Climate Change

Landscape democracy to capture complexity

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact - (Lima, Peru) +254 721 537627; e.kahurani@cgiar.org

Contact – (Lima, Peru) +254 708 159934 d.ouya@cgiar.org

Contact – (Nairobi, Kenya) +254 717718387; p.stapleton@cgiar.org;

www.worldagroforestry.org ; www.asb.cgiar.org 

Managing landscapes effectively in the face of climate change means untangling a host of complications

Today, scientists are looking at the world in terms of landscapes, which are units of the environment with some common theme. It is no good studying a lake unless the forest above it that supplies water is considered, along with the people that fish in the lake and use its water for agriculture. Landscapes can be small, like a valley, or enormous, like the Serengeti plains. But even the simplest landscape can have many different populations, uses and values, all of which might be competing with each other.

How can all these needs be satisfied, while conserving the landscape for the future? A book entitled ‘Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality In Practice’ which will be launched by the World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, on the fringes of the Global Landscapes Forum in Lima, Peru on 7 December, goes some way towards answering the question.

To feed a projected population of more than 9 billion by 2050, food production must grow by more than 50 percent. Growing competition over fixed land resources means that economically attractive land uses triumph over those that are more valuable from a society perspective, but less profitable for a private land user.

Landscapes in the tropics and subtropics are at the heart of this competition for land, partly because they have the highest population growth as well as increases in agricultural land. As a result, planning of land use can no longer be the business of single interests, but needs to involve all interested parties. Hence, the increasing requirement for an approach to the landscape that will satisfy everyone’s needs yet maintain the different functions going on in the landscape while conserving it for the future, that is, making it sustainable.

This is already a complicated challenge. Traditionally, scientists would address a complex problem by breaking it down into its component parts and addressing them one at a time. This does not work in a landscape, which typically has any number of stakeholders with different perspectives, interests, power and ambitions, which can often be conflicting. “Multifunctionality’ in a landscape is about seeking to achieve many different objectives at the same time,” said Peter Minang, one of the editors of the book and Global Coordinator of the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. “Planning land use can no longer be the business of single interests, but needs to involve all interested parties. Hence the increasing requirement for a landscape approach.”

Complicating this situation even further is the problem of climate change. Agriculture produces a lot of ‘greenhouse’ gases that speed up climate change. There is a worldwide movement now to create ‘climate-smart’ agriculture, which reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced yet still allows farmers to grow food and make a profit, while preparing for the effects that climate change might have on them, like rising temperatures that increase diseases in their crops.

“Sustainable multifunctional landscapes is a common destination that can be reached from many possible starting points,” said Meine van Noordwijk, Chief Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre. Once the wider range of options and perspectives are understood, it is possible to influence the various tradeoffs between functions and stakeholders in different and potentially better ways.”

“In the tea-growing landscape of Kericho in Kenya, governmental bodies, farmer and community organizations, and private sector tea producers, have come together to define key investments for a climate-smart landscape,” said Jeffrey C. Milder, the Rainforest Alliance’s lead scientist and chief advisor for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. “This process identified landscape planning and coordination as among the most strategic opportunities, requiring modest investment while aligning existing activities across the landscape to improve tea productivity, watershed health, and biodiversity.”

“Despite evolving institutions governing land and trees in Cameroon, disputes over land and forest rights have grown rather than diminished, leading to changing land use patterns and in some cases increasing land degradation,” said Divine Foundjem-Tita, a marketing scientist based at the World Agroforestry Centre’s Yaounde office. “The main message in this case study is that formal, informal or hybrid institutions are indispensable features in landscapes, and are crucial to landscape management, as they shape the patterns and functions of landscapes.”

“For current landscapes to move towards their full potential, all the interested parties have to agree on a vision for change,” summed up Peter Minang. “This democratic approach will allow climate-smart landscapes to contribute meaningfully to sustainable development.”

