View
165
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THINKING beyond the canopy
Centre for International Forestry Research: Landscapes and food systems
Terry SunderlandPresentation to Wildlife Conservation SocietyThe Bronx, NY26th September 2014
Centre for International Forestry Research
CIFOR’s vision Forests are high on the political
agenda People recognize the value of
forests for maintaining livelihoods and ecosystems
Decisions that influence forests and the people that depend on them are based on solid science and principles of good governance, and reflect the perspectives of developing countries and forest-dependent people
CIFOR’s history Established in 1993 as part of the CGIAR Board’s early guidance led to emphasis on
policy-oriented, multi-disciplinary research Major lines of research have included:
• Criteria and indicators • Underlying causes of deforestation• Decentralisation• Improved logging practices• Forests and livelihoods• Forest finance and governance
Board approved a new strategy in 2008
CGIAR CIFOR is one of 15 centers that make up the CGIAR Consortium CIFOR is the Lead Center for the CGIAR Research Programme on Forests, Trees
and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA), in partnership with the World Agroforestry Centre, Bioversity, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CATIE and CIRAD
Where we work
Burkina Faso Cameroon EthiopiaZambiaBrazil Indonesia
Headquarters: Bogor, Indonesia8 regional & project offices
Research sites in more than 30 countries
Peru Kenya Vietnam
Global comparative research
Synthesizing existing knowledge
Systematic reviews Developing new
methods Partnerships Capacity-building Outreach
How we work:Approaches
CGIAR (Stability Funds) 5.301
CGIAR (CRPs) 4.555
European Com-mission 4.843
Norway 3.991
Australia (ACIAR and AusAid) 2.098
USA (USAID/U.S. FWS) 0.975
French Global En-vironment Facility
0.775
Germany (GIZ) 0.765
Canada (IDRC) 0.744
Finland 0.535
Spain (INIA) 0.507
Others 4.780
Financial resources2011 Expenditures: USD 28.6 million
Human resources 270 staff representing 38 countries 85 consultants, 29 PhD students/interns Broad network of Associates
Forests Trees and Agroforestry: Conceptual framework
Themes
Smallholder production
systems and markets
Management and
conservation of forests and
trees
Landscape management, biodiversity
conservation, ecosystem
services and livelihoods
Climate change
adaptation and
mitigation
Impacts of trade and
investment
Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs)
System Level Outcomes (SLOs)
Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5
Cross-cutting themes:Gender
Communications Sentinel Landscapes
Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Why ‘landscapes’?
• Forests support ca. 65% of worlds terrestrial taxa (Lindenmeyer 2009)• Estimated 1.6 billion people “depend” on forested landscapes in some way for their livelihoods (Agrawal et al. 2013)• 40% of world’s food originates in multi-functional landscapes (FAO 2013)• Forests and trees sustain agriculture through ES provision• “Landscape approaches” have moved to forefront of research and development agenda (Global Landscape Fora)
What do we mean by landscapes?
• Landscapes are fuzzy concepts – they are not planning units
• “A geographical construct that includes not only the biophysical components of an area but also the social, political, institutional and cultural components of that system”
Shooting in the dark..?
• Large body of literature on “landscape approaches” and “ecosystem approaches” but little consensus on applicability or terminology
• General principles and guidelines have been largely missing
• However, need to avoid “one size fits all” approach
• Complex landscapes; complex challenges
Core challenge: different sites, different issues
Multi-functionality• Combination of separate
land units with different functions (spatial segregation)
• Different functions on the same unit of land but separated in time (temporal segregation)
• Different functions on the same unit of land at the same time (functional integration or “real multi-functionality)
But in reality, segregation is the norm
Plantation Forest
Agriculture
New (landscape) approaches?• Since 2008, CIFOR and multiple partners working on defining
and refining broad “landscape approaches” building on previous initiatives
• How? Review of published literature, multiple workshops for consensus building, conferences/side events, e.g. Diversitas, IUFRO, CBD Bonn, Nagoya
• Validated by extensive survey of field practitioners• Based on this on-going work, SBSTTA commissioned CIFOR to
draft report “sustainable use of biodiversity at the landscape scale” (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-15/official/sbstta-15-13-en.pdf)
• Currently: Systematic map of landscape approaches
So, what is new?• The landscape approach has been
re-defined to include societal concerns related to conservation and development trade-offs and negotiate for them
• Increased integration of poverty alleviation goals
• Increased integration of agricultural production and food security
• Emphasis is on adaptive management, stakeholder involvement and multiple objectives
The “Ten Commandments”...?
