Sentinel LandscapesQuo Vadis? An evolution of the SL network

21 March 2014 ICRAFAnja Gassner: Coordinator

2009 CGIAR STRIPE

“The panel strongly recommends renewed emphasis on multidisciplinary social science research on productivity growth by and for the poor, perhaps especially on ex ante research prioritization, on long‐term, field‐based data collection in a range of sentinel sites in order to identify and measure changes in the behavior and well‐being of rural peoples, especially the poor.” http://www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/fileadmin/user_upload

sciencecouncil/Systemwide_and_Ecoregional_ Programs/SSSR_for_web.pdf

Main Purpose – Annex 4• Cross regional comparison• Integrating Biophysical & Social data• Long-term presence (~ 10 years)• Co-locating research activities (share

resources)– Between Components– With Partners– With other CRP’s

http://www.cifor.org/fileadmin/fileupload/crp6/CRP6_7feb_lowres.pdf

Sentinel Landscape Definition

The landscape has to comprise of parts of a contiguous forest transition curve. This means a) that the landscape should consist of a connected

forest/woodland ecosystem, that has been or is about to be subjected to various anthropogenic influences, resulting in a high spatial variation of tree cover or

b) that the landscape consist of different stages of the forest transition curve that form together a temporal continuum.

2 approaches

• Classical comparative study : set of 8 very different geographical bounded landscapes in Africa, Asia and Latin America

• Thematic research questions to guide the selection of a network of study sites across Asia, Latin America and Africa.

A meta-analysis to identify patterns between livelihood outcomes and trees

Comparative Research

Sources: Based on Sartori (1970) and Mair (1996)

The universe of landscape has been intentionally selected and is significantly smaller than a global

selection

Use the “Comparing few country” methodology

Comparison of few landscapes

‘case-oriented’ comparisonwith the focus of the analysis is much more on the specific unfolding of events and variation in political developments within each country than variation in macro-variables between countries. (Ragin 1987)

Ragin, C.C. (1994) ‘Introduction to Qualitative Com

parative Analysis,’ in T. Janoski and A. H

icks (eds) The Comparative Political

Economy of the W

elfare State, Cambridge: Cam

bridgeU

niversity Press, 299–320.

Comparison of few countries

the method sacrifices in some degree the broad generalizations made possible

through a truly global analysis, but

allows a deeper understanding of the landscapes

that feature in the analysis, as well as their similarities and differences.

Design workshop held in 2012

1. Selection of 3 nested hypothesis to be analyzed

by landscape comparison

2. Identification of relevant causal propositions to be

studied (construction of path diagrams)

3. Identification of variables/proxies/indicators that

can be measured

4. Brainstorming of appropriated methods to collect

variables/proxies/indicators

Design workshop – Key Hypothesis developed

1. Is their a relationship between the variation in Tree cover/Tree quality and the variation of any of the four system level outcomes

reduction in poverty

increased global food

security

improvement of nutrition.

better management of

natural resources.

2. What explains spatial and temporal variation of tree cover?

Integrating Biophysical & Social Data

3 conceptual Frameworks developed for integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) sites: Drivers-pressures-states-impacts-responses

(DPSIR) approach (EEA, 2005, EEA, 2007) Press/Pulse (Collins et al., 2011) socioeconomic metabolism approach (Haberl)

Underlying assumption for ALL 3 frameworks:

“Mitigation of pressures on biodiversity through modification of their underlying socioeconomicdrivers is thought to be the most effective and durable option to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss”

Integrating Biophysical & Social Data

1) Drivers-pressures-states-impacts-responses (DPSIR) approach

Used in CRP6 Component 3: Van Noordwijk, M., B. Lusiana, G. Villamor, H. Purnomo, and S. Dewi. 2011. Feedback loops added to four conceptual models linking land change with driving forces and

actors. Ecology and Society 16(1): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/

An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research, Collins et al., 2011

2) Press and Pulse Model

Human appropriation of netprimary production” (HANPP) is a measure of socioecological material flows. (Haberl et al., 2001, Haberl et al., 2007a)

2) Adding Social Metabolism as pressure factor

Drivers-pressures-states-impacts-

responses (DPSIR) approach

Human appropriation of net production (HANPP)

Pressure & Pulse (Collins et al., 2011)

Integrative Science forSociety & Environment (ISSE)

Good conceptual models!

How do we make these operational

?

?

Develop a working definition of sentinel landscape

Select a set of priority landscapes Develop standardized protocols for data collection Form multidisciplinary teams in each landscapes Collect the data Process the data (clean, verify, aggregate) Conduct the meta analysis

January 2012: The Challenge

In 3 Years with 3.7 Million US

Only select landscapes with pre-existing work and information available.

