This document summarizes a presentation on landscape management for forest goods and services. The presentation discusses 1) the linkages between CIFOR and model forests, 2) the differences between local perceptions of forest goods and services and actual deforestation processes, and 3) mechanisms to influence current trends, including payments for ecosystem services and lessons for REDD+. It provides examples from various countries on how local communities value forest resources, drivers of deforestation, and challenges in implementing programs to conserve forests and improve livelihoods through a landscape approach.
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
Landscape management for forest goods and services: between wishful thinking and economic forces
1. Landscape management for forest
goods and services:
between wishful thinking and economic forces
Jean-Laurent Pfund, Sven Wunder, Terry Sunderland, Manuel Guariguata
Burgos – March 2011
THINKING beyond the canopy
2. Presentation outline
1. CIFOR - Model Forest linkages
2. Local perceptions of goods and services vs actual
3.
4.
5.
6.
deforestation processes
The example of pollination services
Mechanisms to influence the current trends
PES efficiency
Lessons for REDD+?
THINKING beyond the canopy
3. CIFOR and Model Forests:
Local Communities in sustainable Forested Landscapes
1
2
Enhancing the role of forests in mitigating climate change
Enhancing the role of forests in adapting to climate
change
3
4
Improving livelihoods through smallholder and
community forestry
5
6
Managing impacts of globalised trade and investment on
forests and forest communities
Managing trade-offs between conservation and
development at the landscape scale
Sustainably managing tropical production forests
THINKING beyond the canopy
4. Research
domain
4
Managing trade-offs between conservation and
development at the landscape scale
Most forest biodiversity occurs outside protected areas
Trade-offs are often required between the needs of people and
the need for forest conservation
Payments for Environmental Services (PES) are a mechanism to
mitigate tradeoffs
• including carbon, watersheds, aesthetic value, biodiversity
THINKING beyond the canopy
6. Perceived importance of forest goods
and services in 5 landscape mosaics
80
70
60
50
40
30
Indonesia
Tanzania
Madagascar
Laos
Cameroon
20
10
0
Food and selfMarketed items
consumed
and income
goods
Regulating
services
Cultural services
THINKING beyond the canopy
10. Limitations to value pollination
services for habitat conservation
Valle: isolated and dense cultivated areas, frequent
pesticide and manual pollination
Meta: lower intensity (density, pesticide
application), cultures still relatively isolated from
natural/semi-natural forests but depending on bee
pollination
Concept of pollination services for habitat conservation
low because of already remote natural habitats, important
intensification processes and possible substitution of the
service
THINKING beyond the canopy
11. So… How to influence the
“normal” trends?
Command and control?
Economic schemes?
•
•
Certification for organic schemes
Conditional payments for ecosystem services
REDD+ as a promising opportunity “but”…
• It will have to be adapted to very variable contexts
Spatial variations of service delivery, threat and
accessibility, insecure tenure and variable poverty
conditions
Thus will have to be integrated into wider cross-sectoral
programmes addressing several drivers of deforestation
and degradation
• The efficiency of REDD+ mechanisms is very different if
assessed from a cost or a social point of view
THINKING beyond the canopy
12. Intra-landscape variations
Perceived importance
forest income generation
Actual income
generation
60000
Maromitety
50000
40000
Forest
Ambofampana
30000
Income NTFP
Agroforest
Income timber
Farmland 20000
Other
Bevalaina
10000
0
Maromitety
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Ambofampana
Bevalaina
100%
THINKING beyond the canopy
13. Optimizing REDD policy options
Deforest
PES
Incentive
mix
Policy
decision
Land user
decision
Conserve
C&C
Implementation
costs
Fine
Effectiveness
PES –
opportunity cost
Welfare impact
THINKING beyond the canopy
14. Tenure effects: PES welfare impacts in
the Brazilian Amazon
THINKING beyond the canopy
15. PES costs in the Brazilian Amazon
THINKING beyond the canopy
17. Tradeoffs to bridge…
ecological, social and economic efficiency?
Will need societal choices (multistakeholder
processes, etc.)
To be defined in the current “complex, muddled realities
of landscape governance”
Thus will need monitoring and possible adaptations over
time
THINKING beyond the canopy
18. Ten “tenets” of good practice underpinning
landscape approaches
1. Continual learning and adaptive management
principle
2. Common concern entry-point principle
3. Multiple scale principle
4. Multifunctionality principle
5. Multistakeholder principle
6. Negotiated and transparent change logic principle
7. Clarification of rights and responsibilities principle
8. Participatory and user-friendly monitoring principle
9. Resilience principle
10.Strengthened stakeholder capability principle
THINKING beyond the canopy
Photo by RasElased BorealisFrench Guianan tropical forest.
In 2006 CIFOR’s Board and Management began a process of developing a new 10 year strategy, in order to better respond to current and future challenges, and remain a relevant source of timely analysis and knowledge on tropical forests and the people who depend on them. After two years of internal debate and external consultation we are confident that the new strategy has positioned CIFOR in such a way as to ensure our research is not only relevant, timely and accurate, but that it reaches the right people in order to have a genuine impact. The new strategy provides significant continuity with the past and retains our core purpose, which is to advance human well-being, environmental conservation, and equity. But in doing so it also addresses new challenges – such as climate change and the dramatic rise of forest-related trade and investment – that now characterize the literal and figurative landscape in which we work. Tomaximisethe likelihood of success in translating research into impact, the strategy focuses CIFOR’s research on six research “domains”.
Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #20332 – by Adrian AlbanoNepalGiven that most forest biodiversity occurs outside protected areas, it’s important that we find a balance between sustainable land use and conservation. In other words, we need to weigh up the needs of people and the need to protect tropical forests. Both are important, but neither can be the sole priority. In an ideal world, there are win-win situations, but more often that not we have to accept trade-offs between the two. For example, many people living in poor rural areas in Africa rely on bushmeat as a source of protein but certain mammal populations have become vulnerable because of the extent and scale of hunting. This situation presents a challenge to policy-makers at all levels: how can locals still gain access to important food sources and how can biodiversity be protected in these areas? A recent report from CIFOR and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity recommended developing policies to protect endangered species, while allowing sustainable hunting of so-called “common” game. This is what’s known as a “rights-based approach” to conservation; equipping locals with the knowledge and responsibility to use the land sustainably, without diminishing their livelihood and their capacity to source essential items. Our recommendations attracted criticism from hardline conservationists who advocate blanket-bans on hunting in the interests of biodiversity. One of the key components of this area of research is understanding payments for environmental services – or PES. This is a system where landowners are compensated for conserving forest areas, based on the premise that these forests provide crucial services for the broader community through things such as carbon sequestration, watershed protection, aesthetic landscape value and biodiversity. Our research in this area focuses on who’s benefiting from these payments; if the payments are actually stopping deforestation; the transparency of the transactions; and whether or not local communities are marginalised in the process.