 ###

The book, Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multi-functionality in Practice will be launched on the sidelines of the UNFCCC COP 20 in Lima, Peru during the Global Landscapes Forum on Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 12.15pm, MEDIA ROOM

 

About the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) 

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is a leading, international science-based research and development institution in the tropics, and a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).  For 30 years, the World Agroforestry Centre and its partners have worked with poor rural farmers throughout the tropics to develop innovative agroforestry-based practices that help them manage their limited resources.  The Centre’s vision is the transformation of lives and landscapes across the developing world through massive use of trees and agroforestry innovations. Its mission is to generate science-based knowledge about the diverse role trees play in agricultural landscapes and use its research to advance policies and practices to benefit the poor and the environment. For more information, go to www.worldagroforestry.org/ or follow ICRAF on Twitter @ICRAF 

 

Developing REDD+ schemes must consider the implications of uncertainty and scale

Maps of tree cover that were used for developing schemes to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation have errors. It’s all about scale and pixels, say Betha Lusiana and colleagues

By Robert Finlayson

The ability of any scheme to meet its national target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus conservation (REDD+) requires understanding how its processes are linked across scales, from local through provincial to national and international levels. A single approach to reduce deforestation that is effective for a project in several villages might not be as effective at an aggregated level, such as a district.

Accordingly, scale must be addressed in REDD+ schemes, including highly technical activities such as satellite mapping of vegetation cover. This is a critical feature, since knowing how the amount of carbon stock in the form of vegetation, of what type, and how it changes over time determines payments to local people for preserving, adding to, or depleting the stock.

Having a good carbon map is important for being able to monitor carbon being sequestered or emitted over time. For incentive schemes, having a map that fits closely to the reality on the ground is also important. Developing emission maps requires information in the form of land-cover maps and aboveground carbon stocks for every land-use type in the landscape. However, both types of information have errors and uncertainty.  For example, when looking at a satellite image, rubber agroforests can be visually mistaken for natural forests (even in the field it can be difficult for untrained eyes to tell them apart) and the amount of carbon stock in each type of tree cover can vary substantially, which means that when changes to the stock are monitored and aligned with payments for preservation, enhancement or reduction of said stock, there could be large errors and hence incorrect payments.

To address this, we set out to identify an appropriate resolution for mapping carbon stock in a REDD+ scheme. This work was part of a study we conducted—discussed more fully in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change—to design effective emission-reduction activities in Tanjung Jabung Barat (a high-emission district in Jambi province, Indonesia) that can be implemented by the district government.

The study of resolution accuracy involved two steps. First, we developed emission maps for the district that identified changes in aboveground carbon stocks between 2000 and 2009. The maps included calculations that allowed for uncertainty caused by errors in land-cover-map classifications and the variation of carbon, representing the many possible carbons stored in a similar-size plot of a given type of vegetation. Second, we calculated estimates of emissions based on various resolutions from the maps developed in step 1.

From this process, we were able to propose an appropriate scale for monitoring emissions from land-use changes: for anThe effect of scale on hot spots of carbon emissions in Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi, Indonesia, between 2000 and 2009. Pixel resolution of 100 m equals pixel area of 1 ha and pixel resolution of 1000 m equals pixel area of 1 km2. Source: World Agroforestacceptable error of 5% (to put it another way: 95% accuracy), planners should use an emissions map with pixel resolution of 1000 m, equal to a pixel size of 1 km2.

We compared this with a map developed by planners in Tanjung Jabung Barat, who had been involved in a participatory planning process with communities, businesses and government agencies to come up with ways of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and found that the schemes they had in mind would be served well by a map with resolution of 1 km2.

Read the article

Lusiana B, van Noordwijk M, Johana F, Galudra G, Suyanto, Cadisch G. 2014.Implications of uncertainty and scale in carbon emission estimates on locally appropriate designs to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+). Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19(6).

This work is linked to the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry

Dragging a knowledge chain through the peat

Lack of understanding of peat is not the weakest link in the chain, say Meine van Noordwijk and colleagues

By Amy C. Cruz

The high emissions of greenhouse gases from tropical peatlands caused by changing their land use have become a problem for policymakers that they can no longer deny, as their own scientists have now confirmed what external critics told before.

Researchers at the World Agroforestry Centre Indonesia are assessing the viability of rubber agroforestry on peat. Photo: World Agroforestry CentreThe emissions need to be reduced to mitigate the effects of climate change but because of the complex issues involved, governments, societies and private businesses are still ‘muddling along’ when it comes to conserving peatlands. The peat models we have so far are as clear as mud.

Given the urgency and political sensitivity, peat and peatlands have become an interesting test ground for understanding the chain that links knowledge with action. Who needs to know, who can act and where is knowledge the weakest link in the chain's limiting action?

