This document discusses the concepts of sparing and sharing land for agriculture and forestry. It explores arguments for a multifunctional landscape approach where land is used for both agriculture and forestry. This approach may save land compared to specialization and make use of trade-offs and synergies between different land uses. The document also examines the need for balanced economic incentives to encourage multifunctionality at local scales.

1. Sparing vs. Sharing: Addressing drivers of
deforestation and forest degradation
8 June 2011 Bonn
June 2011, Bonn
Reflections on current evidence on the “sharing”
hypothesis, global (e.g. wildlife farming) and
meso level evidence from multifunctional land
use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA
use research in ICRAF / RUPES / PRESA
landscapes ‐ Meine van Noordwijk

2. Sparing versus
Sparing versus Sharing
• Agricultural
Agricultural • Multifunctiona
Multifunctiona‐
intensification lity & associated
lity & associated
Input‐ or output‐ incentive systems
p p
based definition Trade‐offs between
• Forest specific functions
Many definitions
& concepts

3. > >
The holistic forest+tree view of the world
The foresters view of the world
The foresters’ view of the world
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)

4. BATANG TORU
• Multifunctional landscape: forest‐
agroforest‐ agriculture gradient
f i l di

5. Stakeholder:
1. Undisturbed natural forest Rainforest foundation
2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest Conservation agency
3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest
3 Cl d di b d l df
4A. as 3 + agroforest Forest ecologist
4B. as 3 + timber plantations
4B as 3 + timber plantations Ministry of Forestry
4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops UNFCCC definition
4D as 4C + shrub Modis data

6. Land use change in the tropics
Planting trees to
accelerate
restoration
phase
Forest Degradation Restoration

7. Dewi et al. in prep.

8. cation of biota
Centrifugal forces
0
0
0
f towards ‘pure’
pure
conservation,
Protected intensive animal, ,
ation & domestic
area annual & tree-crop
33
Multifunctionality Game NTFP-zone
production
33
33
attractor? ranches Se ect e
Selective
d
logging ‘Forest’ world
‘Forest’
‘Forest’
Timber- pulled towards 2
enriched
Land use intensifica
forest
f t opposites
67
Agroforest
67
67
Off-farm Fastwood
Cut&carry
C t& plantation
l t ti
Feed-based
bioindustry
On-farm Leys Open field
0
1
1
10
10
Cut&carry
10
crops
0
0
100 67 33 0

11. Agricultural intensification hypothesis
Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed
Remote forest edge communities & PlanetASB fi are closed
earth di
ASB hypothesis in 1992
ASB h th i i 1992 ASB findings in 1994
i 1994
systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…
More intensive agriculture at forest
margins can save forest at equal total
margins can save forest at equal total
agricultural production
Or… speed up
forest conversion
to profitable
to profitable
agriculture
This may be
This is true in
true in
‘open’
open
‘closed’
‘ l d’
economies
economies

12. Sustainable logging
has proved to be a
fiction i Indonesia
fi ti in I d i
Intensive
plantations as
alternative
alternati e

13. Sharing – argument 1: there isn’t enough
space without multifunctionality

14. Sharing – argument 2: Many tradeoff
functions are convex: multifunctionality
Convex tradeoff:
multifunctionality
multifunctionality
Fun on 2
nctio 2
saves land
saves land
Concave tradeoff:
Concave tradeoff:
specialization
p
Function 1
i saves land

15. ASB-data:
Minang et al.,
g ,
2011
hysteresis

16. Synergies be‐
tween functions
Pcrop Ptree Cstore Wsh Biod Land
Crop pro‐ Concave likely
duction
Tree pro‐ No preference
p
duction
Carbon
storage
Watershed
services
Biodiversity
Landscape
Landscape
beauty

17. Sharing – argument 3: Multifunctionality
requires balanced economic incentives
Plot-level
Plot level Carbon stock Mg/ha
stock, Landscape-level
Landscape level Carbon stock Tg
stock,
Unknown
territory
i
2A 2B
1A
Agroforests
1B
Intensive tree crops
Real world
Real-world land
use systems
Open-field agriculture
Net present value based Total economic value, k$
on product flows, $/ha

18. Sustainable Weighting of Economy‐
Ecology Tradeoffs: Organized Reduction
or Stretching Our Use of
or Stretching Our Use of
Resources? (SWEETorSOUR?)
This may be
Thi b
societal optimum,
but requires SWEET
b t i SWEET
Production
Production
Possibility
Frontier
Getting here
may turn
SOUR

19. ACTORS IN THE LANDSCAPE & LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
SWEET: not only
PES buyer &
PES buyer &
seller…
2
van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Ecology and Society

20. Context
C + Mechanism
M h i Outcome
O t
Asia and Africa network of learning sites & Impact
Realistic: Conditional: •Per capita financial transfers
remain small but with tenurial
Assessment of performance‐based security
y
impacts of Δ Land contracts •Reduced conflict over resource
Use on ΔES access=> more options; less
Pro‐poor:
Pro poor: poverty
Voluntary: process
V l •Co‐investment in steward‐ship,
Assessment of multiple
dimensions of poverty
of negotiations rather than ‘PES’
R&D efforts to reduce transaction costs, enhance and balance fairness
+ efficiency;
Mainstreaming into
Development Planning

21. Three paradigms within PES
Paradigm
di
CES : COS : CIS :
(van Noordwijk & commoditization of ES, compensating or coinvestement in
Leimona, 2010) e.g. C markets
L i 2010) opportunities skipped, stewardship, risk &
e.g. public fund benefit sharing
allocations
Condition
Requires A + B Requires B + C Requires C
(A helps as well)
A. Spatial & con‐
A Spatial & con Yes (national AFOLU)
(national AFOLU)
ceptual ES boun‐ No (subnational REDD)
daries clear? No (local: plot&tree)
B. All rightholders Yes (national constitu‐ Yes (national constitu‐
identified & in tion, UNFCCC rules) tion, UNFCCC rules)
agreement Yes? (subnat./sectors) Yes? (subnat./sectors)
No (local: plot&tree)
N (l l l t&t ) No (local: plot&tree)
N (l l l t&t )
C. All stakeholders Yes? With nested MRV Yes? With nested MRV
engage in adaptive Yes? With nested MRV Yes? With nested MRV
learning Yes? Possible locally Yes? Possible locally
Conclusion National scale only Subnational scale Local plot&tree scale

22. Sharing – argument 4: Removal of perverse
policies helps multifunctionality

23. With current farm‐gate prices
there is no benefit for farmers
in growing timber trees on
in growing timber trees on
their land…
but under ‘social’ (national
economy) accounts benefits
are clear
l

24. Sparing + Sharing + Caring
Sparing + Sharing + Caring
• Agricultural
Agricultural • Multifunctiona
Multifunctiona‐
intensification lity & associated
lity & associated
Input‐ or output‐ incentive systems
p p
based definition Trade‐offs between
• Forest specific functions
Many definitions Coinvestment
& concepts
&
& incentives