Component 3 of the CGIAR Research Programme on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP6) focuses on landscape management for environmental services (ES), biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. This presentation explores the links between the various themes of CRP6 Component 3 and the cross-cutting CRP6 research theme of sentinel landscapes. How these links fit into a broader context of the CGIAR’s strategic results framework is also discussed. 

This presentation formed part of the CRP6 Sentinel Landscape planning workshop held on 30 September – 1 October 2011 at CIFOR’s headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia. Further information on CRP6 and Sentinel Landscapes can be accessed from http://www.cifor.org/crp6/ and http://www.cifor.org/fileadmin/subsites/crp/CRP6-Sentinel-Landscape-workplan_2011-2014.pdf respectively.

1. CRP6: Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:
livelihoods, landscapes and governance

3. ICRAF’s GRP6 (Policies and incentives for multifunctional
landscapes with trees that provide environmental services)
AND
CIFOR’s Domain 4 (Managing the trade-offs between
conservation and development at the landscape scale)
form the primary basis for CRP6.3:

4. Globally applicable concepts, hypotheses
 Global policy development
Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V
ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA ZoneA
ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB ZoneB
ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC ZoneC
Every place is unique

5. Sentinel landscape design?
Can it run?

7. SES  SEPES
Socio-ecological-politi-
cal-economy systems

8. CGIAR Strategic Results Framework
SLO1. Reducing SLO2. Increasing SLO3. Improving SLO4. Sustainable
rural poverty food security nutrition and health management of
natural resources
Measurables include Measurables include Measurables incluide Measurables are
increased income changing levels of metrics of healthy resource use per unit
from farm and non- production, price and growth, particularly of production, resto-
farm activities, per- access to affordable in children, and ration and conserva-
mitting investment in food by the urban and dietary intake, tion of ecosystem
health, education and rural poor. nutrient up-take and services and reduced
other poverty-redu- consequent health impacts of climatic
cing activities. effects. change & shocks.
CRP6.1 helps redu- CRP6.5 looks at ‘ex- CRP6.1 (supported by CRP6.2 and CRP6.3
cing rural poverty, tensification’ and 6.2) has attention to focus on resource
through tree-based economic investment fruit trees and (biodiversity) conser-
livelihoods; it includes in agriculture and medici-nals in various vation and ecosystem
poverty in forest mar- forestry as a driver of stages of services
gins and of forest- tree cover transitions. domestication, as CRP6.4 researches
dependent people CRP6.1 contributes contributor to nutri- ecosystem-based
CRP6.4 includes rural agroforestry techno- tional quality and adaptive responses
vulnerability to cli- logies for food pro- health management and REDD financing
mate change duction

9. Redirecting development pathways
towards environmental integrity
Positive incentives are needed
to reward rural poor for the
environmental services they
can/do provide

10. Dominant DIVERGENT model UrLand
of territorial configuration (i.e.
land sparing)
Quality
UrLand NatLand Rural Matrix
Cheap massive Landscapes
(highly profitable) Rural-urba and livelihoods
urban housing n Ag Land
Control of water Elite migraton
excess and Suburban Rural-urban
migrants
scarcity residence Low Quality
Food
Elite Rural provi-sioning
Ecotourism
NatLand poor Wage
laborers
AgLand
Fortress type
Eco-
servants Cheap massive
Marginalized
conservation
Elite(highly profitable) CONVERGENT model
against masses Organic industrial
food agribussiness (i.e. land sharing)
Control of erosion and water García-Barrios et. al. 2009. Bioscience
excess and scarcity and 2010 La Jornada del Campo.

11. Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying
concept across CRP6
X-linkage of
Temporal Spatial Institutional
actions in
pattern pattern challenge
landscape

12. >
The holistic forest+tree view of the world
(combines both ‘forester’ and ‘agroforester’ point-of-views)
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)

13. CRP6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:
livelihoods, landscapes and governance
Component 3: Landscape management for environmental
services, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods
1. Understanding drivers of forest transition
2. Understanding the consequences of forest transition
for environmental services and livelihoods
3. Learning landscapes: dynamics of multifunctionality

14. Building on a joint history
CIFOR Domain 4 + ICRAF GRP 6
Starting new joint projects:
Recently approved: Approval expected soon:
Sustainable Sulawesi Sustainable Rural Development through High
Supported by CIDA Value Biocarbon Approaches: building
multifunctional landscapes and institutions in
West and East Africa
Supported by Finland

15. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural resources

16. Feedback Loops Added to Four Conceptual Models
Linking Land Change with Driving Forces and Actors
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/

17. Landscape management options
Livelihoods in context
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Local Producti Conser Enviro. Adapting Trade Improving
on vation Services & & Livelihoods,
Drivers Tree cover transitions and forest quality
ilding Enviro.
Services,
External systems and reducing invest
Governance
use emissions ment
Institutions, gender, capacity strengthening &
partnerships
Global actors and value chains
The components of CRP6 share common goals and
networked impact pathways

18. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural
resources
Theme 6.3.1. Understanding patterns and drivers of forest (tree
cover) transition in decline and restoration phases
Recognition by
government agencies and
in public debate of tree
cover and forest transitions
as a basis for realistic land
use and development
planning and institutional
reform of land use
regulation

19. Theme-level outcome Verifiable indicator
Policy documents use
quantitative tree cover
criteria and multiple forest
types, rather than merely
binary 'deforestation/
Recognition by government
reforestation' data
agencies and in public debate
of tree cover and forest CRP6 tools and approaches to
transitions as a basis for multi-layered driver analysis
realistic land use and are adopted for
development planning and international/national/local
institutional reform of land policy development
use regulation Institutional support and
interest in Agroforestry
Policy Initiative and Forest
Landscape Restoration

20. CRP 6.3.1 Output targets
• 6.3.1.1 Empirical data sets of quantitative and
qualitative tree cover transitions across major …
• 6.3.1.2 Empirical data on changes in spatial pattern of
tree cover within landscapes in relation to segre..
• 6.3.1.3 Methods for monitoring and quantifying tree
cover refined and linked to data uncertainty
• 6.3.1.4 Proximate and ultimate drivers of land use and
tree cover change: inference from spatial…
• 6.3.1.5 Policy levers and negotiation opportunities to
influence drivers of tree cover transitions, rehabilitation
and/or agroforestry transformation

21. -24
A.
Trees used as history book leiocarpus
where climate records are -25
scarce or unreliable
δ18 C
-26
-27
1999
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
2001
2003
2005
2007
Year
26 A. leiocarpus
S. birrea
25
24
Evergreen Anogeissus δ18O
23
22
leiocarpus in 21
Burkina Faso 20
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
Year

22. Tree cover transition
Widening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared

23. Examples of things we do 6.3.1
In the 1990s, loss of
natural cover increased
the amount of ‘low C-
stock’/low economic
value land; tree (crop)
planting was 28% of the
loss of natural forest
After 2000, planting of
tree crops equals 90% of
concurrent loss of natural
forest; the amount of low
C-stock/low economic
value land decreases

24. Coarsening of pattern: segregate

25. Examples of things we do 6.3.1
deforestation re- and afforestation
Fields,fallow, forest mosaic
Farm
Plantations
forests, Fields,
agro- forests
forests & parks
Integrate Segregate

26. CRP 6.3.2 Output targets
• 6.3.2.1 Tools for and case studies of quantifying
buffering of water flows and other hydrological ES..
• 6.3.2.2 Tools for and case studies of understanding
biodiversity-based environmental services across..
6.3.2.3 Not just carbon? Quantified tradeoffs be-
tween C stocks and other environmental services..
• 6.3.2.4 Gender, age and wealth-specific appreciation
of tree cover transitions in relation to demo- ..
• 6.3.2.5 Tested tools and governance mechanisms for
adaptive landscape management of ecology-
• 6.3.2.6 Policies for the agriculture-forestry interface
and strategies for sustaining food security, ecologi-..