Such a ‘knowledge value-chain for peatland conservation’ can trace steps from fundamental understanding of peatlands all the way to multilevel actions towards conservation and reduction of emissions.

‘We found that there are four separate parts of an overall knowledge value-chain concept that links fundamental understanding to action’, said Meine van Noordwijk,  leading a team of authors in a recent publication in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, ‘and there are several weak links that need to be strengthened in a complex chain. Coordinated research and action is needed to achieve positive policy actions and behaviour changes.”

The research team had looked at how people’s understanding, willingness, ability and actions towards peatland conservation have progressed over time. Understanding peat and its processes was the first section in the value chain, including the fundamental point of agreeing on the definitions of ‘peat’ and ‘peatland’ so that they can be correctly identified and assigned more attention, if necessary.

Towards this, different studies had been carried out to develop more accurate ways of quantifying and attributing emissions from peatlands and yet there was still room for improvement, especially because peatlands are variable by nature, making it hard to ensure accurate measurements. In addition, different land uses on peat also result in differences in emissions.

‘Hard science may seem easy compared to what it takes to get a globally agreed set of default values that can be used for transparent emissions’ accounting’, said Dr van Noordwijk.

The second section of the chain is the willingness to act to reduce emissions. For example, in the past, policymakers could not ignore the problem of smoke haze caused by peatland conversion because its effect on visibility was too obvious. Conversion without use of fire seemed an acceptable alternative. The invisible carbon emissions from the conversion and drainage itself could be ignored. However, when emission estimates, mostly from peat drainage and fires, identified Indonesia as the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases there were hardly any Indonesian scientists who had experience and data to challenge or corroborate the claims.

‘Now that weak link has been strengthened, as is evident by the four papers by Indonesian scientists in the REDD-ALERT special issue. Indonesian policymakersnow acknowledge the importance of reducing emissions from peatland as part of the broader debate’, said Dr van Noordwijk.

But willingness to act is not enough. Third, relevant authorities need to be able to influence companies and people to actually reduce emissions. While peatland conversion appeared to be attractive to companies because it brought less conflict with local people and their land-right claims than conversion elsewhere, peatland use now gives oil-palm companies a bad name internationally and potentially affects their sales. Where the long process of issuing permits has already started, however, it is not easy for a local government to stop the conversion and reverse permits. Players at this level need to be aware of how emission reductions are calculated and valued. Local governments need to secure jobs and revenue, so alternative scenarios need to meet their expectations.

The fourth section of the chain is formed by farmers and their communities living in or near peatlands. Slowing current conversion and redirecting land-use changes without alternatives that provide improved livelihoods for local people is not attractive for any policymaker.

‘There are not yet sufficiently viable, alternative uses of peatlands that do not contribute to higher emissions but provide for local incomes and livelihoods’, said Dr van Noordwijk. ‘Thus, the primary focus for this section of the chain needs to be on testing and improving the various locally developed solutions, such as agroforestry involving locally adapted trees for which a market exists’.

Looking over the whole length of the knowledge chain, Dr van Noordwijk and colleagues conclude that progress has been made in the first three sections but peatland countries, such as Indonesia, and international supporters now have to focus on improving the fourth section. 

‘If good science, accurate numbers, a willingness and ability to act on emission estimates are not accompanied by viable alternatives for local livelihoods then the ultimate goal of reducing emissions cannot be achieved,’ conclude Dr van Noordwijk and the research team.

Read the article

Van Noordwijk M, Matthews R, Agus F, Farmer J, Verchot L, Hergoualc’h K, Persch S, Tata HL, Khasanah N, Widayati A, Dewi S. 2014. Mud, muddle and models in the knowledge value-chain to action on tropical peatland conservation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19(6).

This work is linked to the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry

 

 

 

 

Womens decisions can lead to more greenhouse-gas emissions

Decisions by women can lead to more changes in land use because of their willingness to accept offers from outsiders. To avoid deforestation, the value of natural ecosystems needs to be instilled

By Tess Beyer

Indonesia is the world’s third largest producer of greenhouse gas, with 85% of its emissions coming from the destruction of natural forests, the main driver of which in the 21st century is industrial-scale, export-oriented agriculture, such as palm-oil producing monocultures.

