2. Ecological intensification (closing efficiency
gaps) within a multifunctional landscape
perspective is possible
We only need to learn how to do it better
Conventional agricultural intensification
(closing yield gaps) is a sine qua non
for humanity & for saving our last forests
We only need to learn how to achieve it
in better ways
Red herrings
Discordant
information
Black Swan
Paradigm
shift
3. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
5. The logarithm of human population density is a
good predictor of the fraction of land area
reported as forest (across different forest types)
We can identify
countries that
have more than
10% extra, or more
than 10% forest
deficit relative to
what is expected
for their
population density
7. Sumber Jaya (Lampung, Indonesia)
Coffee agroforestry in a contested
watershed
Bungo (Jambi, Indonesia) Tapping
rubber in biodiversity rich agroforest
11. 800 (+100) million
people live in 9.5
(+0.5) million km2
of agricultural
lands with >10%
tree cover 180 (+20) million
people live in 3.5
(+0.2) million km2
of agricultural
lands with >30%
tree cover
CumulativeareaCumulativepopulation
Zomer et al. 2014
(in prep.)
12. S, N&C, W Asia and N.Africa
C.America, Oceania, SE
Asia, South America
Zomer et al. 2014
(in prep.)
13. Dry Wet
Latin America has more tree
cover for a similar climate
14. Zomer et al. 2014
(in prep.)
In SE and S Asia
more people less
tree cover in
agricultural areas
Weak trend to
“more people
more tree cover”
Central America is
different story….
15. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/d
ownloads/publications/PDFs/WP130
54.PDF
Agroforestry supports food and nutritional security
through:
(1)the direct provision of tree foods such as fruits and
leafy
vegetables and by supporting staple crop production;
(2) by raising farmers’ incomes through the sale of tree
products and surplus staples;
(3) by providing fuels for cooking; and
(4) by supporting various ecosystem services such as
pollination
that are essential for the production of some food
plants.
16. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
18. Land with diverse tree
cover and carbon-rich soil
Adaptive mana-
gement capacity of
empowered local
communities
Enhanced carbon
sinks, avoided
losses
Sustainable fo-
rest management
Avoidance of soil C loss
(peat & mineral soils)
Increased A & F
productivity
(Agro)biodiversity
conservation
Agroforestry
Afforestation,
reforestation
Soil and water
conservation
Ecosystem service
value realization
Decentralization
of NRM decisions
Centralization of
NRM decisions
Increased
efficiency of
Ag input use
Rules need to evolve from
‘additionality’ tests on sepa-
rate funding streams via
‘complementarity’
to full ‘synergy’
Mitiga-
daptation
Lalisa et al. soon to
be submitted
19. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
20. Bernard F, van Noordwijk M,
Luedeling E, Villamor GB,
Gudeta S, Namirembe S.
2014? Social actors and
unsustainability of
agriculture. Current Opinion
in Environmental
Sustainability 6, 155-161
21.
22. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
23. 5 scales of economics
Individual & household decisions
on scarce resources
National scale decisions on
scarce resources
Environmental economics: inter-
nalizing externalities of individual
decisions for common goods
Ecological economics:
planetary boundaries put
hard constraints
Behavioural economics: really
internalizing externalities at
emotional core of decision making
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 389-
420
24. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
25.
26. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
28. 1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
A and F are inseparable
aspects of a land use
system that provides the
4 functions e.g. swidden/
fallow cycles
I.
Swidden-rubber-
rattan system in
Katingan,
Kalimantan
van Noordwijk, M,
Minang P A, Hairiah K,
2014. Shifting
cultivation in an era of
climate change, In:
M.Cairns (Ed). A
growing forest of
voices. Earthscan, UK;
in press)
29. 1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
A and F are inseparable
aspects of a land use
system that provides the
4 functions
1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
A and F are segregated
parts of landscapes, both
providing for the 4 func-
tions (with + & - interac-
tions)
e.g. swidden/
fallow cycles
I.
II.
e.g. Green
revolution +
National
Parrks
30. 1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
A and F are inseparable
aspects of a land use
system that provides the
4 functions
1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
agroforestry
A and F are segregated
parts of landscapes, both
providing for the 4 func-
tions (with + & - interac-
tions)
A and F are connected
through af intermediary
land use, jointly provi-
ding the 4 functions
e.g. swidden/
fallow cycles
I.
