existence of biota, carbon and mineral stocks that may allow future exploitation or are valued in their own right for continued existence. The outcomes may be observable or quantifiable, while their ‘value’ depends on the eye of the ‘beholder’.

Stakeholders and beneficiaries: any person that perceives to have a direct stake in the outcomes of the dynamic landscapes, and for whom the ‘outcome’ can become a ‘function’ that leads to (loss of) benefits.

Environmental service (ES) functions (jasa lingkungan in Bahasa Indonesia): Environmental outcomes of the dynamic landscapes that are relevant to outside stakeholders, as they address direct needs (e.g. clean water), reduce global threats (e.g. climate change), lead to esthetic appreciation or represent ethical or moral values (e.g., continued existence of biota).

Rewards: any interaction that provides positive incentives for the continuation of the ‘service’, e.g. recognition of tenurial rights (conditional to the service), direct payments and tax incentives, or higher prices for products that are produced along with the environmental services.

Actors in the (rural) landscape: any person that can directly influence the conditions in the landscape, including farmers, forest managers, mine operators.

Efforts: any action taken that modifies the composition or function of elements of the dynamic landscape.

Direct benefits: outcomes that have functional value for the actors themselves.

Natural capital: the local climate, physical landscape, soil and mineral resources, vegetation and fauna that have so far persisted under historical resource exploitation.

Intermediaries: institutions or persons who can link the external stakeholders and beneficiaries to the actors in the dynamic landscapes and broker agreements for the continuation (or increase) in the supply of environmental services, in return for specific forms of rewards.

Transaction costs: the costs involved in establishing and maintaining the link, representing the difference between what the external stakeholders will have to ‘pay’ and what the actors ‘receive’; costs for monitoring of the outcomes and governing the necessary institutional mechanisms are part of this.

1.2 Computation of range of variables for virtual watershed exercise. [E.Douglas 07/25/03]

1. Rainfall: I will compute mean, standard deviation, max, min statistics of 1950-1995 monthly rainfall. I don’t think that spatial correlations computed at the 30-min resolution will be applicable to within-basin rainfall spatial correlation because a) these data are interpolated from point measurements to gridded fields, so correlation will be affected by interpolation technique and b) je mthe spatial correlation at the 30-min (50-km) scale will likely be very different than within basin spatial correlation.

2. Landform: I will use our Relief Roughness (RR) classes as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Relief Roughness classes from Meybeck et al. (2000).

RR was computed from slopes derived from a 1 km resolution DEM then summarized at the 30-min resolution. RR<5 is subhorizontal, 5-10 is very flat, 10-20 is flat, 20-40 is poorly dissected, 40-80 is moderately dissected, 80-160 is highly dissected, >160 is extremely dissected terrains.

3. Soils: I will summarize percentages of major soil types (ie., clay, sand) and parameters (ie., bulk density, water holding capacity) based on FAO global soils database.

4. Geology: The Generalized Geologic Map of the World is highly generalized and of variable quality. It may not be sufficient for our purposes. I will deal with this dataset after I have the other ones completed.

5. Vegetation and landcover: I will focus on summarizing the following:

evergreen forest

deciduous forest

savannah

grassland

sparsely vegetated/desert

forest to ag conversion

forest to grassland conversion

forest to urban conversion

6. River debit (discharge): mean, standard deviation, max min monthly discharge by basin from 1950-1995 timeseries.

3 Initial (tentative) list of candidate policybriefs [T.Tomich 10/03/2003 in Impl. Protocol]

#1 Working title: Rainforests and watersheds: debunking the myths

Conventional wisdom has it that tropical forests play an indispensable role in rainfall and the quantity and purity of water supply for agriculture, industry, and urban populations. Similarly few doubt direct causal links between deforestation and flooding far downstream. A revision of these long-held views – backed by scientific evidence – indicates tropical forest cover has much less effect on climate and water supply than we once thought. And flooding risk is determined more by lowland land use change, including loss of wetlands, and patterns of urbanization in developing countries, rather than deforestation upstream. Can policymakers relax? No, but they need to refocus on real problems.