Women’s land-use decisions might increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Photo: World Agroforestry Centre/Noviana KhususiyahThe conversion of forests to other land uses typically has dramatic effects not only on the landscape but on the lives of humans who interacted with the forest. Those effects can be different for men and women and could lead to more greenhouse-gas emissions if women make the decisions, according to a study by Grace Villamor and colleagues in the forest margins of the province of Jambi on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia.

‘Changing a landscape alters the roles of the humans who have previously related to it in perhaps traditional ways developed over generations’, said Dr Villamor, ‘including various rights of use, which can be different for men and women’.

To help contextualise the recent changes in Sumatran land use and cover, the role gender played was examined. Specifically, the researchers wanted to know what influence a person’s gender had on the willingness to adopt alternative land uses. They used role-play games with local residents to assess their responses to new land-use opportunities, some of which might increase, rather than decrease, the emission of greenhouse gases.

Divided into men-only and women-only groups, the games showed that rapid land-use change occurred when women responded positively to external investors and in doing so out-performed men in meeting income targets. Women managed to negotiate bids up to three times higher than the set price for changing land uses to more profitable ones, such as converting higher carbon-stocked old rubber agroforests to lower carbon-stocked oil-palm plantations. This occurred even more rapidly when faced with shocks or stressors, such as forest fires, population increases and fluctuations in commodity prices.

Further, women from upland areas perceived rubber agroforests as economically superior to natural forests because they provided both conservation and financial benefits. In their eyes (in the context of the game), changing forests to agroforests carried no perceived environmental or income risks.

On the other hand, in the game the men from upland areas left their forests intact. This conservation perspective was probably shaped by the value of timber they collected plus a strong sense of stewardship formed during their long association with various organisations, such as the World Agroforestry Centre.

In the game, the men often made use of a double subsidy from a non-governmental organization and a government agricultural agency to conserve their agroforests. They used the subsidies throughout the game to continuously add to their agroforestry allotment.

This conservation perspective held true for men from the lowlands as well, who had witnessed the reality of mining degrading the environment without providing long-term wealth. Because of this, most were reluctant at first to deal in the game with an agent representing a coal mine.

For Dr Villamor and colleagues, it was clear from the results of the game that the women’s chosen pathways of land-use changes would lead to substantial carbon losses and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Extrapolating from this, if women were to have greater involvement in landscape-level decision-making then activities might be necessary that built awareness of the value of ecosystem services. Women’s established skills as entrepreneurs and traders of goods and services from forests and agroforests could also be developed in a positive direction that supported the conservation of treed landscapes.

According to the researchers, more explicit attention should be paid to the different responses offered by men and women of drivers of both deforestation and conservation.

Any government program that aims to modify land-use decisions needs to adopt a gender-balanced approach. Environmental protection cannot thrive unless women and men both see the net benefit.

 

Read the article

Villamor GB, Desrianti F, Akiefnawati R, Amaruzaman S, van Noordwijk M. 2013. Gender influences decisions to change land use practices in the tropical forest margins of Jambi, Indonesia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19(6).

 

This work is linked to the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry

Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project: Lessons for national readiness processes

Tremendous growth in REDD+ pilot and demonstration projects has been observed following the Bali Action Plan and Cancun agreements. The question is, how can lessons from such projects be used to enhance national-level REDD+ Readiness processes?

A recent study published in Climate Policy draws on the example of a case study from Kenya – the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project – and attempts to shed light on how this subnational-level private-sector-driven REDD+ project interacts with and contributes to national-level technical, policy, and institutional readiness for REDD+. The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project has managed to bundle up REDD+ implementation with community-level employment opportunities

“The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project led by Wildlife Works Carbon was chosen from among many projects in Kenya and Africa because it is the world’s first registered REDD+ project issued with Verified Carbon Units under the Verified Carbon Standard and is one of the few REDD+ projects currently selling REDD+ credits on the voluntary market,” explains Florence Bernard, Associate Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre and study lead author.

From the study, she explains a number of key innovations brought by the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project, including demonstration that REDD+ has potential for implementation in dryland forests. “This is likely to be a strong incentive for Kenya and other countries to initiate projects in other dryland forest ecosystems,” says Florence Bernard.

