Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of df deforestation tti and forest tdegradationd 8 June 2011, Bonn

Transcription

1 Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of df deforestation tti and forest tdegradationd 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

2 Sparing versus Sharing Multifunctiona lity & associated incentive systems Agricultural intensification Input or output based definition Trade offs between Forest specific functions Many definitions & concepts

3 > > The foresters view of the world The holistic forest+tree view of the world Source: 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)

4 BATANG TORU Multifunctional landscape: forestagroforest agriculture gradient

5 1. Undisturbed natural forest 2. Undisturbed + sust. loggednatural 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 Stakeholder: Rainforest foundation Conservation agency Forest ecologist Ministry of Forestry UNFCCC definition Modis data

6 Land use change in the tropics Planting trees to accelerate restoration phase Forest Degradation Restoration

7 Dewi et al. in prep.

8 & domes stication of biota Land use intens sification 100 Multifunctionality attractor? 67 Off-farm Cut&carry Feed-based bioindustry On-farm Cut&carry Protected area Game NTFP-zone ranches Selective logging 33 Centrifugal forces towards pure conservation, intensive animal, annual & tree-crop production Forest Timber- t Forest world Forest pulled towards 2 enriched forest opposites 67 Agroforest Fastwood plantation Leys Open field crops

9

10

11 Agricultural intensification hypothesis Remote ASB forest hypothesis edge communities in 1992 & Planet ASB earth findings are closed in 1994 systems, in between we have open systems More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total agricultural production Or speed up forest conversion to profitable agriculture This may be true in closed economies This is true in open economies

12 Sustainable logging has proved to be a fiction in Indonesia Intensive plantations as alternative

13 Sharing argument 1: there isn t enough space without multifunctionality l

14 Sharing argument 2: Many tradeoff functions are convex: multifunctionality l Convex tradeoff: 2 Func ction Function 1 multifunctionality saves land Concave tradeoff: specialization saves land

15 hysteresis ASB-data: Minang et al., 2011

16 Synergies between functions Crop production Tree production Carbon storage Watershed services Biodiversity Landscape beauty P crop P tree Cstore Wsh Biod Land Concave likely No preference

17 Sharing argument 3: Multifunctionality requires bl balanced economic incentives Plot-level Carbon stock, Mg/ha Landscape-level Carbon stock, Tg Unknown territory 2A 2B Agroforests Intensive tree crops Real-world land use systems Open-field agriculture 1A 1B Net present value based on product flows, $/ha Total economic value, k$

18 Sustainable Weighting of Economy Ecology Tradeoffs: Organized drd Reduction or Stretching Our Use of Resources? (SWEETorSOUR?) This may be societal optimum, but requires SWEET Production Possibility Frontier Getting here may turn SOUR

19 ACTORS IN THE LANDSCAPE & LIVELIHOOD ASSETS SWEET: not only PES buyer & seller 2 van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society

20 Context Realistic: + Mechanism Outcome Asia and Africa network of learning sites Assessment of impacts of Land Use on ES Pro poor: Assessment of multiple dimensions i of poverty Conditional: performance based contracts Voluntary: process of negotiations & Impact Per capita financial transfers remain small but with tenurial security Reduced conflict over resource access=> more options; less poverty Co investment in steward ship, rather than PES R&D efforts to reduce transaction costs, enhance and balance fairness + efficiency; Mainstreaming into Development Planning

21 Three paradigms within PES Paradigm (van Noordwijk & Leimona, 2010) Condition A. Spatial & conceptual ES boundaries clear? B. All rightholders identified & in agreement C. All stakeholders engage in adaptive learning Conclusion CES COS CIS : : : commoditization of ES, e.g. C markets Requires A + B Yes (national AFOLU) No (subnational REDD) No (local: plot&tree) Yes (national constitution, UNFCCC rules) Yes? (subnat./sectors) No (local: plot&tree) compensating or opportunities skipped, e.g. public fund allocations Requires B + C (A helps as well) Yes (national constitution, UNFCCC rules) Yes? (subnat./sectors) No (local: plot&tree) Yes? With nested MRV Yes? With nested MRV Yes? Possible locally coinvestement in stewardship, risk & benefit sharing Requires C Yes? With nested MRV Yes? With nested MRV Yes? Possible locally National scale only Subnational scale Local plot&tree scale

22 Sharing argument 4: Removal of perverse policies helps multifunctionality

23 With current farm gate prices there is no benefit for farmers in growing timber trees on their land but under social (national economy) accounts benefits are clear

24 Sparing + Sharing + Caring Multifunctiona lity & associated incentive systems Agricultural intensification Input or output based definition Trade offs between Forest specific functions Many definitions Coinvestment & concepts & incentives