Ten principles for a landscape approach1. Continual learning and adaptive management2. Common concern entry point3. Multiple scales4. Multi-functionality5. Multi-stakeholder6. Negotiated and transparent change7. Clarification of rights and principles8. Participatory and user-friendly monitoring9. Resilience10. Strengthened stakeholder capacity
What impact?• Recommendation XV/6
"sustainable use" from SBSTTA XV (includes work on bushmeat)
• Tabled for adoption at COP 11 in Hyderabad: “taken note” of by parties
• Desire (and funding) to follow up with future CGIAR and CBD policy processes
• Contribution to System Level Outcomes of CGIAR
• Global Landscapes Forum, Warsaw (2013) & Peru (2014)
Challenges of the landscape approach
• Understanding complex systems is not straightforward• Understanding and influencing underlying trajectories• Multi-functionality of landscape mosaics• The landscape approach is different to spatial planning. Landscapes are
dynamic and subjective. Different people see them in different ways.• Trade-offs are the norm and have to be negotiated• There is no “end point” or best solution for a landscape – one can simply
intervene to avoid bad outcomes and favour better ones
Getting in concert
• Methodical overview of quantity & quality of evidence
• Follows methodology of systematic review process
Objective FormulationStakeholder meetings, topic setting
Method DevelopmentSearch strategy, inclusion criteria, protocol draft
Searching ProcessEstablish literature database, screen for relevance, remove duplicates
Screening ProcessFilter literature by screening at title and abstract level
Retrieve Full TextsFinal filter, study quality assessment
Report Production
DisseminationPublish map, make searchable database available, other outputs.
Systematic maps
Our (current) primary research questions:
What is the landscape approach, and how has it evolved into current discourse and practice?
How, and where, is it actually being implemented?
3 Key objectives:• Map the development of landscape approach theory• Review and synthesize current terminology• Review integrated landscape research by documenting current (and prior)
examples of landscape scale initiatives in the tropics
Objectives of the systematic map
Forests, food security and nutrition• One billion+ people rely on forest products for
nutrition and income in some way (Agrawal et al 2013)
• One fifth of rural income derived from the environment (Wunder et al 2014)
• Wild harvested meat provides 30-50% of protein intake for many rural communities (Nasi et al 2011)
• 80% of world’s population rely on biodiversity for primary health care (IUCN 2013)
• 40% of global food production comes from diverse small-holder agricultural systems in multi-functional landscapes (FAO 2010)
• Long tradition of managing forests for food (IUFRO 2013)
• Forests sustaining agriculture: ecosystem services provision (Foli et al. 2014)
CIFOR’s food security research• Rooted in historical research
on NTFPs / landscapes• Funded projects• Publications• Conference attendance and
scientific dissemination• Blogs and media coverage• Close collaboration with
range of partners• Emerging team of in-house
specialists
Hypothesis: Trees and Forests are important for dietary quality & diversity
Collection of nutritious NTFPs Farm/forest mosaics may
promote more diverse diets Agroforestry and fruit
production Ecosystem services of forests for
agriculture Availability of fuel wood Provision of ‘back up’ foods for
lean season = safety nets
• Study using DHS data from 21 countries integrated with GIS data on % tree cover to estimate the relationship between tree cover and child nutrition indicators
• CIFOR project collecting dietary intake information from mothers and children in study sites in five African countries
Testing the hypothesis
We Integrate: • Nutrition data from Demographic Health Surveys with• % tree cover data from GLCF (2003 and 2010
MODIS data at 250 m resolution) (as well as other sources for other controls)
..to investigate whether there is a statistically significant relationship between indicators of dietary quality and tree cover
Study using USAID’s DHS data
Sample: about 93,000 children between ages 13 and 59 months in over 9,500 communities
(21 countries )
• There is a statistically significant positive relationship between % tree cover and Dietary Diversity
• Fruit and Vegetable Consumption first increases and then decreases with tree cover (peak tree cover is ca. 45%)
• There is no statistically significant relationship between tree cover and Animal Source Foods
Results
• The results of the DHS study give an indication that there are interesting relationships, but are far from offering an explanation• DHS data are coarse • The GIS data don’t tell us the
kinds of trees/forests• Data can’t explain WHY
children in areas with more trees have more diverse diets
• Country level regressions give heterogenous results
• So….
So what?
Influencing the agenda?
New approaches for integrating agriculture and NRM at the landscape scale?
• “Eco-agriculture” (Scherr and McNeely 2006)• “Agroecology is complimentary to conventional agriculture and
needs scaling up” (United Nations 2011) • “New agriculture needed…” (UNDP 2011)• “Agro-ecological approach” (World Bank 2011)• “Integrated management of biodiversity for food and agriculture”
(FAO 2011)• “By 2020, the CGIAR should be a major leader in environment
and agriculture” (Cristian Samper, 25th September 2014)
www.cifor.org www.blog.cifor.org