According to Bryan Adkins, Director of Regional Engagement at Wildlife Works Carbon and co-author of the paper, the project has managed to bundle up REDD+ implementation with community-level employment opportunities, something that has informed the design of strategy options for addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation while strengthening community engagement and prioritizing ‘pro-poor’ REDD+ activities at the national level. “In addition, there exists a transparent benefit distribution disbursement process for carbon-derived revenues in Kasigau, on which the national level could capitalize,” says Bryan Adkins. 

Another key successful feature of the Kasigau Corridor project was the ability of Wildlife Works Carbon to negotiate upfront investments with external private sector and therefore secure start-up capital needed for initial project implementation and operational costs. “While this private sector finance model might be of further interest at the project level, this should also urge the national level on attracting further private-sector investments in REDD+ pilots and demonstrations projects, especially at a time of public finance shortage for Readiness and REDD+ in general, as well as on promoting a more attractive investment climate for private sector ” explains Florence Bernard.

While the national REDD+ Readiness process in Kenya is beginning to learn and draw from local level projects through such private sector project lens, dialogue with and between partners is crucial in order not to miss out on potential benefits from interactions with subnational-level actors.

The study further emphasizes the need for developing frameworks and modalities for stakeholder participation, a robust private sector engagement process, and platforms for cross linkages at different levels.

The article is available under open access: Florence Bernard, Peter A. Minang, Bryan Adkins & Jeremy T. Freund (2014): REDD+ projects and national-level Readiness processes: a case study from Kenya, Climate policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.905440

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.905440

Landscape approaches special issue write-shop at the Rockefeller Bellagio Centre, Italy

The Rockefeller Foundation funded the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins from the World Agroforestry Centre to convene twenty three (23) participants for a write-shop on Landscape approaches to REDD+. The write shop was held on March 25-27 2014 at the Rockefeller Bellagio Centre in Italy.

Participants from various disciplines were drawn from countries in the Amazon, Southeast Asia and the Congo Basin where the ASB Partnership has set up benchmark study sites to explore integrated approaches to environmental conservation that also sustain livelihoods. Participants at the write-shop in a peer review session.

Importance of a Landscape Approach

Climate change remains the single most challenge facing humanity to-date. Negative effects of global warming can already be felt and developing countries will be hardest hit.

REDD+ - Reducing Emission from Deforestation and forest Degradation is an initiative under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreements that proposes to reward developing countries for keeping their forests. Since the agreement in 2010, commitments have not been implemented partly attributable to many challenges arising from the initiative’s narrow focus on forests.

For over a period of three years now, the ASB Partnership has been collecting data on the feasibility of a landscape approaches as a more effective pathway to climate change mitigation and adaptation that overcomes REDD+ implementation challenges.

At RIO +20 and recent UNFCCC discussions, the idea of a landscape approach has been forged as ‘the next best alternative to REDD+’. However, there is lack of scientific evidence on the definition and feasibility strategies for a landscape approach.

The purpose of the write-shop was to fill this gap by collecting together data from different countries across the tropics where pilot studies on a landscape approach have been conducted. Once published, these papers will contribute to the body of knowledge and evidence guiding scientific and policy debates/discussions on climate change.

The write-shop also had a built-in peer-review process and a special group of experienced reviewers working at the science-policy nexus who challenged the authors of the different papers to new, fresh levels of critical thinking in the development of their paper drafts. “I thought my paper was 90% before coming here, but after interaction with reviewers and my peers I think I am  only at 20%!” said one of the authors.

Landscape Approaches special issue writeshop at Rockefeller Bellagio Centre. The papers will be published in a special journal issue to guide climate policy on effective approaches to climate mitigation and adaptationAll the participants felt that the conference facility and environment was inspiring and had a special connection with the subject of the writeshop. “Here we are at one of the most beautiful spots on the planet, discussing ways to save the planet. Let us all resolve to make a difference because we can,” said Dr Ravi Prabhu, Deputy Director, research at the World Agroforestry Centre who was one of the reviewers.

At the end of the three-day write-shop, participants had developed seventeen (17) draft papers for submitting a proposal for a special issue to an appropriate high impact journal. The target is to have submitted full draft papers to the journal by November 2014.

The conference program was a great opportunity and contributed to the mission of the Rockefeller Bellagio Centre by bringing together teams from different parts of the continent to share ideas, become innovative and map out a pathway to answering questions concerning one of the single most challenge facing humanity today.  It also links with Rockefeller Foundation focus areas on climate resilience and food security.