#2 Working title: Deforestation and vulnerability in large river basins

For good or ill, the quantity, quality, and timing of water supplies are key determinants of human welfare. Deficiencies in water supplies are a growing feature of poverty in the 21^st Century. The biggest vulnerable groups are in the lowlands, especially in burgeoning cities of the tropics. These water problems and deficiencies have little to do with deforestation or land use upstream or with welfare of the people seeking their livelihoods in the forest margins.

#2a Working title: Tropical deforestation and large-scale flooding

Evidence from the humid tropics shows land cover matters for flooding locally, but there is no comparable evidence that it is a key determinant for severe floods over large areas.

#3 Working title: Local hazards of tropical deforestation

There is convincing evidence that deforestation and other land cover changes can have serious local consequences. What are these local hazards? When and in what situations are the risks highest? What can be done to reduce these hazards?

#3a Working title: Local hazards of deforestation, pantropic problems

Consequences of deforestation may be localized, but these add up to a significant problem across the tropics. Where are these problems concentrated? How many people are exposed to these hazards?

#3b Working title: Reforestation and water supply

Much harm has been done in the cause of watershed management aimed at ‘reforestation’. Eviction of communities farming in upper catchments disrupts [hundreds of thousands of lives], often of relatively poorer, politically disenfranchized, ethnically marginalized groups. Efforts to reforest typically are neither effective nor necessary. Much more could be accomplished – without social dislocation – through negotiation with land users and through removing disincentives to land use and landscape management practices that serve community livelihood needs and meeting the hydrological needs of local people and downstream users too.

#4 Working title: Biodiversity conservation through watershed management

Biodiversity conservation and watershed management are intimately connected. In the humid tropics, the two sets of concerns overlap mainly at the landscape scale, where the pattern of trees and other vegetation can moderate flooding, sedimentation, and landslide risks while also serving as habitats for forest species and corridors linking conservation areas. However, there are few specific links between rainforest conservation and watershed management either at the plot level or at the national/global level.

#4a Working title: Biodiversity indicators for policy decisions

If your decisions can’t wait for taxonomists to count every species, here is a handy review of suitability of different biodiversity indicators (WWF, CI, etc) for analysis of policy problems at continental or pantropic scale.

#5 Working title: Biological riches and human poverty

Conversion of tropical forests to other uses leads to the greatest species loss per unit area of any land cover change. But no more than ten percent of these forests will be within protected areas in the foreseeable future. The other 90% are home to [XXX] million rural people, most of whom depend on agriculture for their meager incomes.

Notes:

1) Ideas for candidate policybriefs 2a, 3a, 3b, and 4a were developed as a result of collaboration during 2003. The other titles were envisioned from the outset of Phase II of the project.

2) A proposal for a policy-oriented journal article that reports what is learned about the scale of specific hydrological problems and methodological insights about the appropriate scale of analysis and analytical tools was put forward during a BNPP team teleconference on 25 September 2003. Material for this article would cut across the topics of the collection of policybriefs.

3) Initial prioritization among the candidate policybriefs and the policy-oriented journal article is presented in Appendix 2.4. Priorities will be clarified further during the BNPP team meeting in Prague 11-12 October 2003.

Amendments to implementation protocols based on discussions during BNPP team meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, 11-12 October 2003:

Candidate Policybriefs #1 and #3 were selected as top priorities for development as draft policybriefs for the December 2003 Phase II deadline. It is anticipated that some (but not all) of the other candidate policybriefs will be developed as technical notes for the December 2003 deadline and subsequently (2004 and perhaps later), a number of these will be developed further as policybriefs.

It was agreed that Policybrief #1 would focus on total water yield, one of the ‘far field’ effects to be studied in this project.

It was agreed that policybriefs and technical notes would not be printed and disseminated until the scientific research manuscripts supporting the results had been through the peer review process.

4 Linking Activities 1 and 2 to Policybriefs

Version 2. Update for Prague meeting - Implementation Protocols (T.Tomich 10/03/2003).

Design and update: Sandra Velarde

	BNPP/ASB Functional Value of Biodiversity Project – Phase II