II.
III.
e.g. green
revolution
e.g. inte-
grated LU
planning
Lubuk
Beringen,
Jambi.
Sumatra,
Indonesia
31.
32. 1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
A and F are inseparable
aspects of a land use
system that provides the
4 functions
1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
agroforestry
1. Rural income
2. Food production
3. Nutrition & health
4. Natural resource
management
A and F are segregated
parts of landscapes, both
providing for the 4 func-
tions (with + & - interac-
tions)
A and F are connected
through af intermediary
land use, jointly provi-
ding the 4 functions
F facilitates and supports
intensive af+A land-
scapes to provide the
4 functions
e.g. swidden/
fallow cycles
I.
II.
III.
IV.
e.g. green
revolution
e.g. inte-
grated LU
planning
e.g. eco-
logical
intensifi-
cation
33. Higher order
mosaic where
both sparing and
sharing are
combined, both
driven by caring
Segregate // land sparing
Integrate // land sharing
van Noordwijk M, Tata H L, Xu J, Dewi S
and Minang P, 2012. Segregate or
integrate for multifunctionality and
sustained change through landscape
agroforestry involving rubber in Indonesia
and China.. In: Agroforestry: The Future of
Global Landuse. Nair PKR and Garrity DP
(eds.), Springer, The Netherlands. pp 69-
34. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
39. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
40. Payments for environmental services
(PES), or non-provisioning ecosystem
services, target alignment of micro-
economic incentives for land users with
meso- and macro-economic societal
costs and benefits of their choices
across stakeholders and scales
They can interfere with or comple-
ment social norms and rights-based
approaches at generic (land use plan-
ning) and in-dividual (tenure, use
rights) levels, and with macro-econo-
mic policies influencing the drivers to
which individual agents respond.
PES concepts
need to adapt.
Multiple para-
digms have
emerged within
the broad PES
domain.
Forms of “co-investment in stewardship” alongside rights are the preferred entry point
45. Landscapes
Landscape approaches are
• Landscapes are not ‘just’ mosaics of multiple
land covers and land uses,
• They are a space within which livelihoods used
to run their course,
• They include aspects of identity, pride and
concern and have (some) social coherence
• Attempts to reconcile local and external
perspectives on desirable landscape outcomes
• Usually have a ‘negotiation’ dimension within a
‘learning landscape’ context
48. Red herrings? In this talk
• The agriculture forest dichotomy is artificial: trees are a
common (& essential?) part of many farmed landscapes
• The forest (or tree cover) transition affects climate at many
scales (micro-, hydro-, carboclimate)
• Sustainability is a social construct, across 3 temporal scales
• 5 scales of economics are needed for sustainagility
• The tradeoff between ‘green’ and ‘growth’ is our primary
challenge: simultaneously closing yield & efficiency gaps
• Outsourcing staple food is key to forest-based livelihoods
• Landscape-level tree cover enhances nutritional diversity
• New landscape-scale performance metrics are needed,
building on land equivalence ratio’s and foot prints
Black Swans? Your call
58. Geological history, patterns
and current activity
Global climate systems
based on oceans, land and
atmosphere
Flora and fauna and its biogeography
Landforms,vegetation,ecosystems,hydrology
A. Initial human
land use
B. Late-stage
human land use
Land use is predictable from
‘reading the landscape’
Land use dominates over
original terrain features
C. The
transition is
predictable
64. B. Accepting an issue as
part of a policy agenda:
‘How big is it? What are
symptoms, what are the
underlying causes? Who
can be blamed? Costs?’
A. Entry phase of
‘new’ issue into
public debate: ‘is
there a problem?’
C. Identifying and
negotiating
solutions: ‘What
can be done
about it? What is
lowest cost
solution? Who’ll
have to pay? Will
it work? Why
didn’t it work
before?
D. Reaching agreements that are
implementable: ‘How do solutions
for this issue interact with other
con-current negotiations? How can
deals be made that are
implementable and meet minimum
targets’
E. Implementing, eva-
luating and not-forgetting:
‘Are agreements implemen-
ted and working? What next
generation issues are
emerging?’