Participants at the write shop came from eight (8) countries and represented six (6) organizations including the CGIAR institutions – The World Agroforestry Centre, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and International Center for Tropical Agriculture as well as Conservation International and the UN-REDD Programme.

Agroforestry Landscapes contributing to the Future we Want

By Paul Stapleton and Meine vanNoordwijk

The Rio+20 meetings started a process for the world to articulate the future we want through a set of Sustainable Development Goals. Landscapes with forests, trees and agroforestry will be central to achieving many of these goals. As part of its annual Science Week, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)  is staging the Nairobi Landscape Day at its headquarters on Friday 13 September 2013.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has been working at the landscape level for many years and has accumulated a depth of knowledge and expertise in the approachLandscapes combine 1) people and their ambitions and livelihoods, 2) land use systems with and without trees, 3) patterns of tree cover in space and time, interacting with the topography, soils, climate, water flows, flora and fauna, 4) ecosystem services, or the benefits humans derive from functioning (agro)ecosystems, 5) stakeholders who care about what happens with the services and the underlying natural and social capital, 6) governance mechanisms by which stakeholders can influence, in positive or negative ways, what people do. This completes the circle, or logical loop, leading to overall degradation (in many of our landscapes), restoration or gradual improvement. The future earth we want will have zero (net) degradation, as one of the proposed sustainable development goals articulates. A large new scientific effort coordinated by all academies of science in the world is now zooming in on this FuturEarth concept.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has been working at the landscape level for many years and has accumulated a depth of knowledge and expertise in the approach. Nairobi Landscape Day will have four events: an eye-opening lecture on future earth, sustainable development goal, agroforestry and experience with landscape approaches so far; a virtual fieldtrip around the world, visiting live examples of how people and landscapes  interact across the 6 aspects;  an open house, where we show our various approaches to landscapes; a discussion panel on the demand for and supply of scientific analysis to support these feedback loops.

ICRAF scientists Cheikh Mbow, Sara Namirembe and Peter Minang will talk about “Agroforestry Landscapes, Sustainable Development Goals and the Future Earth We Want.”

In 2015 world leaders will take stock of the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and will see evidence that concrete targets that have the support of the global policy community can actually help in reducing poverty. However, the MDG on sustainable development will have little progress to show. In anticipation of this discussion, a UN-lead process has started to come up with a set of Sustainable Development Goals that build on the MDGs but give more operational clarity on the environmental side. Current drafts of the goals suggest that agroforestry can be relevant in meeting many of these SDGs. The lecture will introduce the Future Earth initiative, give an update on the development of the SDGs and start a discussion how agroforestry at large and ICRAF specifically can best participate.

After the lecture, participants will be taken on a virtual tour of the landscapes in Asia, Africa and Latin America where ICRAF works on integrated approaches. Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, we have become increasingly aware of the wide range of ecosystem services derived from landscapes. These include things like clean water, flood, droughts and soil erosion control, land and biodiversity conservation, in addition to agricultural and forest production. This session will answer the questions: Who is involved in farming, cutting and planting trees? What benefits do farmers get from trees, agroforestry practices and agroforestry land use? Which trees are where in the landscape? How do trees contribute to ecosystem services? Who cares and is a stakeholder of positive or negative change in landscape performance? How can stakeholders influence and have average on the drivers of change to which farmers respond?

A key feature of the landscape approach is that it integrates land and soil , agriculture, forests, trees, people, animals and water rather than treating them separately.  The landscape approach embraces these various landscape functions and seeks to manage land at the range of scales necessary to ensure sustainable development. After the tour, a summary will be given of the tools and approaches that have been developed during Science Week for integrated approaches, welcoming partners to share their work related to the landscape.

Adopting a landscape approach will have a range of impacts, such as preserving forests, raising the number of useful trees in the landscape, increasing agricultural production and food security, restoring degraded land and halting further land degradation and desertification, conserving biodiversity, contributing to poverty eradication, mitigating the effects of climate change and promoting a greener economy. The mix of these outcomes will vary according to context and local needs and aspirations.

