Ecosystems services in mosaic landscapes

Brent Swallow

Global Coordinator of theASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins,

World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

Learning points

1. Ecosystem services as an integrating concept / framework

2. Overall trends and tradeoffs between ecosystem services

3. High prevalence of mosaic landscapes across most of the developing world

4. Importance of scale and stake in the ecosytem services generated by mosaic landscapes

5. Potential for synergies and tradeoffs among ecosystem services in mosaic landscapes

6. Limits on the effectiveness of rules for safeguarding ecosystem services and growing interest in recognition, rights and rewards

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Findings

Ecosystem Services The benefits people obtain from

ecosystems

Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human Well-being

Unprecedented change in structure and function of ecosystems

More land was converted to cropland in the 30 years after 1950 than in the 150 years between 1700 and 1850.

Cultivated Systems in 2000 cover 25% of Earth’s terrestrial surface

(Defined as areas where at least 30% of the landscape is in croplands, shifting cultivation, confined livestock production, or freshwater aquaculture)

Service StatusFood crops

livestock

capture fisheries

aquaculture

wild foods

Fiber timber +/–

cotton, silk +/–

wood fuel

Genetic resources

Biochemicals, medicines

Fresh water

Status of Provisioning Services

Status of Regulating and Cultural ServicesStatus

Regulating Services

Air quality regulation

Climate regulation – global

Climate regulation – regional and local

Water regulation +/–

Erosion regulation

Water purification and waste treatment

Disease regulation +/–

Pest regulation

Pollination

Natural hazard regulation

Cultural Services

Spiritual and religious values

Aesthetic values

Recreation and ecotourism +/–

Degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being

– The total economic value associated with managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversion

– Conversion may still occur because private economic benefits are often greater for the converted system

Level of poverty remains high and inequities are growing

• Economics and Human Development– 1.1 billion people surviving on less than $1 per day of income. 70% in

rural areas where they are highly dependent on ecosystem services– Inequality has increased over the past decade. During the 1990s, 21

countries experienced declines in their rankings in the Human Development Index

• Access to Ecosystem Services– An estimated 852 million people were undernourished in 2000–02, up

37 million from the period 1997–99– Per capita food production has declined in sub-Saharan Africa – Some 1.1 billion people still lack access to improved water supply, and

more than 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation– Water scarcity affects roughly 1–2 billion people worldwide

Industries based on ecosystem services still the mainstay of many

economies• Contributions of agriculture

– Agricultural labor force accounts for 22% of the world’s population and half the world’s total labor force

– Agriculture accounts for 24% of GDP in low income developing countries

• Market value of ecosystem-service industries– Food production: $980 billion per year– Timber industry: $400 billion per year– Marine fisheries: $80 billion per year– Marine aquaculture: $57 billion per year– Recreational hunting and fishing: >$75 billion per year in the

United States alone

Direct drivers growing in intensity

•Most direct drivers of degradation in ecosystem services remain constant or are growing in intensity in most ecosystems

www.asb.cgiar.org

www.asb.cgiar.org

Importance of mosaics & forest margins areas across humid tropics

FOREST BIODIVERSITY SUITABILITYFOREST BIODIVERSITY SUITABILITYACROSS A LANDSCAPE MATRIXACROSS A LANDSCAPE MATRIX

Proportional Area & Suitability for Forest

Biodiversity Conservation

Low

High

Ma

trix

Ha

bita

t Su

itabi

lity

High

Low

URBAN

MONOCULTURES

• Crop•Plantation• Imperata

grassland

Complex agroforests & Swiddens

•Simple

agroforests

•Trees infields

AGROECOSYSTEMS FOREST PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

•NTFP harvest

• CL & enrichment

•RIL + reserves

PROTECTEDINTACT

HABITAT

www.asb.cgiar.org

Figure 2.1. Relationships between population density and fraction of forest cover in Indonesian districts (Source: Murdiyarso et al., 2006).

www.asb.cgiar.org

Multiple land use types in mosaics & forest margin areas

Biodiversity Plot measurements in Bungo District, Jambi Biodiversity Plot measurements in Bungo District, Jambi •Saida and Gregoir Vincent, in prepSaida and Gregoir Vincent, in prep

Total number of trees > 15 cm DBH encountered

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 100 200 300 400 500

Nu

mb

er

of

Tre

e S

pe

cie

s

Natural forest

Old rubber agroforest

Productive rubber agroforest

• What biodiversity goals do ‘we’ want to achieve?

• Do agroecosystems really have low biodiversity value?

• Ecosystem services of biodiversity indeed be important for local people

• Integrated Conservation and Development Projects have had mixed results

Questions/issues raised in consultations

SHIFTING PARADIGMS : WHERE &SHIFTING PARADIGMS : WHERE & UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

where, how?

where, how?

HIGHLOW

HIGH

LOW

Livelihoods / poverty emphasis

B

iod

ivers

ity c

on

se

rva

tio

n

Biodiversity and Human ActivityN

of

s pec

ies

(in a

r ea

of c

onst

ant

s ize

)

Intensity of Human Activity

Extraction Agroforestry ExtensiveAgriculture

Intensive Agriculture

Species that go locally extinct when humans are active: exploited or sensitive to disturbance

Most vulnerable, hence threatened everywhere, and in need of protection

120

100

80

60

40

20

Van Noordwijk et al. 2001

pre-in

dustria

l

frontie

r

inte

nsific

atio

n

deple

ted

rehab

ilita

tion

Land use stages

Forest cover Economic return Cost of BD cons./area

‘demand-driven’ conservation efforts tend to start too late…..

www.asb.cgiar.org

Carbon x profitability tradeoffs – Manupali, Philippines 2007

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

250

200

150

100

50

NPV ($,000 / ha)

Primary forest

Agroforestry

Coffee

Rubber

SugarcanePineapple

BananaRice

Corn

Tim

e-av

erag

ed C

(to

nn

es /

ha)

Responses

• Recognition: necessary, problematic

• Regulation: necessary, rarely sufficient

• Rights: necessary, but to right people

• Rewards: not necessary, but often useful

Learning resources and websites

• Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

• ASB lecture notes: www.asb.cgiar.org• Ecoagriculture Partners landscape measures tools:

www.landscapemeasures.org• ICRAF: www.worldagroforestry.org/

– TULSEA: www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/– RUPES: www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/networks/rupes– PRESA: presa.worldagroforestry.org

• Learning resources[List useful teaching materials/resources including lecture notes, to audio-visual resources, case studies, etc.]

Recommended Reading

• MA reports

• Ecology and Society (www.ecologyandsociety.org)

• McNeely and Scherr, Ecoagriculture.

Key issues for further discussionin the workshop

• What is the best way to integrate these broader concepts and frameworks into training on agrobiodiversity?

• Are there enough learning materials on the shelf, or do these need to be developed / adapted to local contexts?