Funding
peaks
Fig.0.9
65.
66. Regional networks of
‘learning landscapes’:
variable methods aimed at
supporting local resource
access, value-chain
development, local
institutions and/or reform
of (sub) national
regulations
‘Extractive science’: standardized methods for advancement of
disciplinary knowledge and academic publications as international
public goods
‘Locally owned’ learning that can but doesn’t have to include
participation by scientists or development agents
Global network of
‘sentinel landscapes’:
aimed at long-term
socio-ecological
monitoring using
standardized methods,
science-led, aimed at
informing international
policy arenas
Fig. 0.10
67. Product-
oriented
research
Process-oriented multistakeholder discussion tools
Qualitative
Dynamic
and
spatial
Trade-offs understood Value compensation Operating mechanisms
Spatially
explicit
freeand prior informed consent
Fig. 0.11
Nesting of
landscapein
(inter-)
national action
plans
Focus on
external
learning
Focus on
local learning
Boundary
objects
created
68. RESFA redd
feasibility
appraisals
Tradeoff ranking
of options for
land use change
FERVA
arguments for
fairness &
efficiency
OpCost analysis
with ABACUS
RUPES-game
with local
stakeholders
Product
oriented
research
Process-oriented multistakeholder discussion tools
Quali-
tative
Dynamic
+ spatial
Tradeoffs Value-compensated tradeoffs Operating
mechanisms
Realistic, Conditional
Voluntary
Spatially
explicit
C-compensated
land use planning
for REDD+ game
TALaS scenario
analysis with
FALLOW
FPIC
NAMA
Rel/Rl
LAAMA-
NSS
FlowPer & Ecor
predictors of co-
benefits
ABACUS = abatement cost curve calculator; ASB matrix = land use systems & their key attributes; ΔLU =
land use change; Ecor = Ecological corridors; FALLOW = Forest, Agriculture, Low-value Lands or Waster
model; FERVA = Fair & Efficient REDD Valuechain Analysis; FlowPer = Flow Persisytence model; FPIC = Free
and Prior Informed Consent; LAAMA = Locally Appropriate Adaptation and Mitigation Actions; NAMA =
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions; OpCost = Opportunity Cost analysis scheme; NSS = Negotiation
Support System; RACSA = Rapid C stock appraisal; RATA = Rapid Tenure Claim Appraisal; REDD+ = Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation; REL/RL = reference (emission) level; RUPES = Rewarding
Upland Poor for the Environmental Services they provide; TALaS = Tradeoff Analysis for Landuse Scenarios
ΔLU
maps
ASB
matrix
RATA
RACSA
73. What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic
incentives, motivation) for
modifying future change?
How does tree cover vary in
the landscape (patterns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and how
has it decreased and
increased over time?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations?
How do ecosystem ser-
vices (provisioning, regu-
lating, cultural/religious,
supporting) depend on
tree cover and the spatial
organization of the
landscape?
Which land use patterns with or
without trees are prominent in the
landscape and provide the basis for
local lives and livelihoods? What
value chains are based on these
land uses?
Who is affected by or benefits from
the changes in tree co-ver and
associated ecosystem services?
How are stakehol-ders organized
and empo-wered to influence the
drivers?
Fig. 0.14
74.
75. I. Initial appraisal of context
V. Process of negotiated change
II. Lives, land
use & liveli-
hoods
III. Landscapes,
ecosystem ser-
vices, tradeoffs
IV. Transforma-
tions, gover-
nance, rights
Fig. 0.14
76.
77. What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic
incentives, motivation) for
modifying future change?
How does tree cover vary in
the landscape (patterns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and how
has it decreased and
increased over time?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations?
How do ecosystem ser-
vices (provisioning, regu-
lating, cultural/religious,
supporting) depend on
tree cover and the spatial
organization of the
landscape?
Which land use patterns with or
without trees are prominent in the
landscape and provide the basis for
local lives and livelihoods? What
value chains are based on these
land uses?
Who is affected by or benefits from
the changes in tree co-ver and
associated ecosystem services?
How are stakehol-ders organized
and empo-wered to influence the
drivers?
Section I
78. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.