Only select landscapes that FTA had a working partner network on the ground.

Do not develop our own “new” methodology, make use of existing efforts and link to existing data bases.

Decisions made

Building on existing efforts

Learning from others

CGIAR benchmark approach International Long-term Ecological Research (ILTER) International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research

Network (ALTERNet) European network for a long-term forest ecosystem and landscape

research programme (ENFORS) National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) Tropenbos International (TBI) Poverty Environment Network (PEN) Tropical Ecology Assessment & Monitoring (TEAM) Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) Rewarding the Upland Poor for Environmental Services (RUPES) Smithsonian forest networks (SIGEO/CTFS) World Bank Standard of living survey

The network

Central Asia

Landscape Indicators

Productivity Livelihood Policy Environment Social

Land useNet Primary ProductionCrop Yield

WelfareIncomeFood securityNutritionDependency on Natural Resources

Institutional strengthLocal autonomyGovernance of natural resourcesMarket accessMarket pressure

Land healthSoil carbonTree coverAbove Ground BiomassSurface Wetness indexBiodiversity

Intra-household wealth distributionSocial networksSocial mobility

How has the SL initiative evolved since June 2011?

Provide hard evidence on key indicators important to landscape management

Information platform for decision-making Backstopping for data management/data

mining/data analysis Tool to allow greater cohesion,

interdependence and alignment of stakeholders within as well across the landscapes

Close the gap between intention and implementation

Major Accomplishments 2011-2013

• Criteria developed

• Priority Landscapes selected

• Interdisciplinary regional teams established

• Research design & Core Methodology developed

• Methodology tested in 2 landscapes

• Meta analysis in 4 landscapes

✔

More than 60 partner organisations actively involved

SL network integrated into major existing data collection efforts

Presented to IUFRO, Warsaw Landscape Forum, Consortium,

IFRI, IUCN, CIRAD, CATIE as partners

Major Accomplishments 2011-2013 Part 2

Looking Beyond the Forest cover• Soil condition• Productivity• Land degradation risk• Forest cover• Climate vulnerability

(risk)

Farmers are making more diverseland management changes

Farmers are making less diverseland management changes

Determining the environmental constraint envelop

HOW DO BIOPHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTRAINTS INFLUENCE HUMAN DECISION MAKING AND ULTIMATELY DEVELOPMENT?CASE STUDY: CCAFS VILLAGES IN AFRICA

INDICATORS FOR SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Linking land health indicators with socio-economic studies

Training Partners

Training Partners

Training Partners

Institutional Mapping: linking sites with the landscape

Polic

y, le

gal a

nd in

stitu

tiona

l fra

mew

ork

Coherency and adaptability of the frameworkSupremacy of property rightsClarity of the definition of mission, mandates and responsibilities

Effec

tiven

ess

of fo

rmal

rule

s

Simplicity of implementation and administrative bureaucracy Inter- intra-organizational and inter-sectorial coordinationEffectiveness and influence of rules on users’ behaviors related to NRObtaining concrete resultsExistence of conflicts and their resolutionCapacity to implement formal rules

Dec

entr

aliz

ation

and

par

ticip

ation

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

Decentralization and participation in decision makingFacility of understanding policy and legal frameworkExistence of mechanisms of participation, effectiveness and intensity of participation, inclusion of marginalized or minority actors Tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd a

ccou

ntab

ility

Existence of mechanisms or opportunities to denounce or objectTransparency of management and free circulation of informationCorruption and traffic of influence

Equi

ty a

nd fa

irnes

s

Distribution of benefits within the societyAccess to justice and fairness in the application of sanctionsFairness in decision making

Institutional mapping

Two different political and legal systems – More than 30 formal

laws and regulations relating to NRM

– About 15-20 public agencies with mandates and responsibilities in NRM

An heterogeneous NR governance within each country

Example of a map of influential stakeholders in policy making in Nicaragua

Workshop at CATIE

Linking Households with Landscapes Sampling Tree diversity/ use diversity across the

landscape Gender add-on module Research ethics- how to engage with communities Sharing data Co-locating FTA projects with sentinel landscapes Intervention options Cross CRP projects

Working groups

We need to quantify the different factors that influence farmers behavior to design tailor

made interventions

External/physical

factors Management Objectives

Behavior

Networks

Individual differences

Personal preferences

Picture: Dave Fleetham

Gassner, Coe, Sinclair (2013)

www.cifor.org/sentinel-landscapes