As an essential part of the Day’s activities, there will be a panel discussion on the demand for scientific agroforestry knowledge for sustainable development goals, and the supply of such knowledge by the CGIAR and Future Earth academic science, chaired by ICRAF Deputy Director General, Research, Dr. Ravi Prabhu.

This should highlight ways to meet development challenges that do not jeopardize how future generations will be able to derive benefits from the products and services of the landscapes that support us today.

 Venue:      ICRAF Conference Hall                             

Day:          Friday 13th September, 2013

Time:        08:30 – 17:30hrs

Please plan to attend and distribute widely.  For further details on the event, contact Stella Muasya at s.muasya@cgiar.org  or Elizabeth Kahurani e.kahurani@cgiar.org

Can REDD+, PES and other payments prevent destruction and degradation of our ecosystems?

By Elizabeth Kahurani

Markets can only be a part of the solution to reversing unacceptable levels of deforestation and forest degradation, according to research from the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). “Looking at the whole system and all available options remains the only guarantee, and this means taking a landscape perspective,” according to Dr Ravi Prabhu, Director of Research at ICRAF, who was speaking at a side event of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn on June 5th 2013.Dr Ravi Prabhu (left), Director of Research at ICRAF, with other panelists at a side event of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn on June 5th 2013

Dr Ravi defined a landscape as a mosaic of agriculture, forests, plantations with competitions, trade-offs and synergies between land uses. At this level, there are also multiple sectors, stakeholders and practices. Given that the system is so dynamic, he pointed to multifunctional co-investment mechanisms as necessary means of embracing local people, private and public sectors, PES bundling and stacking as options.

In other words, success was more likely if the needs and interests of all the actors who mattered were taken into account and a framework was set up to allow them to jointly invest finances, time and resources in the landscape in order to derive the values they were looking for. Although this would involve compromises and negotiation, a more diverse and therefore resilient system was likely to result.

The event, hosted by the Global Forest Coalition (GFC), focused discussions on a report on non-market based approaches to reducing deforestation and forest degradation submitted to SBSTA by GFC.

According to the report, indigenous communities have always preserved and protected their forests not just for the economic value they derive from them but also for important cultural and spiritual functions. According to the report, there is evidence to show that areas protected by communities are more likely to survive deforestation and negative environment extractions as opposed to areas protected through other means of control such as government bans. As such, empowering communities to manage their forests remains the best option from efforts to protect the ecosystem while promoting livelihoods. But how?

Debates and negotiations have centered on market approaches such as Payment for Environmental Services (PES) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Essentially these approaches are based on a financial compensation to forest users for the opportunity costs of more ‘destructive’ land-use forms based on a market price for the goods in question, e.g. water or tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Simone Lovera, Executive Director of Global Forest Coalition warns that approaches based on such market mechanisms should be approached with caution as they could present a higher risk to communities particularly with regard to efficiency and equity. Besides, she argues, political and financial commitments do not match these policy frameworks. “For instance, so far, the carbon market has only realized less than 1% of the anticipated REDD+ funding. Financial constraints therefore bring in the issue of who receives funding, who is going to be paid for what and more often than not it is not the individual households that benefit,” said Simone while speaking at the UNFCCC side event.

She noted that there is need to pay attention to non-market based approaches that ensure recognition and territorial rights of the indigenous people and local communities. These should empower communities by also promoting local knowledge and information systems as well as policies for legal and financial support on land reforms, sustainable agriculture and that discourage destructive activities like logging. “Such means of empowering communities to protect their environment ensures sustainability as they do not rely on unpredictable and uncertain funding flows,” said Simone.

A landscape approach takes into account needs and interests of all the actors who matter especially local communitiesPresenting evidence from ICRAF’s work on environmental services, Dr Ravi used results from research sites in Southeast Asia and Africa to explain some of the PES related challenges especially on issues to do with equity and efficiency (see presentation on Slideshare). He emphasized the need for a comprehensive systematic approach, one that can leverage on best options available from various approaches and deliver on securing livelihoods for communities and ecosystem services. “Looking at the whole system is the only guarantee, and this means having a landscape perspective,” explained Ravi. He emphasized that a market price or opportunity costs based approach generally underestimated the full value of the forests, focused as they were on a particular good or service.

He concluded with the message that agroforestry systems can deliver both market and non-market benefits in ways that empower local communities to ensure sustainability.

Read about our work on Landscape approaches to REDD+

Syndicate content