81. Geological history, patterns
and current activity
Global climate systems
based on oceans, land and
atmosphere
Flora and fauna and its biogeography
Landforms,vegetation,ecosystems,hydrology
A. Initial human
land use
B. Late-stage
human land use
Land use is predictable from
‘reading the landscape’
Land use dominates over
original terrain features
C. The
transition is
predictable
99. What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic
incentives, motivation) for
modifying future change?
How does tree cover vary in
the landscape (patterns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and how
has it decreased and
increased over time?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations?
How do ecosystem ser-
vices (provisioning, regu-
lating, cultural/religious,
supporting) depend on
tree cover and the spatial
organization of the
landscape?
Which land use patterns with or
without trees are prominent in the
landscape and provide the basis for
local lives and livelihoods? What
value chains are based on these
land uses?
Who is affected by or benefits from
the changes in tree co-ver and
associated ecosystem services?
How are stakehol-ders organized
and empo-wered to influence the
drivers?
100. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.
137. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.
161. What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic
incentives, motivation) for
modifying future change?
How does tree cover vary in
the landscape (patterns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and how
has it decreased and
increased over time?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations?
How do ecosystem ser-
vices (provisioning, regu-
lating, cultural/religious,
supporting) depend on
tree cover and the spatial
organization of the
landscape?
Which land use patterns with or
without trees are prominent in the
landscape and provide the basis for
local lives and livelihoods? What
value chains are based on these
land uses?
Who is affected by or benefits from
the changes in tree co-ver and
associated ecosystem services?
How are stakehol-ders organized
and empo-wered to influence the
drivers?
162. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.
211. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.
246. What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic
incentives, motivation) for
modifying future change?
How does tree cover vary in
the landscape (patterns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and how
has it decreased and
increased over time?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations?
How do ecosystem ser-
vices (provisioning, regu-
lating, cultural/religious,
supporting) depend on
tree cover and the spatial
organization of the
landscape?
Which land use patterns with or
without trees are prominent in the
landscape and provide the basis for
local lives and livelihoods? What
value chains are based on these
land uses?
Who is affected by or benefits from
the changes in tree co-ver and
associated ecosystem services?
How are stakehol-ders organized
and empo-wered to influence the
drivers?
247. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.
268. ABACUS
NPV, $/Ha
Carbonstock,tC/Ha
Slope indicates
emissions per
gain in $/ha
Tradeoff at land use system level
opportunitycost,$/tCO2e,
Cumulative emissions
Emission reduction poten-
tial for given C price
Opportunity cost at landcape scale
Rural income
(increasing)
Rural income
(declining)
C stock
(increasing)
C stock
(decreasing)
Dynamic land use scenario model
Agents with
variation in
resource
base, moti-
vation, live-
lihood stra-
tegies.
interacting
with rules
& policies
Agent-based land use change model
ASB
tradeoff
Matrix
e.g. FALLOW
scenarios
I II
III
IV
Four levels of analyzing opportunity costs
277. Δ C in the
Landscape
Land use
change
Difference in
C stock for
any type of
change
=SUM X
“Emission factor” as
difference in time-
averaged C stock:
ton C ha-1
“Activity data” in the form of
land use change for any type
of transition: ha y-1
Change in C stock of
the landscape:
ton C yr-1
over all pairwise
land use change
combinations
292. What are the drivers of
current human activity and
what are levers (regulatory
framework, economic
incentives, motivation) for
modifying future change?
How does tree cover vary in
the landscape (patterns
along a typical cross-section,
main gradients), and how
has it decreased and
increased over time?
Who makes a living here,
what is ethnic identity,
historical origin, migrational
history, claims to land use
rights, role in main value
chains, what are key power
relations?
How do ecosystem ser-
vices (provisioning, regu-
lating, cultural/religious,
supporting) depend on
tree cover and the spatial
organization of the
landscape?
Which land use patterns with or
without trees are prominent in the
landscape and provide the basis for
local lives and livelihoods? What
value chains are based on these
land uses?
Who is affected by or benefits from
the changes in tree co-ver and
associated ecosystem services?
How are stakehol-ders organized
and empo-wered to influence the
drivers?
293. Citation Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B,
Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds.
2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program.