27. CRP 6.3.3 Output targets
• 6.3.3.1 Network of ‘active learning landscapes’ on
RES/PES mechanisms maintained and enhanced
• 6.3.3.2 Synthesis from action research sites, identi-
fying principles, methods and processes for advan..
• 6.3.3.3 Identification of improved modalities and
approaches to effectively support conservation in..
6.3.3.4 Participatory models for reserve manage-
ment: resource use rights, threats to targeted …
6.3.3.5 Impact studies testing assumptions of the
CRP6.3 theory of change and output-outcome-
impact pathways.

29. Quantification of land cover &
Sentinel terrestrial C balance; driver
landscapes as analysis  REDD+/REALU
spatial integration Drivers
of CRP6 research
CRP6.3.1 CRP6.4.1
Livelihood options and CRP6.5.1
their ES tradeoffs International trade and
investment as driver of change
CRP6.1 Consequences
CRP6.3.2 = some key
CRP6.2 interactions
Forest-based biodiversity within CRP6
& genetic resource
conservation; sustainable
forest management in
CRP6.4.1
practice CRP6.3.3
Learning Mitigation and adaptation at
landscape scale; REDD+ as
landscapes basis of funding landscape
investments

30. Quantification of land cover &
Sentinel and
terrestrial C balance; sparing vs.
benchmark sharing discussion
landscapes of Drivers
other CRPs
CRP6.3.1 CRP7
Green vs blue water
relationships &
CRP 1.1,
ecosystem services
Consequences 1.2, 1.3
CRP5
CRP6.3.2 = links
CRP2 to other
Institutions and CRPs
collective action
CRP6.3.3 CRP7
Learning Mitigation and adaptation at
landscape scale; sparing vs.
landscapes sharing discussion at local level

31. Sentinel landscape design?
Monitoring change &
attributing it to ‘drivers’
Stimulating
change
Can it run?

32. Four tables to discuss….
• 1. How to reconcile development/intervention
and monitoring/non-intervention objectives
across time and space
• 2. Describing, understanding patterns of change
and local/global drivers of ‘forest transition’
• 3. Consequences of change in tree cover for a)
livelihoods, b) ecosystem services
• 4. What can be done: governance options,
learning landscapes

34. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural
resources
Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree cover
transition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services and
adaptive policy
Local resource managers in
tree-based multiple use
landscapes use cost-effective
and replicable tools and
approaches to appraise likely
impacts of changes in land-
use on watershed functions,
biodiversity and carbon stocks
as well as on the economic
productivity of the landscape

35. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural
resources
Theme 6.3.2. Understanding consequences of tree cover
transition for livelihoods, environmental goods and services &
adaptive policy
Land use planners and
practioners use principles
and methods resulting in
clearer and more transparent
recognition of conservation
and development trade-offs
in land and rights allocation,
as well as adjustments to
economic incentives

36. Verifiable
Theme-level outcome
indicator
Local resource managers in tree- Documented use
based multiple use landscapes use of tools and
cost-effective and replicable tools approaches
and approaches to appraise likely developed, tested
impacts of changes in land-use on and/or promoted
watersheds, biodiversity and carbon by CRP6 partners
stocks as well as on the economic
productivity of the landscape
Land-use planners and practitioners Documented
use principles and methods resulting application of
in clearer and more transparent participatory land-
recognition of conservation and use planning for
development trade-offs in land and forest margin
rights allocation, as well as settings, integrated
adjustments to economic incentives with tenure reform

37. Synergies between
functions
Pcrop Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod Land
Crop production Concave likely
Tree production No preference
Carbon storage
Watershed
services
Biodiversity
Landscape
beauty

39. Examples of things we do 6.3.2
Sustainable Weighting of Economy-Ecology Tradeoffs:
organized reduction or Stretching Our Use of Resources
(SWEETorSOUR)?
This may be
societal optimum,
but requires SWEET
Production
Possibility
Frontier
Getting here
may turn
SOUR

