Presented by Anja Gassner, the Sentinel Landscapes coordinator during a seminar presentation at the World Agroforestry Center on March 21st 2014

1. Sentinel Landscapes
Quo Vadis? An evolution of the SL network
21 March 2014 ICRAF
Anja Gassner: Coordinator

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. Comparative Research
Sources: Based on Sartori (1970) and Mair (1996)

8. The universe of landscape has been intentionally
selected and is significantly smaller than a global
selection
Use the “Comparing few country”
methodology

9. Comparison of few landscapes
‘case-oriented’ comparison
with 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)‘IntroductiontoQualitativeComparative
Analysis,’inT.JanoskiandA.Hicks(eds)TheComparativePolitical
EconomyoftheWelfareState,Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress,299–320.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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)

14. Underlying assumption for ALL 3 frameworks:
“Mitigation of pressures on biodiversity through modification
of their underlying socioeconomic
drivers is thought to be the most effective and durable
option to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss”
Integrating Biophysical & Social Data

15. 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/

16. An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research,
Collins et al., 2011
2) Press and Pulse Model

17. Human appropriation of net
primary production” (HANPP) is a measure of socioecological
material flows. (Haberl et al., 2001, Haberl et al., 2007a)
2) Adding Social Metabolism as pressure factor

18. Drivers-pressures-
states-impacts-
responses
(DPSIR) approach
Human appropriation
of net production
(HANPP)
Pressure & Pulse
(Collins et al., 2011)
Integrative Science for
Society & Environment
(ISSE)
Good
conceptual
models!
How do we
make these
operational?

19.  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

20.  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

21. Building on existing efforts

22. 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

23. The network
Central Asia

24. Landscape Indicators
Productivity Livelihood Policy Environment Social
Land use
Net
Primary
Production
Crop Yield
Welfare
Income
Food
security
Nutrition
Dependency
on Natural
Resources
Institutional
strength
Local
autonomy
Governance
of natural
resources
Market
access
Market
pressure
Land health
Soil carbon
Tree cover
Above
Ground
Biomass
Surface
Wetness
index
Biodiversity
Intra-
household
wealth
distribution
Social
networks
Social
mobility

25. 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

26. 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
✔

27.  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

28. Looking
Beyond the
Forest cover
• Soil condition
• Productivity
• Land degradation risk
• Forest cover
• Climate vulnerability (risk)

29. Farmers are making more diverse
land management changes
Farmers are making less
diverse
land 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

30. Linking land health indicators
with socio-economic studies

31. Training Partners

32. Training Partners

33. Training Partners

34. Institutional Mapping: linking sites with the
landscape
Policy,legalandinstitutionalframework
Coherency and
adaptability of
the framework
Supremacy of
property rights
Clarity of the
definition of
mission,
mandates and
responsibilities
Effectivenessofformalrules
Simplicity of
implementation
and
administrative
bureaucracy
Inter- intra-
organizational
and inter-
sectorial
coordination
Effectiveness
and influence of
rules on users’
behaviors
related to NR
Obtaining
concrete results
Existence of
conflicts and
their resolution
Capacity to
implement
formal rules
Decentralizationandparticipationindecisionmaking
Decentralization
and participation
in decision
making
Facility of
understanding
policy and legal
framework
Existence of
mechanisms of
participation,
effectiveness and
intensity of
participation,
inclusion of
marginalized or
minority actors
Transparencyandaccountability
Existence of
mechanisms or
opportunities
to denounce or
object
Transparency
of
management
and free
circulation of
information
Corruption and
traffic of
influence
Equityandfairness
Distribution of
benefits within
the society
Access to justice
and fairness in
the application
of sanctions
Fairness in
decision making

35. 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

36. Workshop at CATIE

37.  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

38. 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)

39. www.cifor.org/sentinel-landscapes