Upload
lotteklapwijk
View
262
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Analysis of Trade-offs in Agricultural SystemsIdentifying and quantifying trade-offs across temporal and spatial scalesbetween productivity, food security, profitability and ecological services
Wageningen, February 2013
Key tradeoff questions and tools in CRP6Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:
livelihoods, landscapes and governance
Meine van Noordwijk and Fergus Sinclair
Key tradeoff questions in CRP6
1.CGIAR SLO1+2+3 vs 4
2.Forest vs People
3.Sparing, sharing, caring
4.Buffers vs intensification
5.Tree cover transitions vs ES functions
6.Tree water use vs climate influence
7.Terrestrial C stock vs Income
8.Motivations to reduce emissions
9.Small vs large scale investors
10.Subsistence & markets by gender roles
Tools:??
Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance
Forest and tree cover transitions: a unifying concept
Temporal pattern, X-
axis
Spatial pattern, X-axis
Institutional challenge at turning point
X-linkage of actions in landscape
Core
Choice of Y-axis
1
2 3 4 5
6
Atmospheric concentrations of short- and longlived greenhouse gassesAt
mos
-ph
ere
Climate systems
An
thro
pog
en
ic
GH
G
em
issio
ns
Impacts of actual & predicted
climate change on human and ecosystems
Adaptation
Mitigation
Vulnerability
Human actions .
Human quality of life
Oth
er
pote
nti
al
eff
ect
s on c
lim
ate
syst
em
s
Exogenous variabiliy
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
Spatial analysis: classification of 450 districts in Indonesia according to 7 tree cover transition stages (Dewi et al., in prep.)
“Forest transition” as spatial pattern.
‘chronosequence’?
Ecosystemservices
Socio-eco-nomic devt
Governance systems
ASB matric as boundary object
• Land use system 1 + ++ - - + 0 ++ + 0• ,, 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..• ,, 3• …• ,, n
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e 1
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e 2
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e n
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e 1
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e 2
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e n
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e 1
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e 2
Indi
cato
r/Attr
ibut
e n
Step 1: qualitativeStep 2: quantitative
Methods allow for life-cycle assessment of land use systems
e.g. ADSB reports 2007/8
NPV, $/Ha
Carb
on s
tock
, tC/
Ha
Slope indicates emissions per gain in $/ha
Tradeoff at land use system level
oppo
rtun
ity c
ost,
$/t C
O2e
,
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.interactingwith rules & policies Agent-based land use change model
e.g. ASB-II reports of 1990’s
e.g. FALLOW scenarios
I II
III
IV
Four levels of analyzing opportunity costs
Tools:Global data setsSpatial analysisSentinel landscapesMultiple-knowledge appraisalsTree-Soil-Crop modelsSystem tradeoff plotsPolicy Analysis MatrixAgent-based modelsRole-Play GamesParticipatory LU plansLearning landscapes
Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: livelihoods, landscapes and governance
Key tradeoff questions in CRP6
1.CGIAR SLO1+2+3 vs 4
2.Forest vs People
3.Sparing, sharing, caring
4.Buffers vs intensification
5.Tree cover transitions vs ES functions
6.Tree water use vs climate influence
7.Terrestrial C stock vs Income
8.Motivations to reduce emissions
9.Small vs large scale investors
10.Subsistence & markets by gender roles