40. Actors in the landscape and livelihood assets
2
van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society

41. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural
resources
Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes where
innovative response and policy options are being tested
Local and external
stakeholders negotiate and
have access to a range of
conditional and performance-
based arrangements that
support the provision and
maintenance of
environmental services and
biodiversity in productive
landscapes

42. SLO4. Sustainable management of natural
resources
Theme 6.3.3. Actively learning landscapes where
innovative response and policy options are being tested
Opportunities for win-win
solutions in restoration
contexts are fully used,
while the hard tradeoffs
are recognised and contest
over them is replaced by
negotiation

43. Theme-level Outcome Verifiable indicator
Stakeholders negotiate and National policy
have access to a range of formulation and new
conditional and performance- action research
based arrangements that undertakings refer to
support the provision and multiple PES paradigms
maintenance of environmental that were derived from
services and biodiversity in RUPES and PRESA
productive landscapes experience
Opportunities for win-win Documented progress
solutions in restoration contexts on tenure reform and
are fully used, while the hard negotiated joint
tradeoffs are recognised and management regimes in
contest over them is replaced conservation and
by negotiation restoration contexts,
that refer to CRP6
approaches and results

44. Where would you like
to see more trees?

45. Participatory resource mapping followed by
simulation board game with agents of change:
seeking contracts for logging or oilpalm conversion,
or agreements on forest protection and ecolabelling
(Photographs: Grace Villamor)

46. Tradeoff at land use system level Opportunity cost at landcape scale
opportunity cost, $/t CO2e,
Slope indicates Emission reduction poten-
Carbon stock, tC/Ha
emissions per tial for given C price
gain in $/ha I II
e.g. ADSB
reports
e.g. ASB-II  Cumulative emissions
reports of 2007/8
1990’s
NPV, $/Ha
Dynamic land use scenario model
Agents with
C stock
variation in
(increasing)
resource
base, moti-
vation, live- III
lihood stra- IV
tegies. Rural income  Rural income
interacting (declining) (increasing)
with rules
& policies C stock e.g. FALLOW
Agent-based land use change model
(decreasing) scenarios

47. Hypothesis of PES replacing social motivation to protect ES
Effort to protect/enhance ES
Baseline
Schematic
results of ES
experiment
No
Medium
Strong loss
of social
motivation
0 low medium high
External financial rewards

48. Price condition for inter-generational
increase in altruism:
Individual Social Group
( Benefits -
Costs
)+( )(
cohe-
sion
)> 0
Benefits -
Costs
Loss of social cohesion (‘relatedness’)
term implies shift from group to
individual ‘benefit–cost’ considerations

49. Balancing act is needed
Efficiency Fairness
Free and prior
informed
consent

51. 3. National economies in global market context 1.Patch-level cyclical
succession
K: Approach
CarrCap
Stored capital
LU-system properties
Ω:Crash
r: Exp 2.LU adoption dynamics
Growth
α:Reorganize
Interlinkage Living landscapes
Nesting of three non-linear dynamic systems: 1) patch-level tree growth and decay,
2) landscape level adoption and abandonment of tree-based production systemns,
and 3) national economies as part of global markets and policy interventions

52. Rights to define forest Five different ways of classifying forest:
1. By ecosys- 2. By vegetation 3. By land use 4. By ‘owner’ 5. By ‘co-management
tem service & its C-stocks category regime’
Conservation + 10% State National Park
watershed Forest Protected Area
protection Forest
forest Restoration conces-
Emis- domain sion
sion
GHG 53% Other + Community-forest
C capture Production disputed
forest forest lands Village forest
Benefit-sharing
Convertible Logging concession
forest Plantation contract
Official conversion from
forest to non-forest land
status: ‘planned Mixed agroforest,
deforestation’ private forests,
community
Non-forest land uses landscapes with
(APL) trees

53. 10% TREE cover in
agricultural lands…
Enough to qualify as
forest?
Meadow 1996 2006 Fallow
XP 2011 Vineyard
Land cover
change….
3101 Fremont Drive, Sonoma,
California, United States